Charles and Lisa Kass, parents of Brody Kass, sued the Western Dubuque Community School District in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, raising claims under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and other statutes. The district court found that the District complied with the law, and the Kasses appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Factual Overview
Brody Kass has multiple disabilities, including epilepsy, autism, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, severe vision impairment, and intellectual disabilities. Under the IDEA, Brody is entitled to a free appropriate public education (FAPE) and an individualized education program (IEP). Brody attended District schools from kindergarten through fifth grade, moved elsewhere for a period, and returned during ninth grade. During his senior year in 2019-20, Brody accumulated enough credits for graduation, but his IEP Team determined he had unmet transitional needs and should remain in school.
The IEP Team met four times in the 2019-20 school year to develop an IEP for 2020-21. The District proposed that Brody would not enroll in general education courses but would instead focus on developing reading, math, and employability skills through individualized instruction and work with a job coach. The Kasses objected to the proposed IEP and filed a complaint with the Iowa Department of Education, invoking their “stay-put” rights to keep Brody in his then-current educational placement during the litigation. An administrative law judge ruled in favor of the District, and the Kasses filed suit in federal district court. The district court affirmed the ALJ’s decision and dismissed the Kasses’ claims.
Legal Analysis
Mootness: The Eighth Circuit first addressed whether the case was moot because Brody was now past the age of 21 and no longer qualified for a FAPE under the IDEA. The court held that compensatory education may be available beyond a student’s 21st birthday to make up for years when a student was eligible for a FAPE but did not receive one. The court found that the Kasses continued to seek compensatory education for the 2020, 2021, and 2022 school years, during which the stay-put IEP was in place, and therefore a live controversy remained.
IDEA Claim: The court reviewed de novo whether the District provided Brody with a FAPE under the IDEA. The IDEA’s requirements are fulfilled if (1) the school district complies with the law’s procedures in developing an IEP, and (2) the resulting IEP is reasonably calculated to enable the student to make progress appropriate in light of the student’s circumstances.
Procedural Compliance: The court found that the District complied with the IDEA’s procedural requirements in drafting the May 2020 IEP. The District involved the Kasses in numerous meetings and considered their concerns and preferences, even if it did not ultimately follow them. The IDEA does not require parental preferences to guide educational decisions.
Substantive FAPE: The court found that the May 2020 IEP was reasonably calculated to enable Brody to progress in light of his circumstances. The IEP addressed Brody’s unmet transition needs through individualized instruction, work with a job coach, and community outings. The IEP also included specific and measurable goals related to employability and adaptive behavior.
Dissent: Judge Colloton dissented, arguing that the appeal was moot because the draft IEP never took effect, and the Kasses did not argue that the stay-put IEP failed to provide a FAPE. The dissent contended that compensatory education was not an appropriate remedy for procedural violations of the IDEA and that the Kasses’ claim under the Rehabilitation Act was likewise moot.
The Eighth Circuit ultimately affirmed the district court’s conclusion that the May 2020 IEP was procedurally valid and substantively addressed Brody’s unmet transition needs, thus meeting the IDEA’s requirements.
Schrag on Law 