Pace v. Bogalusa City School Board

Majority - Edith H. Jones

Yes, the State of Louisiana and its educational agencies are entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from Travis Pace's claims under the ADA, § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the IDEA, because Congress did not validly abrogate state sovereign immunity for these statutes, and the State did not knowingly waive its immunity. The court reiterated its prior holding in Reickenbacker v. Foster that Congress did not validly abrogate state sovereign immunity under Title II of the ADA or § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, failing the 'congruence and proportionality' test. Similarly, the IDEA also failed this test as its requirements exceeded constitutional boundaries and Congress did not identify unconstitutional state action. While Congress can condition federal funds on a state's waiver of sovereign immunity (Spending Clause), a waiver must be an 'intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.' The State defendants accepted federal funds between 1996 and 1998 at a time when circuit precedent (Coolbaugh v. Louisiana) indicated that the ADA had validly abrogated state sovereign immunity, and before subsequent Supreme Court (Garrett) and Fifth Circuit (Reickenbacker) decisions clarified that abrogation was invalid. Therefore, the State defendants could not have 'knowingly' waived an immunity they reasonably believed had already been abrogated. This reasoning also applied to the IDEA. No, the Bogalusa City School Board did not deny Travis Pace a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) under the IDEA. The court found that the BCSB adequately complied with the procedural requirements of the IDEA, noting that Pace's IEPs included goals and evaluation procedures, and Individual Transition Plans, with interagency contacts. Pace's mother was also allowed meaningful input. Applying the Rowley inquiry's second prong, the court found Pace's IEPs were reasonably calculated to provide meaningful educational benefits. The IEPs were individualized, Pace was educated in the least restrictive environment (attending his assigned school, with accommodations like ramps, elevator modification, and aides), services were coordinated, and Pace demonstrated positive academic and non-academic benefits, including improved test scores and social skills. Yes, Travis Pace's non-IDEA claims under the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act against the Bogalusa City School Board are precluded by the prior administrative and judicial IDEA proceedings. The court adopted the view that when an administrative decision under IDEA is judicially upheld, principles of issue and claim preclusion may apply to related claims under other laws like the ADA and § 504, especially when the claims are factually and legally indistinct. Pace's IDEA proceeding focused heavily on the accessibility of Bogalusa High School, and the administrative bodies and district court determined he was not denied a FAPE due to accessibility. Therefore, he was not 'injured for purposes of asserting technical violations of the ADA regarding architectural features.' To succeed under the ADA or § 504, Pace needed to show the BCSB 'refused to provide reasonable accommodations.' Since he received meaningful benefits from a FAPE with the assistance and accommodations provided, the court concluded the BCSB did not refuse reasonable accommodations. The school provided aides and physical modifications, which constitute reasonable accommodations under ADA and § 504 regulations for existing facilities. Even if preclusion did not apply, summary judgment for BCSB on these claims would still be proper.