M.P. v. Independent School District No. 721, No. 05-1584 (8th Cir. Mar. 8, 2006)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has ruled that a disabled student may maintain a legal claim for violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act independent of an Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) claim, without exhausting his administrative remedies. Section 504 states that "no qualified individual with a disability in the United States shall be excluded from, denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under" any program or activity that either receives federal financial assistance. M.P. was subjected to verbal and physical harassment by other students after the school nurse disclosed he suffers from schizophrenia. He sued Independent School District No. 721 (ISD 721) in a Minnesota federal district court against, alleging violations of IDEA and § 504. The district court dismissed the IDEA claim on the ground that M.P. failed first to exhaust his administrative remedies because he enrolled in a school outside the district prior to initiating administrative proceedings. The district court also dismissed the § 504 claim because M.P. failed to present any evidence that school officials were deliberately indifferent. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court as to the IDEA claim, but reversed and remanded the case with regard to the § 504 claim. The appellate court instructed the lower court to "determine whether the School District had ‘acted in bad faith or with gross misjudgment when it failed to take appropriate action to protect M.P.’s academic and safety interests after the disclosure.’" On remand, the district court instead dismissed the § 504 claim, this time on the ground that M.P. had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.
        The Eighth Circuit again reversed and remanded, agreeing with M.P. that he could "sue for damages under the Rehabilitation Act for violation of his Section 504 rights without exhausting administrative remedies." The appellate court pointed out that the § 504 claim alleging "failure to protect M.P. from unlawful discrimination on the basis of his disability is a claim that is wholly unrelated to the [Individualized Education Program] process, which involves individual identification, evaluation, educational placement, and free, appropriate education (FAPE) decisions." In its order remanding the case, the Eighth Circuit again expressly instructed the district court to determine whether ISD 721 had "acted in bad faith or with gross misjudgment when it failed to take appropriate action to protect M.P.’s academic and safety interests after his disability was disclosed to the student body."