In the case of Li v. Revere Loc. Sch. Dist., 6th Cir. No. 21-3422 (May 8, 2023), a federal appellate court held that (1) the Pre-Expulsion claim that was brought before an Independent Hearing Officer (“IHO”) and a State-Level Review Officer (“SLRO”) before being brought before the federal district court had been fully exhausted and (2) the school district did not act in bad faith or with gross misjudgment when the district did not reasonably suspect that the student had a disability but nonetheless failed to identify the student had a disability.
In this case, the parents argued that (1) the Pre-Expulsion claim was fully exhausted before filing as the claim was brought before the IHO and SLRO and the claim was distinct from the unexhausted claims after the expulsion and (2) the school district acted in bad faith or with gross misjudgment by failing to timely identify the student as needing special-education services. In response, the school district argued that (1) the parents’ Pre-Expulsion claim did not exhaust all administrative remedies and was inextricably intertwined with the unexhausted claims and (2) the school district’s failure to timely identify the student’s disability did not automatically constitute bad faith or gross misjudgment and the parents did not prove any bad faith or gross misjudgment. The federal appellate court agreed with the parents on the exhaustion claim and with the school district on the bad faith or gross misjudgment claim.
In support of its decision in favor of the parents on the exhaustion claim, the federal appellate court explained that the Pre-Expulsion claim was properly in front of the IHO and the SLRO before the parents filed the complaint, so the parents did administrative exhaust the claim.
In support of its decision in favor of the school on the bad faith or gross misjudgment claim, the federal appellate court explained that the parents failed to explain how the mere failure to timely identify the child’s disability rises to the level of bad faith or gross misjudgment.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always-changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.