In Kass v. Western Dubuque Community School District, 101 F.4th 562, 124 LRP 15032 (8th Cir. May 10, 2024), the Eighth Circuit addressed whether a claim for compensatory education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) becomes moot when a student reaches the age of twenty-one and whether a student who has completed high school graduation requirements may remain eligible for a free appropriate public education (FAPE) before aging out. The court concluded that the compensatory education claim was not moot and that IDEA eligibility may continue after completion of graduation requirements if the student still requires special education services, although the district ultimately prevailed on the merits of the FAPE claim.
The student had epilepsy, autism, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), a severe vision impairment, and intellectual disabilities. By the end of the 2019–20 school year, he had earned sufficient credits to graduate from high school. His individualized education program (IEP) team nevertheless recommended that he remain enrolled to address unmet transition needs and proposed a May 2020 IEP offering approximately two hours of instruction per day at school or in the community, outside work with a job coach, and necessary transportation.
The parents rejected the proposed IEP, filed for due process, and invoked stay-put, resulting in the student remaining in his high school placement until he lost age eligibility at the end of the 2022–23 school year. The May 2020 IEP was never implemented. In April 2021, an administrative law judge (ALJ) ruled against the parents on their claims relating to the 2018–19 and 2019–20 school years. The parents appealed, and the district court affirmed, also rejecting claims brought under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
On appeal to the Eighth Circuit, the parents abandoned their claims related to the 2018–19 and 2019–20 school years but continued to challenge the adequacy of the May 2020 IEP and sought compensatory education for the period from fall 2020 through spring 2023. The school district argued that the case was moot because the student had reached age twenty-two.
The court rejected that argument, holding that a claim for compensatory education may remain viable beyond a student’s twenty-first birthday. Treating compensatory education as a restorative remedy, the court reasoned that the unavailability of services due to aging out does not extinguish the entitlement to relief for prior denials of FAPE. The court relied in part on reasoning from Pihl v. Massachusetts Department of Education, 9 F.3d 184 (1st Cir. 1993), cautioning that barring compensatory education after age twenty-one would allow districts to delay services and rely on lengthy review processes to avoid accountability. Kass, 101 F.4th at 567.
Although the court concluded that the parents’ claim was not moot, it ruled in favor of the district on the merits. The record showed that the district engaged the parents in multiple IEP meetings, determined that community-based transition activities were more appropriate than the academic focus preferred by the parents, and offered individualized instruction in functional math, reading, and writing, along with job coaching services. The court emphasized that IDEA does not require an optimal program and that a shortened school day limited to mornings did not, on this record, amount to a denial of FAPE. The IEP goals were found to be sufficiently measurable, and the services offered were adequate to address the student’s needs.
The decision reflects that compensatory education claims may survive a student’s loss of age eligibility and that completion of graduation requirements does not automatically end IDEA eligibility, while also reaffirming that courts will uphold a district’s program where the record supports meaningful parental participation and services reasonably calculated to address a student’s transition needs.