Cindy Li v. Revere Local Sch. Dist. ( 2023 )

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 23a0218n.06
No. 21-3422
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
FILED
CINDY LI, as natural guardian of T.L., the real ) May 08, 2023
) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
party at interest,
)
Plaintiff-Appellant, )
ON APPEAL FROM THE
)
v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT
)
COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
)
REVERE LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., ) DISTRICT OF OHIO
Defendants, )
OPINION
)
REVERE LOCAL SCHOOLS BOARD OF )
EDUCATION, et al., )
)
Defendants-Appellees. )
Before: McKEAGUE, WHITE, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge. In this special-education and disability-law case,
Cindy Li, acting on behalf of her son, T.L., appeals the dismissal of her claims alleging violations
of T.L.’s rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act (Section 504), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies and failure to state a claim. Because one claim under the IDEA
was exhausted, we AFFIRM in part and REVERSE in part.
I. BACKGROUND
On February 25, 2016, a student at Revere Middle School reported to the Bath Police
Department that he overheard T.L., then in eighth grade, make the following statements at lunch:
“He might do a school shooting”; “He hates people”; “People are his enemy”; and “His parents
own an assault rifle.” R. 21-1, PID 195.
No. 21-3422, Li v. Revere Local School District
School officials and police officers confronted T.L. at school the next day. They searched
his backpack and person but found no weapons. T.L. said that he suffered from depression and
suicidal thoughts due to frequent bullying. He also claimed to have access to his parents’ assault
rifle at home, and said that he had thought about bringing a gun to school and shooting students
who had been mean to him, and if he were to do so, he would target the cafeteria or gym where
there would be many easy targets. School officials took T.L. to a children’s hospital and notified
his parents, David and Cindy Li, of the situation.
Based on this incident, school officials held a meeting with T.L. and his parents on March
1, 2016. At the meeting, T.L. explained that he had been bullied daily for approximately a month,
though he conceded that he never reported any bullying to the Revere Local School District (the
District) or his parents. T.L.’s parents confirmed that they had no knowledge of bullying prior to
the February 26th incident. At the end of the meeting, school officials gave T.L.’s parents a notice
suspending T.L. from March 1 through March 15, 2016.
On March 4, Revere’s Superintendent, Matthew Montgomery (Montgomery), sent T.L.’s
parents a letter recommending that T.L. be expelled for violating the Revere Student Conduct
Code’s weapon policy. Montgomery conducted an expulsion hearing on March 14, where both
the District and T.L.’s parents were represented by counsel. At that time, T.L.’s parents requested
that T.L. be evaluated for special-education services, rather than be expelled.
The day after the hearing, Montgomery sent T.L.’s parents two letters. The first informed
them that T.L. was expelled for eighty days and advised them of their right to appeal
Montgomery’s decision to the Revere Board of Education (the Board). The second proposed to
conduct an expedited evaluation of T.L. for special-education and related services. T.L.’s parents
timely appealed the expulsion, and the Board held an expulsion hearing. The Board upheld the
2
No. 21-3422, Li v. Revere Local School District
expulsion but modified the decision so that T.L. could return to school for the 2016–2017 school
year. T.L.’s parents timely appealed the Board’s decision to the Summit County Court of Common
Pleas, arguing that the District violated T.L.’s right to due process, failed to comply with special-
education and disability-law requirements, and unlawfully destroyed evidence.
While the expulsion appeal was pending in state court, T.L.’s parents consented to an
evaluation for special-education services. At the evaluation, the District qualified T.L. as a student
with a disability and concluded that he met the definition of a student with an emotional
disturbance. The District subsequently held an individualized educational program (IEP) team
meeting.1 At that meeting, T.L.’s parents said they did not wish for him to attend the District’s
high school. Ultimately, T.L.’s parents enrolled him in the University of Akron College Credit
Program for the 2016–2017 school year. However, they did accept the District’s offer of continued
counseling and transportation for T.L. through the 2016–2017 school year.
The state court affirmed T.L.’s expulsion on appeal. Noting that the Lis were represented
by counsel at the Board’s expulsion meeting, and that their counsel was able to cross-examine
several witnesses, present hundreds of pages of documents, and play several hours of audio
recordings, the state court determined that “the Lis were afforded all due process rights to which
they were entitled.” R. 21-4, PID 237. In rejecting the Lis’ special-education and disability-law
claims, the state court held that such claims were “not properly before the court because [they] are
beyond the scope of an administrative appeal.” PID 237-38. It further concluded that even if the
1
The IEP is the primary vehicle for implementing the IDEA, which requires participating states to ensure
that a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) is available to every eligible child. Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305,
311 (1988). An IEP “sets out the child’s present educational performance, establishes annual and short-term objectives
for improvements in that performance, and describes the specially designed instruction and services that will enable
the child to meet those objectives.” Id. An IEP team—consisting of the child’s parents or guardians, teachers, school
administrators, and, whenever appropriate, the child—meets at least once a year to form the child’s IEP. Id.3
No. 21-3422, Li v. Revere Local School District
claims were properly before the court, “the evidence presented at the hearing was discovered and
generated post-incident and had nothing to do with the [B]oard’s decision to uphold T.L.’s
expulsion.” PID 238. The Lis appealed this decision, but the state court of appeals dismissed the
appeal as untimely.
While the state-court appeal was pending, the Lis also pursued relief under the IDEA.2 In
March 2018, they filed a due process complaint alleging that the District violated state and federal
law by denying their request to hold a manifestation determination review (MDR),3 an IEP
evaluation, and an IEP meeting before subjecting T.L. to expulsion. An IHO held a hearing in
January 2019 and determined that T.L. was not entitled to an MDR before his expulsion because
[a]n MDR is not required in order to discipline a student without a disability.
However, in some cases, students are entitled to an MDR even if the student, at the
time of the misconduct, had not yet been found eligible. The obligation applies if
the district is deemed to have known the child was a student with a disability before
the behavioral incident occurred. 34 CFR 300.534 (a). See also Jackson v.
Northwest Local Sch. Dist., 55 IDELR 104 (S.D. Ohio 2010). This, in essence, is
the central question of this issue in this matter.
...
2
Any parent who believes that his or her child has been denied a FAPE may enforce the IDEA in federal
court. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2). But because federal courts are “generalists with no expertise in the educational needs
of [students with disabilities],” the IDEA requires participating states to “provide to any parent or guardian who
complains that his or her child has been denied rights secured by the [IDEA] with an opportunity for an impartial due
process hearing,” and makes exhaustion of that state remedy a prerequisite for review in federal court. Crocker v.
