In Jacobs v. Salt Lake City School District, No. 23-4058, 2025 WL 2858650, — F.4th —, 125 LRP 29753 (10th Cir. Oct. 9, 2025), the Tenth Circuit reversed dismissal of claims alleging that a school district violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by assigning students with intellectual disabilities to designated “hub” schools based on categorical criteria rather than individualized determinations.
The plaintiffs alleged that the district consolidated services for students with intellectual disabilities at a small number of elementary schools and assigned students to those schools based primarily on IQ scores. Under the alleged policy, students with IQ scores above 70 or without a flat IQ profile were placed in one category, while students with IQ scores below 70 with flat profiles were placed in another. The complaint asserted that these assignments were made without individualized consideration of the students’ needs and without meaningful evaluation of whether the students could be educated in general education settings at neighborhood schools with appropriate supplementary aids and services.
Three students brought individual claims as well as class allegations. Each student was assigned to a hub school and pursued due process complaints alleging violations of IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA. The hearing officer and district court dismissed the claims on various grounds.
On appeal, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court construed the claims too narrowly. The court explained that the plaintiffs challenged a districtwide policy of categorically assigning students with intellectual disabilities to segregated placements without individualized determinations that such placements were appropriate. Those allegations, the court held, were sufficient to state plausible claims under IDEA, the ADA, and Section 504. The court emphasized that IDEA requires placement decisions to be based on the individualized education program (IEP) and to reflect consideration of a full range of supplementary aids and services that might permit education in the regular education environment.
Addressing the ADA and Section 504 claims, the court noted that the plaintiffs had asserted ADA claims during the IDEA administrative proceedings and that those claims were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. As a result, dismissal for failure to exhaust was improper, and exhaustion of Section 504 claims would have been futile. The court further held that the plaintiffs adequately stated ADA and Section 504 claims by alleging that the district denied them the opportunity to receive educational services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs and treated them unequally compared to nondisabled peers.
The decision reflects that categorical placement practices may be challenged where they displace individualized decisionmaking required by IDEA, that integration obligations under IDEA, the ADA, and Section 504 are closely linked, and that policies assigning students to placements without individualized consideration may give rise to viable federal disability discrimination claims.