Christopher S. ex rel. Rita S. v. Stanislaus County Office of Education

Opinion by Judge TASHIMA; Dissent by Judge CLIFTON.

Three autistic children (the “Students”) who are part of a special education program in Stanislaus County, California, filed an action against the county and local educational authorities (“LEAs”) alleging that the policy of providing a shorter school day to autistic students constitutes discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 , section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 , and California anti-discrimination statutes. The district court dismissed the action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1485 , because the Students had not sought a due process hearing from the State of California. On appeal, the Students argue that the district court erred in dismissing their action for lack of jurisdiction, because they sufficiently exhausted their administrative remedies by pursuing a complaint resolution procedure (“CRP”) to completion. We agree, and reverse the district court’s dismissal of the case.

BACKGROUND

All three Students have been diagnosed with…

dissenting:

Congress has established that providing equal educational access for children with disabilities is an important national policy and has enacted important federal statutes to further the achievement of that goal, notably the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”). See 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1485 . In its wisdom, however, Congress has left primary responsibility in this area with state and local educational authorities, especially for resolving disputes. Only after exhausting the remedial processes available within the state and local agencies may individuals seeking relief under the IDEA have access to the federal courts. Id. § 1415. The exhaustion requirement gives education professionals with expertise a reasonable opportunity to investigate and correct discriminatory policies or practices before the matter is taken up by federal courts.

That is not an accident. “The exhaustion doctrine embodies the notion that ‘agencies, not the courts, ought to have primary responsibility for the programs that Congress has charged them to administer.’ ” Hoeft v. Tucson Unified Sch. Dist., 967 F.2d 1298 , 1303 (9th Cir.1992) (quoting McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 145…