Tenn. Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 873 F.2d 933, 935 (6th Cir. 1989).
Ohio has chosen to receive IDEA funds and created a two-stage administrative process for resolving disputes.
An aggrieved parent must first file a due process complaint, at which point the Ohio Department of Education (ODE)
appoints an impartial hearing officer (IHO) to adjudicate the dispute. Ohio Admin. Code 3301-51-05(K)(7)-(10). The
IHO receives evidence and compiles a record, then renders a decision as to whether the school district denied the child
a FAPE. Ohio Admin. Code 3301-51-05(K)(10)-(13). Any party may appeal the IHO’s decision to a state-level
review officer (SLRO), who will review the record and issue an independent decision on the merits. Ohio Admin.
Code 3301-51-05(K)(14). If unsatisfied with the results of the SLRO hearing, the aggrieved party may then bring suit
in an appropriate state or federal court. Ohio Admin. Code 3301–51–05(K)(17); see also Knable ex rel. Knable v.
Bexley City Sch. Dist., 238 F.3d 755, 763 (6th Cir. 2001) (summarizing this process).
3
The IDEA requires that an MDR be held within ten days when a student with a disability is suspended.
20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(E).
4
No. 21-3422, Li v. Revere Local School District
There was no suspicion on the part of School District personnel, or notification by
parents or Student of concerns regarding bullying or emotional issues, before
February 26, 2016.
...
Only after the events of February 25, 2016, coupled with the additional information
gained through other student interviews regarding alleged recent “bullying” events,
and during the March 14, 2016 and March 22, 2016 meetings, did the level of
concern rise to the level where School District had a duty to evaluate whether
Student had a disability by acting on what it interpreted to be a request for
evaluation from Parents.
R. 21-7, PID 263-64. For those same reasons, the IHO held that any delay in conducting T.L.’s
evaluation for special-education services was reasonable. The IHO ultimately concluded that none
of the District’s actions contested in the due process complaint rose to the level of denying T.L. a
FAPE. The Lis appealed this finding and requested review by a state-level review officer (SLRO).
While the administrative appeal was pending, the Lis filed a second, separate due process
complaint. The second complaint focused on the District’s conduct after expelling T.L.
Specifically, the Lis alleged that the District failed to place T.L. in the least restrictive environment,
interfered with T.L.’s placement in the Western Reserve Academy (WRA), predetermined his
attendance at Perspectives Academy (Perspectives), hindered parental participation in the IEP
process, and failed to provide T.L. adequate transportation. COVID-19 delayed litigation of this
second complaint, which was still pending before the IHO at the time the Lis filed the instant
action.
The SLRO affirmed the IHO’s decision on the first administrative complaint. T.L.’s
parents continued to challenge that decision by initiating this action. Because T.L. was still a
minor, his parents filed the complaint in their own capacities and in their representative capacities
5
No. 21-3422, Li v. Revere Local School District
as T.L.’s natural guardians.4 The complaint alleges five claims: (1) a Section 1983 claim against
all defendants asserting violations of T.L.’s rights under the Due Process and Equal Protection
Clauses, the IDEA, Section 504, the ADA, and Ohio state law; (2) an IDEA claim against the
District and the Board; (3) a Section 504 and ADA claim against the District and the Board; (4) a
claim for gross negligence against all defendants; and (5) a claim for intentional spoliation of
evidence against all defendants.
On May 14, 2020, Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that (1) all
claims were barred by res judicata; (2) the IDEA claim (Count 2) was not administratively
exhausted; and (3) the Section 504 and ADA claims (Count 3) were not administratively
exhausted5 or adequately pled, since the Lis failed to allege bad faith or gross misjudgment. The
Lis timely responded to this motion on July 8, 2020.
T.L. turned eighteen in September 2020, while the motion to dismiss was pending. Soon
after, T.L.’s parents filed a “motion for leave to amend complaint and to proceed under
pseudonym,” explaining that T.L. had reached the age of majority and requesting that he be “added
as a Plaintiff in his personal capacity.” R. 28, PID 670. Defendants did not file a response in
opposition to this request.
On March 31, 2021, the district court granted Defendants’ motion and dismissed the
complaint in its entirety. The order first addressed whether the Lis’ claims were barred by res
4
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c) provides that a guardian may act as a representative and sue on behalf
of a minor. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c).
5
The IDEA’s exhaustion requirement is not limited to suits initiated under that particular act. Section 1415(l)
provides that nothing in the IDEA shall “restrict or limit” the rights or remedies available under other federal laws,
“except that before the filing of a civil action under such laws seeking relief that is also available under [the IDEA],
the procedures [outlined in the IDEA] shall be exhausted to the same extent as would be required had the action been
brought under [that act].” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(l). Based on this provision, the Supreme Court has held that any plaintiff
“bringing suit under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, or similar laws must in certain circumstances—that is, when
‘seeking relief that is also available under’ the IDEA—first exhaust the IDEA’s administrative procedures.” Fry v.
Napoleon Cmty. Schs., 580 U.S. 154, 161 (2017) (citing 20 U.S.C. § 1415(l)).
6
No. 21-3422, Li v. Revere Local School District
judicata and concluded: “Because all of the elements of claim preclusion are met, the court finds
that Plaintiffs’ § 1983, gross negligence, and intentional spoliation of evidence claims are barred
under the doctrine of res judicata. Consequently, the court grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Counts One, Four, and Five.” R. 29, PID 747.
“Out of an abundance of caution,” the district court then considered “whether Plaintiffs’
IDEA and Disability Claims would survive Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss if claim preclusion did
not apply to Counts Two and Three.” PID 747-48. It concluded they would not. First,
[b]ecause several parts of this dispute relative to Plaintiffs’ allegations may be
resolved in the due process action that is currently pending before the IHO, the
court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies and
grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss with respect to Count Two. Count Two is
hereby dismissed without prejudice.
PID 750. Second,
[b]ecause a comprehensive administrative record does not exist with respect to the
Child Find issues[6] that Plaintiffs[] raise in their Disability Claim and because
without these allegations Plaintiffs fail to plead plausible facts that give rise to an
inference of discrimination as a result of T.L.’s disability, the court grants
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss with respect to Count Three. Count Three is hereby
dismissed without prejudice.
PID 753.
