Compton Unified School District v. Addison
598 F.3d 1181 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A school district's failure to identify, locate, and evaluate a child with disabilities, as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act's (IDEA) 'child find' provision, is a cognizable claim that can be challenged through an IDEA due process hearing, even if the district did not issue a formal refusal to act.
Facts:
- During her ninth-grade year (2002-2003), Starvenia Addison received very poor grades and scored below the first percentile on standardized tests.
- A school counselor attributed Addison's poor performance to 'transitional year' difficulties and did not consider her fourth-grade level performance atypical.
- In the fall of her tenth-grade year, Addison failed every academic subject, which the counselor then considered a 'major red flag.'
- Teachers reported Addison exhibited extreme behaviors, including being unresponsive, producing 'gibberish' work, coloring with crayons, playing with dolls, and urinating on herself in class.
- Addison's mother was initially reluctant to have her child evaluated, and Compton Unified School District officials decided not to 'push' the issue.
- The School District referred Addison to a third-party mental-health counselor, who recommended that the district assess Addison for learning disabilities.
- Despite this recommendation, the School District did not refer Addison for an educational assessment and instead promoted her to eleventh grade.
- In September 2004, Addison’s mother wrote a letter to the School District explicitly requesting an educational assessment.
Procedural Posture:
- Starvenia Addison brought an administrative claim under the IDEA against the Compton Unified School District in a due process hearing.
- The administrative law judge found in favor of Addison.
- The School District appealed the administrative decision to the U.S. District Court.
- The district court affirmed the administrative law judge's ruling, granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of Addison.
- The Compton Unified School District, as appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with Starvenia Addison as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a school district's failure to identify a student with disabilities, in violation of the 'child find' requirement of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), give rise to a cognizable claim in a due process hearing, even when the district has not formally proposed or refused to take action?
Opinions:
Majority - Pregerson, J.
Yes. A school district's failure to comply with the IDEA's 'child find' obligation gives rise to a cognizable claim in a due process hearing. The jurisdictional grant in 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6)(A) is broad, allowing a party to present a complaint 'with respect to any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child.' This broad mandate is not limited by the separate notice provisions in § 1415(b)(3), which apply to specific proposals or refusals. To interpret the statute in a way that leaves parents without a remedy for a school district's unreasonable failure to identify a child would produce an absurd result and contradict Congressional intent as affirmed in Forest Grove School Dist. v. T.A. Furthermore, the School District’s 'wilful inaction in the face of numerous red flags' is sufficient to constitute a constructive 'refusal' to evaluate Addison, which would independently trigger the due process hearing right.
Dissenting - N.R. Smith, J.
No. A private cause of action for a due process hearing under the IDEA is not created by a school district's negligent failure to identify a student; it requires a purposeful act or refusal. The plain language of the statute's procedural safeguards, particularly the prior written notice requirements of § 1415, presumes a specific, purposeful action that has been proposed or refused. The notice provisions require the agency to describe the action refused and explain its reasoning, which is nonsensical in a context of mere inaction or negligence. To interpret 'refusal' to include inaction would lead to an absurd result where an agency would have to provide prior notice of its own future negligence. This interpretation improperly usurps legislative power by creating a cause of action not intended by Congress and weakens the cooperative process between parents and schools by placing the sole responsibility for identification on the school district.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of the IDEA's 'child find' requirement, establishing that it is an affirmative and enforceable duty, not merely a policy goal. By holding that a school district's inaction can be challenged through a due process hearing, the court prevents districts from evading liability by simply ignoring clear indicators of a disability rather than issuing a formal, and challengeable, refusal to evaluate. This precedent empowers parents to hold schools accountable for passive neglect, ensuring that the procedural safeguards of the IDEA are not rendered meaningless by a district's 'deliberate indifference.' Future cases will likely rely on this ruling to argue that a pattern of inaction in the face of clear evidence constitutes a constructive refusal, thereby triggering parents' due process rights.
