Three recent federal cases have given new meaning to the procedure in which Hearing Officers and Courts must evaluate Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), and American with Disabilities Act (ADA) claims.
On June 4, 2024, the Third Circuit addressed this issue with two cases: B.S.M. v. Upper Darby School District and Le Pape v. Lower Merion School District.
In B.S.M. v. Upper Darby School District, the Hearing Officer initially held that the District had denied Student a free and appropriate public education (“FAPE”) when it provided an inadequate 504 plan, but had not violated its Child Find obligation to identify the Student timely under either the IDEA or Section 504.
The Court acknowledged “the reach of Section 504 is broader than that of the IDEA,” but nonetheless held that a separate Section 504 analysis was “unnecessary” because “[w]hen a party makes claims under Section 504 that are ‘parallel’ to IDEA claims . . . resolution of the IDEA issue will also resolve the [Section 504] issue.”
The Third Circuit disagreed, holding that the rights of children with disabilities under Section 504 are distinct from their rights under the IDEA. In other words, a school’s Child Find obligations may require evaluation under Section 504 even if a student was evaluated and determined to be ineligible under the IDEA. Importantly, the differences in both statutes’ definitions of disability was central to the Parents’ argument that the “ . . .
The District repeatedly refused to perform a comprehensive evaluation that might have detected a Section 504-eligible disability at a much earlier date . . .” This matter has been remanded to perform a Child Find analysis under Section 504.
In Le Pape v. Lower Merion School District, Parents’ argument was twofold: (1) that the District had denied Student a FAPE and (2) the District had intentionally discriminated against him in violation of Section 504 and the ADA.
Initially, the District Court granted the District’s motion for summary judgment on the ADA claim and judgment on the administrative record for the denial-of-FAPE claim, in effect “rolling together” their ADA and Section 504 claims with their IDEA claim.
On Appeal, the Third Circuit reasoned that the District Court should have “analyze[d the Le Papes’] Section 504 and ADA claims separately from the IDEA claims.” After all, “[a] denial-of-FAPE claim under the IDEA can be resolved through an administrative appeal, but ADA and Section 504 discrimination claims seeking compensatory damages, even if on the same facts, should be resolved through summary judgment and, possibly trial.” In other words, where a family presents both a denial-of-FAPE claim and an intentional discrimination claim, a modified de novo review is applied only to the IDEA claims.
This decision affirmed the viability of federal statutes like the ADA or Section 504 as “separate vehicles” but no less integral than the IDEA. Where a school’s IDEA obligation is satisfied, such does not automatically pretermit “any Title II [of the ADA] claim. There is no basis to conclude that “the success or failure of a student’s IDEA claim dictates, as a matter of law, the success or failure of [an] [ADA] claim.”
Both cases set the stage for the more recent case, A.V. v. West Chester Area School District.
Here, Parents of a child with an ADHD diagnosis alleged that, after Student demonstrated inattention issues during remote learning, the District violated Child Find by failing to evaluate her under the IDEA and Section 504.
The District court noted that Student’s lack of focus was not enough to trigger Child Find. Indeed, the District could have attributed such difficulty with remote education to her lack of parental supervision and home life.
Parents contended that the Hearing Officer erred by not conducting a separate Section 504 analysis. In following the guidance of the B.S.M. Court, the A.V. Court agreed that the Hearing Officer erred by not explicitly analyzing Parents’ Section 504 claim, however upon review, the Court held that the District did not violate its child find duty under Section 504 or the IDEA.
Bottom Line For Schools
Schools should be aware of their Child Find obligations pursuant to both Section 504 and the IDEA.
Ineligibility under the IDEA does not obviate responsibility to evaluate under Section 504. After all, the IDEA imposes an affirmative Child Find duty, requiring districts to act within a “reasonable time” to evaluate a student. Section 504 has a “negative prohibition” on discriminating based on disability, triggering Child Find obligations when a District knows or reasonably should know that the student has a disability that limits a major life activity.
Schools should be aware of the appropriate interplay between all three statues. For instance, IDEA claims may be resolved through administrative appeal, while Section 504 and ADA claims may proceed to Court. However, there is an important distinction in that a Section 504 or ADA claim may proceed even where the District provided a FAPE.