The district court denied the Lis’ pending motion to amend—to add T.L. as a party—in the
same order, concluding that “granting leave to amend would be futile.” PID 754. It noted that
6
A “Child Find” claim alleges a violation of the “Child Find Mandate,” which requires states to have in
effect policies and procedures ensuring that:
(i) All children with disabilities residing in the State, including children with disabilities who are
homeless children or are wards of the State, and children with disabilities attending private schools,
regardless of the severity of their disability, and who are in need of special education and related
services, are identified, located, and evaluated; and
(ii) A practical method is developed and implemented to determine which children are
currently receiving needed special education and related services.
34 C.F.R. § 300.111(a)(1).
7
No. 21-3422, Li v. Revere Local School District
T.L. had turned eighteen, but reasoned that “[b]ecause the proposed First Amended Complaint is
based on the same allegations as the original Complaint, . . . the proposed First Amended
Complaint would fail for the same reasons as the original Complaint.” Id.Counsel for the Lis filed a timely notice of appeal, stating: “Notice is hereby given that all
Plaintiffs hereby appeal.” R. 30, PID 755. The notice contained a footnote explaining: “When
T.L. reached the age of majority, his IDEA, Section 504, and ADA claims transferred from David
and Cindy Li as representatives of T.L., to T.L. individually.” Id. The footnote further explained
that the Lis tried to amend the complaint to reflect this, but the district court denied their motion
without adequately addressing T.L.’s reaching the age of majority. The footnote ended:
T.L. has since executed a statutory durable power of attorney appointing his natural
parent, Cindy Li as his agent and durable power of attorney, a copy of which is
attached hereto. T.L. has delegated to Cindy Li the authority to pursue all legal
relief available to him, including, without limitation, all legal rights afforded to him
under the IDEA, Section 504, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act,
(“ADA”), which were transferred to him upon turning eighteen years of age. Cindy
Li, therefore, brings this appeal on behalf of T.L.
Id. Counsel attached the referenced power of attorney form to the notice of appeal. It granted
Cindy Li the power to “commence, prosecute, discontinue, or defend all actions or other legal
proceedings” on behalf of T.L., but also stated: “THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY BECOMES
EFFECTIVE ONLY UPON MY DISABILITY OR INCAPACITY,” and clarified, “I shall be
considered disabled or incapacitated for purposes of this power of attorney if a physician certifies
in writing . . . [that] I am mentally incapable of managing my financial affairs.” R. 30-2, PID 778-
79.
Defendants moved to dismiss this appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing
that the power-of-attorney appointment never went into effect because T.L. was not declared
incapacitated, and therefore Cindy Li lacked standing to seek review in this court. Cindy Li
8
No. 21-3422, Li v. Revere Local School District
responded by filing two documents: (1) a second power of attorney form signed by T.L. on
September 4, 2021, ratifying all of Cindy Li’s actions up to that point and appointing her as T.L.’s
attorney-in-fact “for the purpose of handling and pursuing any and all legal matters” in this case;
and (2) a sworn declaration from T.L. dated September 4, 2021, stating that when he executed the
original power of attorney, he “intended for [Cindy] Li to pursue my legal interests and rights in
these legal matters as my agent.” R. App. 32 at 15-19.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction
We begin by addressing the pending motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because
without proper jurisdiction we cannot proceed. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S.
83, 94 (1998). Defendants-Appellees contend that we lack subject-matter jurisdiction because
Cindy Li has no standing to pursue this appeal in her personal capacity, and she was not authorized
to act on T.L.’s behalf in April 2021, when the notice of appeal was filed. We disagree.
It is not disputed that T.L., as the real party in interest, has standing to pursue this appeal.
And we interpret the notice of appeal as well as T.L.’s declaration and second power of attorney
form—both signed on September 4, 2021—as confirmation that he too seeks to challenge the
district court’s order. Because the real party in interest seeks appellate review of his claims, it
follows that we may exercise jurisdiction over those claims if the appeal was timely and adequately
noticed. We conclude that it was.
To satisfy Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 3 and 4, a notice of appeal must be filed
within thirty days specifying the party taking an appeal, the judgment or order being appealed, and
9
No. 21-3422, Li v. Revere Local School District
the court to which the appeal is taken.7 Here, there is no dispute that a timely-filed notice
designated both the order being appealed and the court to which the appeal was taken. Therefore,
jurisdiction turns on whether this notice also gave notice that T.L. was one of the appellants. We
are satisfied that it did.
First, the notice did not expressly limit the appeal to Cindy Li, but instead stated that “all
Plaintiffs hereby appeal.” R. 30, PID 755-56 (emphasis added). Rule 3 allows an attorney noticing
an appeal for multiple parties to use these kinds of all-encompassing terms. Fed. R. App. P.
3(c)(1)(A). Considering that this action has been prosecuted in T.L.’s name from the beginning,
and that the Lis promptly moved to add T.L. as a plaintiff to the case but were denied leave—
indeed, the denial is included in the very order being appealed—the reference to “all Plaintiffs”
could reasonably be understood to include T.L. as well as his parents. This is especially true given
that T.L. was represented by the same law firm as his parents, and counsel from that firm filed the
notice of appeal.
Second, even if “all Plaintiffs” alone did not sufficiently make clear that T.L. sought to
appeal, Rule 3 provides that an appeal “must not be dismissed . . . for failure to name a party whose
intent to appeal is otherwise clear from the notice.” Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(7). Congress added this
amendment to “liberalize” Rule 3’s previously rigid enforcement. Dixon v. Clem, 492 F.3d 665,
677 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting Maerki v. Wilson, 128 F.3d 1005, 1007 (6th Cir. 1997)). The advisory
committee’s note to its adoption explains in relevant part:
The amendment is intended to reduce the amount of satellite litigation spawned by
the Supreme Court’s decision in Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 3127
Rule 3 states: “An appeal permitted by law as of right from a district court to a court of appeals may be
taken only by filing a notice of appeal with the district clerk within the time allowed by Rule 4.” Fed. R. App. P.
3(a)(1). Rule 3(c) lists the required contents of a notice of appeal. Rule 4 requires that the notice of appeal be filed
within thirty days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(a)(1)(A). The Supreme Court
has held that these rules combine to form a single, non-waivable jurisdictional threshold. Torres v. Oakland Scavenger
Co., 487 U.S. 312, 315-16 (1988); see also Fed. R. App. P. 3 advisory committee note to 1967 adoption.
