03-3268 -- D.L. etc., et al., Appellants v. Unified School District No. 497, Douglas County, Kansas
U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
(October 6, 2004; morning docket)
SUMMARY OF ORAL ARGUMENT
Appellants had only a few seconds to introduce the case before the judges began to ask questions. The judges’ main concern was regarding jurisdiction and the result of their decision. The judges were concerned that their decision would interfere with the state action already in process. Appellants did not have an answer to the jurisdiction question. In the end, Appellants will probably not be able to overcome this jurisdiction hurdle and the court will likely not be able to decide the case on the merits. If the court does decide the case on the merits, Appellants’ strongest argument was that the school refused to give them a due process hearing.
Appellee had a strong argument that the court did not have jurisdiction to decide the issue and that the state court could take up any remaining issues. Although it was obvious that the case could not overcome the jurisdictional hurdle, Judge Henry was quick to point out that with today’s tight school budgets, the money spent on this litigation seemed unnecessary and frivolous. In addition, Judge Henry suggested that the school’s case would be ironclad had the school given Appellants a due process hearing.
CASE SUMMARY (prepared at Washburn Law)
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This civil case comes before the Tenth Circuit on appeal from the United States District Court of Kansas. The case pertains to the alleged rights of two students, J.L. and R.L., to special education services from a Douglas County, Kansas, School District, in accordance with federal law. The alleged rights spring principally from the Individual with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq., the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 794, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., and the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The plaintiff-appellants, on behalf of the students, are D.L., their mother, and her boyfriend, P.P. The Defendant-appellees are the school district and Dr. Douglas Eicher, the district’s former Director of Special Education.
The District Court granted the school district’s motion for summary judgment on all claims except for those arising under the IDEA. In a separate hearing, the District Court entered judgment in favor of the school district on the IDEA-related claims. This appeal results.
FACTS
The city of Lawrence, Kansas, is within the boundaries of Unified School District 497. D.L. considered herself a resident of Lawrence because she lived and slept there. D.L. worked nights as a newspaper carrier for a major newspaper. While she worked, family members cared for the boys (at night) at a house which D.L. owned. This house was located about 30 miles away in Wyandotte County, within a different school district.
D.L. enrolled the boys, who are qualified as “children with disabilities” for purposes of federal law, at a Lawrence school. It appears the school district provided special education services from August, 1997, until January, 2001.
The school district believed that residency was determined by where a student slept. As a result, during the 1999-2000 school year, when the district became aware of the fact that the boys were sleeping outside of district boundaries, they demanded the boys’ withdrawal from school. D.L. requested an IDEA due process hearing from the school district, which the school district denied. It is alleged that despite the fact that D.L. believed she was a resident of the Douglas County School District, she then requested that the boys be admitted to school as non-residents. The school district allegedly denied this request based on their non-resident admission policy. The parties disagree about the criteria used by the school district in denying admission to the two disabled boys.
After further discussion between counsel for the parties, D.L. executed an “Affidavit of Residency,” the boys started sleeping within the district’s boundaries, and the district allowed the boys to return to school. When the school district subsequently became aware that the boys were again spending their nights at the Wyandotte location, it filed a still pending suit against J.L. and P.P., seeking injunctive relief and monetary damages.
In response, D.L. and P.P. filed this case against the school district, claiming among other things: that the school district discriminated against the boys on the basis of their disability, in violation of federal law and the 14th Amendment; that their IDEA due process rights had been violated, creating an injury in fact; and that the school district’s suit to recover the cost of providing the boys education violated the right to a “free appropriate public education,” as established by IDEA.
ISSUES
- Did the Trial court err in granting judgment in favor of the defendants and denying plaintiffs’ claims under IDEA?
- Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants and denying plaintiffs’ claims under the Rehabilitation Act and ADA?
- Did the trail court err in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants and denying plaintiffs’ claims under the United States Constitution?
- Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants based on P.P.’s lack of standing?
- Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant Eicher based on qualified immunity?
