Cindy Li v. Revere Local Sch. Dist.

1

CINDY LI, as natural guardian of T.L., the real party at interest, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. REVERE LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants, REVERE LOCAL SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 21-3422

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

May 8, 2023

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Before: McKEAGUE, WHITE, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge.

In this special-education and disability-law case, Cindy Li, acting on behalf of her son, T.L., appeals the dismissal of her claims alleging violations of T.L.'s rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and failure to state a claim. Because one claim under the IDEA was exhausted, we AFFIRM in part and REVERSE in part.

I. BACKGROUND

On February 25, 2016, a student at Revere Middle School reported to the Bath Police Department that he overheard T.L., then in eighth grade, make the following statements at lunch "He might do a school shooting"; "He hates people"; "People are his enemy"; and "His parents own an assault rifle." R. 21-1, PID 195.

School officials and police officers confronted T.L. at school the next day. They searched his backpack and person but found no weapons. T.L. said that he suffered from depression and suicidal thoughts due to frequent bullying. He also claimed to have access to his parents' assault rifle at home, and said that he had thought about bringing a gun to school and shooting students who had been mean to him, and if he were to do so, he would target the cafeteria or gym where there would be many easy targets. School officials took T.L. to a children's hospital and notified his parents, David and Cindy Li, of the situation.

Based on this incident, school officials held a meeting with T.L and his parents on March 1, 2016. At the meeting, T.L. explained that he had been bullied daily for approximately a month, though he conceded that he never reported any bullying to the Revere Local School District (the District) or his parents. T.L.'s parents confirmed that they had no knowledge of bullying prior to the February 26th incident. At the end of the meeting, school officials gave T.L.'s parents a notice suspending T.L. from March 1 through March 15, 2016.

On March 4, Revere's Superintendent, Matthew Montgomery (Montgomery), sent T.L.'s parents a letter recommending that T.L. be expelled for violating the Revere Student Conduct Code's weapon policy. Montgomery conducted an expulsion hearing on March 14, where both the District and T.L.'s parents were represented by counsel. At that time, T.L.'s parents requested that T.L. be evaluated for special-education services, rather than be expelled.

The day after the hearing, Montgomery sent T.L.'s parents two letters. The first informed them that T.L. was expelled for eighty days and advised them of their right to appeal Montgomery's decision to the Revere Board of Education (the Board). The second proposed to conduct an expedited evaluation of T.L. for special-education and related services. T.L.'s parents timely appealed the expulsion, and the Board held an expulsion hearing. The Board upheld the expulsion but modified the decision so that T.L. could return to school for the 2016-2017 school year. T.L.'s parents timely appealed the Board's decision to the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, arguing that the District violated T.L.'s right to due process, failed to comply with special-education and disability-law requirements, and unlawfully destroyed evidence.

While the expulsion appeal was pending in state court, T.L.'s parents consented to an evaluation for special-education services. At the evaluation, the District qualified T.L. as a student with a disability and concluded that he met the definition of a student with an emotional disturbance. The District subsequently held an individualized educational program (IEP) team meeting.^[1] At that meeting, T.L.'s parents said they did not wish for him to attend the District's high school. Ultimately, T.L.'s parents enrolled him in the University of Akron College Credit Program for the 2016-2017 school year. However, they did accept the District's offer of continued counseling and transportation for T.L. through the 2016-2017 school year.

The state court affirmed T.L.'s expulsion on appeal. Noting that the Lis were represented by counsel at the Board's expulsion meeting, and that their counsel was able to cross-examine several witnesses, present hundreds of pages of documents, and play several hours of audio recordings, the state court determined that "the Lis were afforded all due process rights to which they were entitled." R. 21-4, PID 237. In rejecting the Lis' special-education and disability-law claims, the state court held that such claims were "not properly before the court because [they] are beyond the scope of an administrative appeal." PID 237-38. It further concluded that even if the claims were properly before the court, "the evidence presented at the hearing was discovered and generated post-incident and had nothing to do with the [B]oard's decision to uphold T.L.'s expulsion." PID 238. The Lis appealed this decision, but the state court of appeals dismissed the appeal as untimely.

While the state-court appeal was pending, the Lis also pursued relief under the IDEA.^[2] In March 2018, they filed a due process complaint alleging that the District violated state and federal law by denying their request to hold a manifestation determination review (MDR),^[3] an IEP evaluation, and an IEP meeting before subjecting T.L. to expulsion. An IHO held a hearing in January 2019 and determined that T.L. was not entitled to an MDR before his expulsion because

[a]n MDR is not required in order to discipline a student without a disability. However, in some cases, students are entitled to an MDR even if the student, at the time of the misconduct, had not yet been found eligible. The obligation applies if the district is deemed to have known the child was a student with a disability before the behavioral incident occurred. 34 CFR 300.534 (a). See also Jackson v. Northwest Local Sch. Dist., 55 IDELR 104 (S.D. Ohio 2010). This, in essence, is the central question of this issue in this matter.

... There was no suspicion on the part of School District personnel, or notification by parents or Student of concerns regarding bullying or emotional issues, before February 26, 2016.

...

Only after the events of February 25, 2016, coupled with the additional information gained through other student interviews regarding alleged recent "bullying" events, and during the March 14, 2016 and March 22, 2016 meetings, did the level of concern rise to the level where School District had a duty to evaluate whether Student had a disability by acting on what it interpreted to be a request for evaluation from Parents.

R. 21-7, PID 263-64. For those same reasons, the IHO held that any delay in conducting T.L.'s evaluation for special-education services was reasonable. The IHO ultimately concluded that none of the District's actions contested in the due process complaint rose to the level of denying T.L. a FAPE. The Lis appealed this finding and requested review by a state-level review officer (SLRO).

While the administrative appeal was pending, the Lis filed a second, separate due process complaint. The second complaint focused on the District's conduct after expelling T.L. Specifically, the Lis alleged that the District failed to place T.L. in the least restrictive environment, interfered with T.L.'s placement in the Western Reserve Academy (WRA), predetermined his attendance at Perspectives Academy (Perspectives), hindered parental participation in the IEP process, and failed to provide T.L. adequate transportation. COVID-19 delayed litigation of this second complaint, which was still pending before the IHO at the time the Lis filed the instant action.

The SLRO affirmed the IHO's decision on the first administrative complaint. T.L.'s parents continued to challenge that decision by initiating this action. Because T.L. was still a minor, his parents filed the complaint in their own capacities and in their representative capacities as T.L.'s natural guardians.^[4] The complaint alleges five claims: (1) a Section 1983 claim against all defendants asserting violations of T.L.'s rights under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the IDEA, Section 504, the ADA, and Ohio state law; (2) an IDEA claim against the District and the Board; (3) a Section 504 and ADA claim against the District and the Board; (4) a claim for gross negligence against all defendants; and (5) a claim for intentional spoliation of evidence against all defendants.

On May 14, 2020, Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that (1) all claims were barred by res judicata; (2) the IDEA claim (Count 2) was not administratively exhausted; and (3) the Section 504 and ADA claims (Count 3) were not administratively exhausted^[5] or adequately pled, since the Lis failed to allege bad faith or gross misjudgment. The Lis timely responded to this motion on July 8, 2020.

T.L. turned eighteen in September 2020, while the motion to dismiss was pending. Soon after, T.L.'s parents filed a "motion for leave to amend complaint and to proceed under pseudonym," explaining that T.L. had reached the age of majority and requesting that he be "added as a Plaintiff in his personal capacity." R. 28, PID 670. Defendants did not file a response in opposition to this request.

On March 31, 2021...