10
No. 21-3422, Li v. Revere Local School District
(1988). In Torres the Supreme Court held that the language in Rule 3(c) requiring
a notice of appeal to “specify the party or parties taking the appeal” is a
jurisdictional requirement and that naming the first named party and adding “et al.,”
without any further specificity is insufficient to identify the appellants. Since the
Torres decision, there has been a great deal of litigation regarding whether a notice
of appeal that contains some indication of the appellants’ identities but does not
name the appellants is sufficiently specific.
...
[I]n order to prevent the loss of a right to appeal through inadvertent omission of a
party’s name or continued use of such terms as “et al.” . . . the amendment allows
an attorney representing more than one party the flexibility to indicate which parties
are appealing without naming them individually. The test established by the rule
for determining whether such designations are sufficient is whether it is objectively
clear that a party intended to appeal.
...
Finally, the rule makes it clear that dismissal of an appeal should not occur when it
is otherwise clear from the notice that the party intended to appeal. If a court
determines it is objectively clear that a party intended to appeal, there are neither
administrative concerns nor fairness concerns that should prevent the appeal from
going forward.
Fed. R. App. P. 3 advisory committee note to 1993 amendment.
The notice filed on April 28, 2021, passes this test as to T.L. A lengthy footnote explains
that (1) all claims being appealed belonged to T.L., not his parents; (2) “David and Cindy Li . . .
along with T.L.” tried to add T.L. to the case as a plaintiff in his own right, but the district court
rejected their request; and (3) upon being denied access to his case, T.L. executed a power of
attorney form “delegat[ing] to Cindy Li the authority to pursue all legal relief available to him [in
this litigation].” R. 30, PID 755 n.1 (emphasis added). This language put Defendants (and the
court) on clear notice that T.L. intended to seek appellate review of his claims (albeit by
11
No. 21-3422, Li v. Revere Local School District
authorizing his mother to do so on his behalf). Such notice is all that Rule 3 requires.8 See United
States v. Glover, 242 F.3d 333, 336 (6th Cir. 2001) (explaining Rule 3(c)’s two essential purposes:
(1) to avoid “inconsistency, vagueness and an unnecessary multiplication of litigation,” and (2) to
satisfy due process concerns by “ensur[ing] that the filing provides sufficient notice to other parties
and the courts” (internal citations omitted)); cf. Dixon, 492 F.3d at 678 (finding that a notice of
appeal complied with the “liberal pleading requirements of Rule 3(c)”—despite the fact that it did
not expressly identify the appellant—because the appellant’s intent to appeal was otherwise clear
from the notice).
The explicit reference to T.L. in the body of the notice distinguishes this case from those
in which circuit courts have found they lacked jurisdiction. See Patterson v. District of Columbia,
995 A.2d 167, 170 (D.C. 2010) (listing cases where circuit courts lacked jurisdiction over an appeal
because a party was “never named or otherwise designated, however inartfully” (emphasis added)
(citation omitted)). Here, we need not “scour the record” to know that T.L. intended to appeal, nor
guess at his intentions. Cf. Raley v. Hyundai Motor Co., 642 F.3d 1271, 1277-78 (10th Cir. 2011)
(declining to find jurisdiction where there was no indication throughout the briefing process that a
party wanted to pursue appeal). It is clear from the face of the timely-filed notice that T.L. meant
to appeal dismissal of his complaint by delegating authority to his mother to pursue all claims on
his behalf. Although this may have been an “inartful” way of designating T.L. as an appellant—
considering that it was premised on a power-of-attorney appointment that was never triggered—
8
That the power of attorney form was in fact deficient does not detract from the notice given. It therefore
does not affect our jurisdictional analysis. Rules 3 and 4 only require timely identification of the parties seeking
appeal. Whether the first power of attorney went into effect in April 2021 has no bearing on this issue. The sole
question before us, as far as jurisdiction goes, is whether the notice filed on April 28 makes it “objectively clear that
[T.L.] intended to appeal.” Fed. R. App. P. 3 advisory committee note to 1993 amendment. It does; therefore, the
notice satisfies Rules 3 and 4 regardless of the actual status of the power of attorney. Cf. Becker v. Montgomery, 532
U.S. 757, 767 (2001) (“[I]mperfections in noticing an appeal should not be fatal where no genuine doubt exists about
who is appealing, from what judgment, to which appellate court.”).
12
No. 21-3422, Li v. Revere Local School District
to say that T.L. was not designated at all goes too far. We are therefore satisfied that the
requirements of Rule 3(c) were met as to T.L. by counsel’s filing a notice of appeal on behalf of
“all Plaintiffs,” and including a clarifying footnote that specifically confirmed T.L.’s involvement
in the appeal.
Importantly, we note that our conclusion does not “in any way [] ‘waive’ the jurisdictional
requirement that a notice of appeal designate the [parties taking the appeal].” Dillon v. United
States, 184 F.3d 556, 558 (6th Cir. 1999). Nor do we enlarge T.L.’s time to appeal.9 We merely
construe the phrase “all Plaintiffs”—which was included in the original, timely-filed notice—to
identify T.L. as an appellant in accordance with Rule 3(c), where the rest of the notice makes
objectively clear that T.L. intended to challenge the district court’s decision. Cf. id. (applying a
liberal construction to a notice of appeal to conclude that it satisfied Rule 3, even though it failed
to expressly name the court to which the appeal was taken). We therefore conclude that we have
jurisdiction over T.L.’s claims and deny the motion to dismiss.
B. District court order granting motion to dismiss
We turn to the merits of the appeal. Although the district court dismissed all five counts of
the complaint, the Lis challenge only the dismissal of Count 2 (the IDEA claim) and Count 3 (the
Section 504 and ADA claim).
1. Res Judicata
The Lis first argue that the district court erred in dismissing Counts 2 and 3 on res judicata
grounds. But, as Defendants point out, the district court specifically held that only the “[Section]
1983, gross negligence, and intentional spoliation of evidence claims are barred under the doctrine
9
While Rule 2 provides that this court may “suspend any provision of these rules in a particular case and
order proceedings as it directs,” that power is qualified by the exceptions laid out in Rule 26(b), one of which is that
a court may not “extend” the time to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 26(b)(1).
13
No. 21-3422, Li v. Revere Local School District
of res judicata.” R. 29, PID 747. Consequently, it “grant[ed] Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Counts One, Four, and Five.” Id. The district court addressed Counts 2 and 3 separately,
dismissing Count 2 without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and Count 3
without prejudice for failure to exhaust and failure to plead plausible facts giving rise to an
inference of discrimination based on disability. The Lis agree with this assessment and explain in
their reply that they only briefed the issue in the event the court felt differently. We do not.
