06-2157 - Pope Moseley, et al., Appellants v. Board of Education for Albuquerque Public Schools
U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
(March 7, 2007)

Briefs

Briefs require requires Adobe Acrobat Reader.

Case Summary (prepared at Washburn Law)

Procedure:

The due process hearing officer (DHO) concluded that the Albuquerque Public School (APS) had denied P.L. a free appropriate public education. APS appealed to the Administrative Appeal Officer (AAO) who reversed the DHO's finding. The District Court upheld these findings and granted APS's motion for summary judgment. The Moseley's timely appealed.

Facts:

The Moseleys filed a request for due process against Albuquerque Public Schools on behalf of their son, P.L., alleging disability discrimination. P.L. is deaf and was receiving special education and attending regular classes with non-deaf students. P.L. planned on attending the University of New Mexico, which had superior services for the deaf. APS did not secure the necessary accommodations for P.L., and his PSAT and PLAN exams were not turned in or scored nationally. APS tested closed caption technology, but after the nine-week trial period decided not to implement it. Plaintiff claimed the failure to provide him with this technology was a deprivation of his right to a free appropriate public education.

Issues:

  1. Whether the District Court applied the relevant legal standards to analysis of Plaintiff's claims.
  2. Whether the District Court correctly analyzed the ADA and Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) claims.
  3. Whether the District Court erred in dismissing the IDEA claim.

Appellant's Arguments:

  1. Appellant argues that the District Court erred in applying a modified de novo review required by the IDEA in its refusal to consider additional evidence, and in deferring to the decision of the AAO on issues of law, which required that the Court provide de novo review unfettered by "deference."
  2. Appellant next argues that the District Court erred by assuming that the standard from Rowley, a 1982 case dealing with assistive technology, was properly applied by the AAO, and by not evaluating the real time captioning system that would be used in this situation. Furthermore, the District Court erred in not reviewing the findings of the AAO, which relied on the decision of APS.
  3. Appellant also argued that the District Court erred in finding that because the discrimination claims arose out of the same circumstances as the IDEA claim and the IDEA claim had failed, the discrimination claims failed as a matter of law. The appellant argued genuine issues of material fact existed and that APS was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law because IDEA is not an exclusive remedy and because Title II of the ADA creates different standards for receipt of closed captioning than does the IDEA as interpreted by the AAO.

Respondent's Arguments:

  1. Respondent argued that the District Court did not err in denying the motion to consider additional evidence because P.L. failed to exhaust his claims at the administrative level and develop the administrative claim he is not permitted to present such claims through supplemental evidence at the District Court level.
  2. Respondent next argued that the District Court applied the correct standard of review and the appellant failed to point to any evidence that the District Court failed to consider.
  3. Respondent then argued that the District Court did not err in dismissing the IDEA claim because they were all based on the same alleged acts, and each statute is designed to ensure that students with disabilities receive appropriate educational services. If the services are deemed appropriate under the IDEA then they are also appropriate under the ADA.
  4. Respondent also argued that P.L. received a free appropriate public education based on the fact that he succeeded using the services provided, which effectively enabled him to meaningfully access his education.