In B.S.M. v. Upper Darby School District, 103 F.4th 956, 124 LRP 17147 (3d Cir. June 4, 2024), the Third Circuit clarified that an adverse determination on a child-find claim under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) does not necessarily resolve a child-find claim under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504). The court’s decision arose from a challenge to both IDEA and Section 504 determinations and focused on the distinct standards governing disability identification and eligibility under the two statutes.
The student, who was thirteen years old at the time of the decision, attended school in the district from kindergarten through sixth grade, before her parents enrolled her in a private school. As early as kindergarten, the student demonstrated academic weaknesses, prompting the parent to request a full psychoeducational evaluation. The district reviewed academic records and determined that such an evaluation was unnecessary, though it did conduct a speech and language evaluation and found the student eligible under IDEA as a student with a Speech or Language Impairment. The student received speech and language services through most of second grade.
Despite those services, the student continued to struggle academically and emotionally in first and second grade, achieving below-average scores and developing emotional difficulties. Those struggles persisted into later grades, and by fourth grade the student scored below basic in math and reading. A private psychologist diagnosed disruptive mood regulation disorder and recommended therapy. The parent requested a Section 504 plan, and after evaluating the student, the district determined she was not IDEA-eligible but agreed to develop a Section 504 plan. Behavioral concerns continued, and a subsequent private evaluator concluded that while the student was not eligible under IDEA’s Emotional Disturbance category, she should be found IDEA-eligible under Specific Learning Disability.
The parents filed a due process complaint alleging that the district denied the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under both IDEA and Section 504. They asserted that the district failed to satisfy child-find obligations, failed to timely identify and evaluate the student, incorrectly determined that the student was not IDEA-eligible, and offered an inadequate Section 504 plan. The hearing officer concluded that the district satisfied IDEA child-find requirements, that the Section 504 plan was timely, and that the student did not meet eligibility criteria under IDEA. However, the hearing officer found that the Section 504 plan was overly general and insufficient to address the student’s social-emotional needs, ordered the plan revised, and awarded one hour per week of compensatory education for the period during which an appropriate plan was not in place. The district court affirmed on review of the administrative record.
On appeal, the Third Circuit vacated and remanded. The court emphasized that although IDEA and Section 504 both impose child-find, evaluation, and FAPE obligations, Section 504 defines disability more broadly than IDEA. Section 504 encompasses “any mental or psychological disorder,” 34 C.F.R. § 104.3(j)(2)(i)(B), provided other requirements are met, while IDEA limits eligibility to specified disability categories. The court relied on 20 U.S.C. § 1415(l) to underscore that IDEA does not subsume Section 504 claims. It explained that the district court erred by treating the IDEA determination as effectively resolving the Section 504 claim, relegating the latter analysis to a footnote. 103 F.4th at 964.
The court further explained that the same conduct may give rise to claims under both statutes, but that separate analysis is required because the statutes cover different populations and apply different standards. It pointed to the student’s educational history as an illustration, noting that she received services under IDEA in early grades and under Section 504 in later grades. The court highlighted that the family’s argument turned on the district’s repeated refusal to conduct a comprehensive evaluation that could have identified a Section 504-eligible disability earlier, an issue requiring independent analysis under Section 504. Id. at 964–65.
The court stressed that on remand, the proper inquiry was whether the district violated Section 504’s child-find obligation by failing to conduct a comprehensive evaluation earlier in light of the parents’ repeated requests and Section 504’s broader definition of disability. It also noted that modified de novo review, with deference to hearing officer findings, applies to district court review of IDEA claims.
Taken together, the decision reflects that IDEA and Section 504 child-find obligations are related but distinct, and that resolution of an IDEA claim does not automatically resolve a Section 504 claim where the statutory definitions and timing of alleged violations differ.