Because the district court stopped short of holding that res judicata barred Counts 2 and 3, and
instead dismissed both counts without prejudice on other grounds, there was no misapplication of
res judicata meriting reversal.
2. Exhaustion
The Lis next challenge the district court’s dismissal of Counts 2 and 3 for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies.
a. The district court erred in dismissing Count 2 in its entirety
The Lis’ first administrative complaint, which was indisputably exhausted, alleged two
claims: (1) that the Board “discriminated against T.L. by changing his educational placement . . .
without conducting a manifestation determination review, conducting an IEP evaluation and
holding [an] IEP meeting prior to the expulsion, or appropriately considering how his disabilities
affected his alleged behavior” (collectively, the Pre-Expulsion Claim); and (2) that “the school
refused to allow the Li’s to inspect all of T.L.’s educational records upon their request.” R. 21-6,
PID 244. The parties argued the Pre-Expulsion Claim before the IHO, who found that “[t]here
was insufficient evidence presented at the due process hearing that [T.L.] was entitled to an MDR.”
R. 21-7, PID 263. The Lis appealed this decision to the SLRO, who addressed the Pre-Expulsion
Claim in depth and agreed with the IHO. The Lis then specifically addressed the Pre-Expulsion
14
No. 21-3422, Li v. Revere Local School District
Claim in Count 2 of their complaint, alleging that Defendants “willfully violated the Expulsion
Policy and the IDEA by refusing to hold the IEP Team Meeting or provide an MDR to T.L. prior
to his expulsion,” “despite a proper request for one being made by David and Cindy Li.” R. 1,
PID 24-25. Based on this record, we agree with the Lis that by the time the instant action was
filed, the Pre-Expulsion Claim had been fully litigated through the ODE process and should have
been considered administratively exhausted.
The district court dismissed the Pre-Expulsion Claim on the basis that all issues raised by
the Lis in the first due process complaint were “inextricably intertwined” with the issues raised in
their second due process complaint. R. 29, PID 748. But as the Lis point out, the IDEA allows
separate proceedings. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(o) (“Nothing in this section shall be construed to
preclude a parent from filing a separate due process complaint on an issue separate from a due
process complaint already filed.”). And here, the District’s failure to provide an MDR, IEP
evaluation, and IEP team meeting in March 2016—prior to expulsion—is not inextricably
intertwined with its purported failure to provide a legally sufficient IEP after expulsion. Based on
the distinct temporal separation between the Pre-Expulsion Claim raised in the first administrative
complaint and all other claims raised in the second administrative complaint, the Pre-Expulsion
Claim properly stands alone and should not have been dismissed as inextricably intertwined with
the Lis’ unexhausted claims.
The district court also relied on Hesling v. Avon Grove School District, 428 F. Supp. 2d
262, 276 (E.D. Pa. 2006), aff’d sub nom. Hesling v. Seidenberger, 286 F. App’x 773 (3d Cir. 2008),
for the proposition that Count 2 must be dismissed, in its entirety, for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction because “several” of its allegations may be resolved in the Lis’ second due process
action. R. 29, PID 750. Although the IDEA requires litigants to exhaust state administrative
15
No. 21-3422, Li v. Revere Local School District
remedies before filing a federal action, the Supreme Court has cautioned that “[n]ot all mandatory
prescriptions, however emphatic, are . . . properly typed jurisdictional.” Union Pac. R.R. Co. v.
Bhd. of Locomotive Eng’rs & Trainmen Gen. Comm. of Adjustment, Cent. Region, 558 U.S. 67,
81 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). This has led to a circuit split over the nature of the
IDEA’s exhaustion requirement. Some circuit courts have found—or implied—that exhaustion
under the IDEA operates as a jurisdictional bar.10 Others have treated it as an affirmative defense
or claims-processing rule.11
The Sixth Circuit has not decided whether administrative exhaustion under the IDEA is a
jurisdictional requirement. See L.G. by & through G.G. v. Bd. of Educ. of Fayette Cnty., 775 F.
App’x 227, 231 n.3 (6th Cir. 2019) (“This circuit has not determined whether exhaustion under
the IDEA is a jurisdictional requirement.” (citing Gibson v. Forest Hills Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of
Educ., 655 F. App’x 423, 430–31 (6th Cir. 2016))). We have, however, twice implied the
10
The Second and Tenth Circuits concluded, albeit before Union Pacific, that exhaustion of administrative
remedies under the IDEA is a jurisdictional prerequisite. See Cave v. E. Meadow Union Free Sch. Dist., 514 F.3d
240, 245 (2d Cir. 2008) (“Failure to exhaust the administrative remedies deprives the court of subject matter
jurisdiction.”); Cudjoe v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 12, 297 F.3d 1058, 1063 (10th Cir. 2002) (“As this court must always
satisfy itself of jurisdiction before addressing the merits of a claim, we turn to the exhaustion issue first.”). Although
both circuits have since called those holdings into question, neither has revisited the issue. See Ventura de Paulino v.
NYC Dep’t of Educ., 959 F.3d 519, 530 & n.44 (2d Cir. 2020) (noting that it has “questioned more recently the
supposed jurisdictional nature of the [IDEA’s] exhaustion requirement,” but declining to reach the issue because no
party made a claim of waiver or forfeiture); Muskrat v. Deer Creek Pub. Schs., 715 F.3d 775, 783 (10th Cir. 2013)
(expressing skepticism at its precedent assuming the IDEA’s exhaustion requirement to be jurisdictional, and citing
favorable out-of-circuit caselaw to the contrary, but finding it unnecessary to resolve the issue because no party raised
a waiver argument).
11
The Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits consider exhaustion under the IDEA to be a waivable
affirmative defense, and have concluded that failure to exhaust administrative remedies does not deprive a court of
subject-matter jurisdiction. See Charlie F. v. Bd. of Educ. of Skokie Sch. Dist. 68, 98 F.3d 989, 991 (7th Cir. 1996)
(“Moreover, failure to exhaust administrative remedies does not deprive a court of jurisdiction; lack of exhaustion
usually is waivable, as lack of jurisdiction is not.”); Mosely v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chicago, 434 F.3d 527, 532-33
(7th Cir. 2006) (characterizing failure to exhaust as an affirmative defense); N.B. by D.G. v. Alachua Cnty. Sch. Bd.,
84 F.3d 1376, 1379 (11th Cir. 1996) (“The exhaustion requirement, however, is not jurisdictional[.]”); Payne v.
Peninsula Sch. Dist., 653 F.3d 863, 867–71 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that a failure to exhaust administrative remedies
is an affirmative defense rather than a jurisdictional prerequisite), overruled on other grounds by Albino v. Baca, 747
F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). And the Fourth Circuit recently overturned its precedent and held that exhaustion
under the IDEA “is not a jurisdictional requirement but a claims-processing rule.” K.I. v. Durham Pub. Schs. Bd. of
Educ., 54 F.4th 779, 792 (4th Cir. 2022).
