In LePape v. Lower Merion School District, 103 F.4th 966, 124 LRP 17149 (3d Cir. June 4, 2024), the Third Circuit addressed the relationship between claims brought under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and damages claims brought under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The decision arose from a challenge to a school district’s refusal to permit a student to use a particular communication method and clarified that the resolution of an IDEA claim does not necessarily determine the viability of ADA and Section 504 claims.
The student was considered a non-speaker and was classified under IDEA as having Autism, Intellectual Disability, and Speech or Language Impairment. Beginning in 2017, when the student was sixteen years old, the parents repeatedly requested that the district allow the student to use a communication method known as “Spelling to Communicate” (S2C), which involves pointing to letters on an alphabet board held by a trained communication support person. Over a seventeen-month period spanning two school years, the parents made at least thirty-three requests for the use of S2C and for staff training. The district denied those requests, citing concerns about the lack of scientific support for the method, despite opinions from the student’s psychiatrist, speech therapist, and behavior analyst that S2C was an effective means of communication for him. The parents ultimately withdrew the student from public school.
The parents filed a due process complaint alleging denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under IDEA, Section 504, the ADA, and state law. The hearing officer concluded that the district did not discriminate under Section 504, did not deny FAPE under IDEA or state law, and that although there was no jurisdiction over the ADA claim, the claim would fail even if jurisdiction existed. The parents then filed an action in district court asserting FAPE claims under IDEA, Section 504, and state law, along with claims of intentional discrimination under Section 504 and the ADA seeking compensatory damages and a jury trial.
After amendment of the complaint, discovery, and supplementation of the administrative record, the district court denied summary judgment on the Section 504 claim but granted summary judgment to the district on the ADA claim, concluding that the ADA claim was subsumed by the IDEA FAPE claim. Applying modified de novo review, the district court ultimately affirmed the hearing officer’s determination that there was no denial of FAPE under IDEA and, relying on the administrative record, denied relief under Section 504 and the ADA as well.
On appeal, the Third Circuit reversed. Relying on Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools, 580 U.S. 154, 170–71 (2017), the court explained that while certain ADA and Section 504 claims must be exhausted through the IDEA process, exhaustion does not limit the substantive availability of those claims. The court emphasized that a plaintiff may succeed on an ADA intentional discrimination claim even if the student received FAPE under IDEA. The court noted that under the ADA, a public entity must give primary consideration to the requests of individuals with disabilities regarding auxiliary aids and services, including communication methods, unless another effective means of communication is available. 28 C.F.R. § 35.160(b)(2); 28 C.F.R. pt. 35, app. A. The court stated that the only effect of concluding that the gravamen of an ADA claim is denial of FAPE is to require exhaustion through an IDEA hearing, which had already occurred. LePape, 103 F.4th at 980.
The court also agreed with the Fifth Circuit’s conclusion in Lartigue v. Northside Independent School District, 100 F.4th 510, 523 (5th Cir. 2024), that a standalone ADA claim is permitted and observed that the ADA’s effective communication requirement imposes obligations that are distinct from, and in some respects greater than, those imposed by IDEA. Quoting K.M. v. Tustin Unified School District, 725 F.3d 1088, 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2013), the court reiterated that there is no basis to conclude that the success or failure of an IDEA claim dictates the outcome of an ADA claim as a matter of law. LePape, 103 F.4th at 981.
The court found that there was a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the communication methods used by the district were an effective alternative to S2C. It held that this dispute could not be resolved on summary judgment and that the district court erred by deciding the issue through judgment on the administrative record. The court further concluded that applying modified de novo review to the non-IDEA claims improperly restricted the family’s rights under statutes other than IDEA and violated the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. The court also emphasized that findings made in the due process hearing did not have preclusive effect on the ADA claim because the legal standards under IDEA and the ADA differ. Id. at 982–83.
Taken together, the decision reflects that while IDEA may govern the provision of FAPE, it does not displace or limit independent claims under Section 504 or the ADA, and that disputes concerning effective communication and intentional discrimination under those statutes require separate analysis and, where factual disputes exist, resolution by a jury.