The court of appeals affirmed a district court judgment in part, reversed in part, and remanded the action for further proceedings. The court held that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s administrative exhaustion requirement is an affirmative defense, rather than a limitation on federal jurisdiction, that defendants must plead on pain of waiver or forfeiture. The court held further that the Act’s exhaustion provision applies only in cases where the relief sought by a plaintiff in the pleadings is available under the IDEA, so that non-IDEA claims that do not seek relief available under the IDEA are not subject to the exhaustion requirement even if they allege injuries that could conceivably have been redressed by the IDEA.
At age 7, D.P. was placed in a special education classroom at an elementary school in the Peninsula School District. Jodi Coy was D.P.’s teacher. Coy used a small room, about the size of a closet, as a time-out room or “safe room” for students who became “overly stimulated.” D.P.’s parents ultimately did not agree with Coy’s use of the room for D.P., but Coy continued despite their requests that she stop.