16
No. 21-3422, Li v. Revere Local School District
contrary.12 In any event, we need not decide the issue here, because the Pre-Expulsion Claim was
clearly exhausted (jurisdictional), and Defendants clearly raised exhaustion as a defense (claims
processing).
Further, because the Pre-Expulsion Claim is temporally distinct from the remaining,
unexhausted claims, there is no guarantee that resolving the claims in the Lis’ second
administrative complaint—focused on T.L.’s special education after he left the District’s middle
school—will provide any relief for their Pre-Expulsion Claim—focused on whether T.L. should
have been forced to leave in the first place. Accordingly, the fact that Count 2 contained some
unexhausted claims did not deprive the district court of subject-matter jurisdiction over the clearly
exhausted Pre-Expulsion Claim where there was no overlap.
The Lis could seek no further relief at the administrative level for the Pre-Expulsion Claim;
the only remedies available once the administrative process was exhausted were in state or federal
court. The district therefore should have moved forward with the Pre-Expulsion Claim within
Count 2, and it erred in concluding otherwise. We thus reverse the district court’s order as to the
12
In Gibson, we held:
In light of [Union Pacific], we have lately broken with our own precedent and implied that the
IDEA’s exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional in nature. Compare Doe ex rel. Doe v. Dublin
City Sch. Dist., 453 Fed. Appx. 606, 609 (6th Cir. 2011) (observing with approval a school district’s
decision to “rais[e] the [parents’] failure to exhaust administrative remedies as an affirmative
defense”), with Metro. Bd. of Pub. Educ. v. Guest, 193 F.3d 457, 463 (6th Cir. 1999) (holding that
“the district court exceeded its jurisdiction to the extent that it . . . rule[d] upon issues beyond those
presented to the ALJ”).
655 F. App’x at 430-31. We continued by noting that the district court analyzed the relevant motion under both Rule
12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6), and the “dual analysis obviates any need for us to clarify which side of the split we are
on.” Id. at 431. Then in L.G. by & through G.G., we observed:
This circuit has not determined whether exhaustion under the IDEA is a jurisdictional requirement.
See Gibson v. Forest Hills Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 655 F. App’x 423, 430–31 (6th Cir. 2016).
We note, however, that the Supreme Court has recently held that Title VII’s administrative-
exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional but is, instead, a mandatory claims-processing rule.
Fort Bend County v. Davis, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 1843, 204 L.Ed.2d 116 (2019).
775 F. App’x at 231 n.3. But again, we did not resolve the issue. Id.; see also Jane Doe v. Knox Cnty. Bd. of Educ.,
56 F.4th 1076, 1084 (6th Cir. 2023).
17
No. 21-3422, Li v. Revere Local School District
portion of Count 2 based on the Pre-Expulsion Claim—that is, the claim that the District violated
the IDEA by denying the Lis’ request to conduct an MDR, an IEP evaluation, and an IEP team
meeting prior to T.L.’s expulsion.
b. The district court correctly dismissed all remaining claims as
unexhausted
All remaining claims were unexhausted and therefore properly dismissed. The first
administrative complaint contained no allegations regarding the District’s supposed interference
with T.L.’s application to the WRA, T.L.’s placement at Perspectives, David and Cindy Lis’
involvement in the IEP process, transportation, or the District’s implementation of the IEP post-
expulsion. Those claims were not presented until the second administrative complaint, filed in
September 2019. That second complaint had not yet been presented to the SLRO by the time the
Lis initiated this action, much less ruled on. Therefore, the Lis were not yet “aggrieved by the
findings and decision rendered” in these claims, as required by the IDEA to file suit in federal
court. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(g)(1), (i)(2)(A); see also Blackmon ex rel. Blackmon v. Springfield R–XII
School Dist., 198 F.3d 648, 655–56 (8th Cir. 1999) (“[U]nder well-established judicial
interpretations of the IDEA [the plaintiff] had an obligation to exhaust her administrative remedies
with regard to the issues upon which she seeks judicial review.”).
The Lis argue that the trial court erred because in dismissing these claims for failure to
exhaust, it “veered beyond the pleadings and attachments by considering the contents of an entirely
separate due process grievance.” Appellant Br. at 24-25. But it is unnecessary to refer to the
contents of the second complaint to determine that none of the Lis’ claims—besides the Pre-
Expulsion Claim—appear in their first administrative complaint. The district court needed only
to read the first administrative complaint to see that all claims premised upon Perspectives, the
18
No. 21-3422, Li v. Revere Local School District
WRA, IEP implementation, and parental involvement were not presented to the first IHO, and
therefore were not administratively exhausted. This argument is unavailing.
The district court likewise did not err in dismissing the Child-Find claims as unexhausted.
The Lis claim to have raised a Child-Find claim at every level. But they conflate the Pre-Expulsion
Claim and the Child-Find Claim, when the two are separate claims and the Lis only raised the
former in their first administrative complaint.
The Child-Find Claim, as laid out in Count 2, is that “Revere and the [Board] had actual
and constructive notice that T.L. was a student with a disability prior to February 26, 2016,”
therefore, “Revere and the [Board] had a duty to locate, evaluate, and identify T.L. as a student
with a disability prior to February 26, 2016 under the ‘Child Find’ requirements of the IDEA.” R.
1, PID 24 (emphasis added). Similarly, in Count 3 the Lis allege that “Revere and the [Board]
knew or should have known that T.L. was a child with a disability as early as elementary school.
While T.L. was eventually identified as student with a disability, Revere and the [Board] failed to
meet their ‘Child Find’ burden under Section 504 because they failed to timely identify, locate,
and evaluate T.L.” PID 27 (emphasis added).
The first administrative complaint contains no such claim. It alleges that T.L. suffered
bullying since his early years at Revere, that his parents contacted the school numerous times to
address bullying, and that the school harbored knowledge that T.L. was an “introverted and shy
young man who would not socialize with many people.” R. 21-6, PID 245. But at no point does
it allege that T.L. suffered any emotional disability in elementary school, or that Revere knew or
should have known about any disability prior to the events of February 26, 2016.
