Supreme Court Will Review Two Special Education Cases this Term

by Franczek Radelet P.C.

Franczek Radelet P.C.

The Supreme Court currently has two important special education cases on its docket for this term. The first is Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (10th Cir.), which will revisit the free and appropriate public education (FAPE) standard set in Board of Education of Hendricks Hudson School District v. Rowley (U.S. 1982). The second is Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools (6th Cir.), which looks at whether Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) exhaustion is required when parents sue for monetary damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504).

Endrew F. involves a student with autism who received special education and related services in the public school until his parents unilaterally placed him in a private school for 5th grade. The parents then filed for a due process hearing, requesting reimbursement for the private school placement. The hearing officer found in favor of the school district because the IEP was “reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefit,” citing Rowley. The district court and Tenth Circuit affirmed.

In dispute before the Supreme Court is the amount of educational benefit needed to find a student has been provided FAPE. The Tenth Circuit used the “some educational benefit” standard. This standard is also used here in the Seventh Circuit and was recently endorsed by the Fourth Circuit (see this alert). The Third Circuit, however, uses the “meaningful benefit” standard, which the parents in Endrew F. support. The United States also filed a supporting brief arguing in favor of the “meaningful benefit” standard. Both standards are based on Rowley.

The IDEA requires that students with disabilities be provided FAPE, but does not identify a level achievement or growth required for compliance. The Supreme Court, in Rowley, explained that the IDEA provides students with disabilities access to education (a floor of opportunity) but does not guarantee any particular outcome (schools are not required to maximize the potential of students with disabilities). The Court concluded that FAPE requires “access to specialized instruction and related services which are individually designed to provide educational benefit.” The Court, however, declined to “establish any one test for determining the adequacy of educational benefits.”

In the 34 years since Rowley was decided, the IDEA has been amended twice, but Congress has not added an explicit definition of the level of educational benefit to which students with disabilities are entitled. In the absence of a more definite standard, courts across the country have applied Rowley, some looking for “some educational benefit,” some looking for “meaningful educational benefit,” and some using both formulations in conjunction or interchangeably. The question for the Court is whether, given the diversity of students with disabilities and the text of the IDEA, a more precise standard can be formulated than what was set out in Rowley.   

Fry involves an elementary school student with cerebral palsy whose parents wanted her to be accompanied by her service dog at school to increase her independence. The IEP team considered the request but denied it, finding that the human aide already included in the student’s IEP provided the support needed for the student to access her education. The parents filed suit under Section 504 and the ADA seeking monetary damages. The district court dismissed the suit and the Sixth Circuit affirmed because the parents had not exhausted their IDEA remedies.

The IDEA requires parents to exhaust IDEA procedures prior to filing suit under Section 504 or the ADA when parents seek “relief that is also available” under the IDEA, even if parents do not include IDEA claims in their complaint. The Sixth Circuit explained that this provision bars suits when the injuries alleged can be remedied through the IDEA procedures or relate to the substantive protections of the IDEA. The Seventh Circuit has similarly held that exhaustion is required when “both the genesis and the manifestations of the problem are educational.” This interpretation considers whether the claim is ultimately one of FAPE that could be remedied through the IDEA procedures even though parents framed their claims as discrimination claims and sought monetary relief, which is not available under the IDEA.

The Supreme Court will consider when the exhaustion requirement applies. Most circuits have adopted the injury-centered approach used in the Sixth and Seventh Circuits, focused on whether the injury alleged is essentially a denial of FAPE. The United States, however, filed a brief supporting a relief-centered approach, focused entirely on whether the relief requested by parents is available under the IDEA. This reading, contrary to the holdings of most circuit courts but grounded in the plain language of the IDEA, would allow parents to file Section 504 and ADA claims seeking monetary relief without exhausting IDEA remedies. The resolution of this issue could have significant implications for how disputes related to the education of students with disabilities are handled.

Fry is scheduled to be heard by the Court on October 31, 2016; argument in Endrew F. has not yet been scheduled. We will keep you updated when the Court issues decisions. Note also that the IDEA is up for reauthorization, so if Congress disagrees with the Court’s findings on either of these issues, we may see a change in the updated statue.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Franczek Radelet P.C. | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Franczek Radelet P.C.

Franczek Radelet P.C. on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.