ARGUMENTS
» Appellants’ Argument
Appellants argue that the district court erred in concluding that the school district’s failure to provide a due process hearing was not an actionable violation of IDEA. Appellants also argue that the district violated IDEA when it sued the children’s mother and her boyfriend to recover the cost of educational services provided to the children. Appellants argue that the school district violated the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act when it refused to admit non-resident students with disabilities. The appellants challenge the district court’s ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the defendant’s non-resident admission policy. The court ruled the plaintiffs lacked standing because they have maintained throughout this action that they were residents, not non-residents. Appellants argue that the district deemed them to be non-residents and denied the students admission based on the students’ disabilities. Because the district treated them as non-residents and denied them admission, the appellants claim they have standing to challenge the non-resident admission policy.
Appellants assert that the district court should have applied strict scrutiny to the school district’s actions rather than the rational basis test because the district’s actions implicated the plaintiffs’ fundamental right to travel and a constitutionally-protected interest in a free and appropriate education. Appellants also argue that the court erred in concluding that the plaintiffs were not entitled to relief for a due process violation. Although there is no dispute that the district denied the plaintiffs a due process hearing under IDEA, the appellants argue that the court erroneously denied relief because plaintiffs had not preserved a “procedural” due process claim in the pretrial order. Appellants note that “whether substantive or procedural, plaintiffs’ due process rights were clearly violated,” and they are entitled to relief.
Appellants argue that the district court erred in concluding that P.P. lacked standing to assert any claims. Although P.P. is not legally related to the children, he is a named defendant in the suit that the school district filed to recover the costs of educating the children. Moreover, appellants argue that finding he lacks standing amounts to discrimination against him for his association with and assistance to people with disabilities.
Finally, appellants argue that Eicher is not entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct violated clearly established rights of which he should have been aware.
» Appellee's Argument
Appellees argue that the trial court properly entered summary judgment in their favor on the IDEA claims because plaintiffs did not prove that they were deprived of any substantive benefits arising from alleged procedural violations of IDEA. Appellees also argue that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the IDEA claims because the plaintiffs did not exhaust their administrative remedies.
Appellees assert that the trial court properly held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to argue that the district’s non-resident admissions policies violated the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA because plaintiffs never applied for admission as non-residents and did not show that they were harmed by any application of the policy.
With respect to the equal protection and due process claims, appellees argue: (1) the plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue these claims, (2) the district court properly applied the rational basis test because education is not a fundamental right and people with disabilities are not members of a suspect class, (3) the plaintiffs’ right to substantive due process was not violated because defendants’ actions do not shock the conscience.
Appellees argue that Dr. Eicher is entitled to qualified immunity because the rights are not “clearly established,” but subject to discretion in determining whether a requested accommodation is reasonable. Finally, appellees argue that P.P. lacks standing to pursue any claims because he has no legal relationship to the children at issue and had not suffered any injuries apart from those the children allegedly suffered.
WHY THIS CASE IS INTERESTING
The decision in this case will help to define the obligations that school districts have to children with disabilities. It may help to define the procedural mechanisms that parents and guardians may and must use to ensure educational opportunities for their children with disabilities. The decision also will clarify who has standing to pursue such rights on behalf of children and whether immunity applies to school district officials who allegedly violate these laws.
INFORMAL CASE SUMMARY
Please Note: This informal case summary is not intended for official use and does not purport to be exhaustive of the issues or defenses presented by the parties.
The plaintiffs brought this action alleging that the enforcement of the defendant school district's nonresident admissions policy against the disabled plaintiff-children violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Kansas state law regarding invasion of privacy.
The district court originally granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants as to all claims except the plaintiffs' claims under IDEA and the Due Process Clause. However, before trial on these remaining claims, the court determined that, although the defendants failed to provide the plaintiffs with a due process hearing as required by IDEA, the absence from school by the children was not a result of the defendants' actions, and, therefore, did not result in a loss of substantive benefits recognizable under IDEA. The district court then dismissed the case.