Further, the first administrative complaint does not allege that T.L. was entitled to an IEP
evaluation or IEP team meeting before February 26, 2016. It only claimed that the Lis requested
19
No. 21-3422, Li v. Revere Local School District
an MDR, IEP evaluation, and IEP meeting after the February 26th incident, and their request was
denied. Such an argument does not invoke the Child Find mandate, and “parties ‘exhaust’ state
administrative remedies only when they properly present their claims to the relevant state
administrative agency.” Gibson, 655 F. App’x at 432; see also 20 U.S.C.A. § 1415(i)(2)(A)
(providing that a party “shall have the right to bring a civil action with respect to the complaint
presented [to the state educational agency]”). Because the Lis failed to include a Child-Find claim
in their first complaint to the ODE, they cannot be said to have exhausted this claim for purposes
of the instant action.
Cindy Li resists this conclusion and argues that despite the absence of any Child-Find claim
in the original administrative complaint, the issue has nonetheless been exhausted because the IHO
addressed it. True, the IHO made a brief, unelaborated determination that the District did not
violate its Child-Find obligations. But the Lis did not contest this determination in their notice of
appeal, and so the SLRO failed to address it in its decision (or indeed, mention it at all). Instead,
the SLRO addressed the four grounds for appeal actually raised by the Lis in their notice: (1) the
IHO did not meet the minimum requirements to be an IHO; (2) the IHO improperly changed and
limited the Lis’ issues; (3) the IHO’s decision that there was “insufficient evidence presented to
conclude that Student was entitled to an MDR prior to discipline” was not supported by the
evidence or existing law; and (4) various procedural errors harmed the Lis’ ability to present their
case. R. 27-1, PID 592-93; R. 21-7, PID 269; R. 21-8, PID 282-83. These four claims are the only
ones that were properly presented to the SLRO, considered by the SLRO, and ruled upon by the
SLRO. They are therefore the only claims that can be considered administratively exhausted. See
Chambers ex. rel Chambers v. Sch. Dist. of Phila. Bd. of Educ., 587 F.3d 176, 186-87 n.14 (3d
Cir. 2009) (“[T]he IDEA provides that a party seeking judicial relief from the decision of state
20
No. 21-3422, Li v. Revere Local School District
administrative proceedings may do so only to the extent that the party sought such relief in those
proceedings.”). Although the third ground for appeal covers the Pre-Expulsion Claim—which
included the IHO’s finding that the District did not know about T.L.’s disability before the
February 26th event—at no point in their first administrative complaint or their notice of appeal
did the Lis invoke the separate concept of the Child-Find Mandate. They argued only that after
the February 26th incident happened, and after they requested special-education services, the
District was put on notice of T.L.’s emotional disability and therefore required to conduct an MDR.
Because a Child-Find Claim was not raised in the first place, never appealed by the Lis to the
SLRO, and never addressed by the SLRO, the district court did not err in dismissing the claim on
exhaustion grounds. Cf. W.R. v. Ohio Health Dep’t, 651 F. App’x 514, 518 (6th Cir. 2016)
(“A party cannot be ‘aggrieved by the findings and decision regarding an administrative
complaint’ if they have not first participated in an administrative proceeding.”) (citing 20 U.S.C.
§ 1439(a)(1)).
In sum, the first administrative complaint alleged solely that the District violated the IDEA
by denying the Lis’ requests for an MDR, IEP evaluation, and IEP team meeting prior to expulsion,
and that it refused to turn over certain academic records. The district court properly dismissed all
other claims in Count 2 as unexhausted.
3. Failure to State a Claim
Next, the Lis argue that the district court erred in dismissing Count 3—the ADA and
Section 504 discrimination claims—for failure to state a claim. Specifically, Cindy Li argues that
Revere’s refusal to provide an MDR and IEP Team Meeting before expelling T.L. constitutes bad
faith or gross misjudgment, as does the fact that Revere personnel observed “significant, adverse
changes in T.L.’s appearance, mood, and behavior as a result of constant bullying, but failed to
21
No. 21-3422, Li v. Revere Local School District
take any action to prevent the bullying, including failure to report bullying incidents.” Appellant
Br. at 38-39.
To establish an ADA or Section 504 claim, the Lis must plead plausible facts that give rise
to an inference that T.L. was subject to discrimination “by reason” of his disability. S.S. v. E. Ky.
Univ., 532 F.3d 445, 453 (6th Cir. 2008). The Sixth Circuit has explained that this requires a
showing of “bad faith or gross misjudgment.” G.C. v. Owensboro Pub. Schs., 711 F.3d 623, 635
(6th Cir. 2013). The Lis do not satisfy this requirement.
Count 3 mainly alleges that Defendants knew or should have known that T.L. had a
disability yet failed to timely identify, locate, and evaluate T.L. for an IEP. The Lis insist that this
failure to timely identify T.L. constitutes intentional discrimination. The district court correctly
perceived that the “clear thrust” of this claim mirrors the Child-Find claim, which—as discussed—
was properly dismissed as unexhausted. R. 29, PID 753. Any allegation that Defendants acted in
bad faith or committed gross misjudgment by failing to timely identify T.L. as a child with a
disability is necessarily rooted in the Child-Find Claim, which was not raised by the Lis in their
first administrative complaint, not appealed to the SLRO, and not addressed by the SLRO. The
district court therefore did not err in its conclusion that the Lis’ “failure to exhaust their
administrative remedies with respect to the Child Find issue precludes them from raising the issue
with this court.” PID 751.
In a citation of supplemental authority, the Lis point to the recent Supreme Court case Luna
Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, which held that the IDEA’s administrative exhaustion requirement
applies only to suits that seek relief also available under the IDEA, “[a]nd that condition simply is
not met . . . where a plaintiff brings a suit under another federal law for compensatory damages—
a form of relief everyone agrees IDEA does not provide.” 143 S. Ct. 859, 864 (2023). The Lis
22
No. 21-3422, Li v. Revere Local School District
argue that they too seek compensatory damages under the ADA and Section 504, and therefore
Count 3 need not have been administratively exhausted.
In Perez, the Supreme Court held that a suit “admittedly premised on the past denial of a
free and appropriate education may nonetheless proceed without exhausting IDEA’s
administrative processes if the remedy a plaintiff seeks is not one IDEA provides.” Id. at 865(emphasis added). Throughout this litigation, it has been unclear exactly what form of relief the
Lis seek from Count 3. They claim, in the citation of supplemental authority, that they seek
compensatory damages. But in the body of Count 3, the Lis merely state that Defendants’ actions
“deprived T.L. of the right to a free appropriate public education under Section 504 and the ADA,”
and as a result of such actions the Lis “suffered damages, continue to suffer extreme emotional
distress, the loss of educational opportunities, as well as other damages as a matter of law,
attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses.” R. 1, PID 28. At no point in their complaint do the Lis
explicitly ask the court for compensatory damages under the ADA and Section 504, as opposed to
some other form of relief like a compensatory education, reimbursement for T.L.’s educational
expenses, or equitable relief like expunging the expulsion from T.L.’s disciplinary record.13
We are therefore skeptical that Count 3 of the Lis’ complaint is comparable to the claims
in Perez. There, the plaintiff fully resolved his administrative complaint under the IDEA, obtained
all forward-looking equitable relief he requested (including additional schooling), and later, in an
independent action, unambiguously sought “backward-looking relief in the form of compensatory
damages.” 143 S. Ct. at 862. It is unclear from the Lis’ complaint whether they seek compensatory
damages—a form of relief not available under the IDEA, and therefore not required to be
13
In contrast, the Lis expressly request compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees for
Count 1, their Section 1983 claim.
23
No. 21-3422, Li v. Revere Local School District
exhausted—or some other form of relief like a compensatory education, reimbursement, or
equitable relief like expungement of T.L.’s disciplinary record—all remedies available under the
IDEA, and therefore subject to its exhaustion requirement. See Sch. Comm. of Town of Burlington
v. Dep’t of Educ. of Mass., 471 U.S. 359, 369 (1985) (“[We must] decide whether [the IDEA’s]
grant of authority [to courts to grant relief] includes the power to order school authorities to
reimburse parents for their expenditures on private special education for a child if the court
ultimately determines that such placement, rather than a proposed IEP, is proper under the Act.
We conclude that the Act authorizes such reimbursement.”); Garcia v. Bd. of Educ. of Albuquerque
Pub. Schs., 520 F.3d 1116, 1128 (10th Cir. 2008) (“First, and obviously based on the statutory
text, a district court may grant equitable relief to remedy a demonstrated violation of IDEA.”).
Regardless, even if Count 3 did expressly seek compensatory damages, and was therefore
exempt from the IDEA’s exhaustion requirements under Perez, the Lis fail to explain how the
mere failure to timely identify T.L. rises to the level of bad faith or gross misjudgment. “To prove
discrimination in the education context, something more than a mere failure to provide the free
appropriate education required by [the IDEA] must be shown.” S.S. v. E. Ky. Univ., 532 F.3d at
453 (quoting Sellers v. Sch. Bd. of Manassas, 141 F.3d 524, 528–29 (4th Cir. 1998)). “[E]ither
bad faith or gross misjudgment must be shown before a § 504 violation can be made out.”
Crochran through Shields v. Columbus City Schs., 748 F. App’x 682, 687 (6th Cir. 2018) (quoting
G.C. v. Owensboro Pub. Schs., 711 F.3d at 635). The Lis fail to allege any action by the District
or its Board that can be reasonably construed as an intentional act of bad faith, or any omission
rising to the level of gross misjudgment. At most, the complaint alleges that the District
negligently failed to timely identify T.L. Such actions do not give rise to an ADA or Section 504
claim and were therefore properly dismissed by the district court. See id.24
No. 21-3422, Li v. Revere Local School District
All remaining allegations in Count 3 are tied to bullying. The Lis allege that Defendants
failed to take any action to stop bullying and failed to implement any anti-bullying or anti-
harassment policies. According to the Lis, bullying deprived T.L. of a FAPE and the District’s
failure to prevent bullying constitutes gross misjudgment and bad faith. But again, the mere
“failure to provide [a FAPE]” does not rise to the level of discrimination in the Section 504 or
ADA context. S.S. v. E. Ky. Univ., 532 F.3d at 453. And even if it did, a plaintiff seeking to state
a claim under either the ADA or Section 504 must allege that they have been “subjected to
discrimination under the program by reason of his or her disability.” Id. At no point do the Lis
plausibly allege that this failure to tackle bullying was because of, or even related to, T.L.’s
disability. This is fatal to T.L.’s Section 504 and ADA claims. The district court therefore did not
err in dismissing Count 3 for failure to state a claim.
C. The denial of leave to amend
Finally, we turn to the district court’s ruling on the Lis’ motion to amend. Although the
district court was correct that the amended complaint failed to add any new substantive allegations,
and thus did not remedy any of the perceived defects with the Lis’ claims, the amended complaint
did seek to make a significant change: amending the caption to reflect the transfer of all claims to
T.L. The addition of any new party is a material change to a case. This is especially true when
the proposed new plaintiff is a minor who attained the age of majority, as happened here. That is
why, generally, district courts choose to address a minor reaching the age of majority and dismiss
guardians acting in a representative capacity.14 On remand, the district court is directed to address
14
Cf. Wilson v. Luttrell, 2000 WL 1359624, at *10 (6th Cir. 2000) (noting that a minor is the real party in
interest in a case brought by a next friend, therefore the district court did not err in removing the parent from the case
once the child reached the age of majority); Phillips v. Anderson Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 259 F. App’x 842, 843 n.1 (6th
Cir. 2008) (noting that the district court correctly dismissed the plaintiff’s father as a party because she had attained
25
No. 21-3422, Li v. Revere Local School District
this event and reevaluate whether T.L., the true party in interest, ought to be added to the case in
his personal capacity.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set out above, we find that the district court erred in dismissing the Pre-
Expulsion Claim on exhaustion grounds. We reverse in part and remand for further proceedings
solely on the portion of Count 2 based on this issue. We will affirm in all other respects.
the age of majority); Hill v. Blount Cnty. Schs., 2015 WL 13813827, at *2 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 9, 2015) (“Because S.H.
is no longer a minor nor under any legal disability under Tennessee law, her parents have lost all rights or standing to
bring this lawsuit as Next Friends. This necessitates the removal of Chi Hill and Jim Hill as the persons bringing the
claims in behalf of their emancipated daughter. Therefore, the claims of Chi Hill and Jim Hill brought in behalf of
S.H. must be dismissed, unless a substitution of the real party in interest occurs.”); Patterson v. Hudson Area Schs.,
2010 WL 455386, at *1-2 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 3, 2010) (granting defendants’ motion to amend caption to name the adult
son as plaintiff, despite power of attorney authorizing parents to act on his behalf).
26