I.Z.M. v. Rosemount-Apple Valley-Eagan Public Schools, No. 16-1918 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseMinn. Stat. 125A.06(d), by its plain language, does not impose a heightened standard that burdens school districts with an absolute obligation to guarantee that each blind student will use the Braille instruction provided to attain a specific level of proficiency. I.Z.M. filed suit against the District, alleging claims under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and non-IDEA claims for relief under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of the District's motions for judgment on the administrative record on the IDEA claim and for summary judgment on the non-IDEA claims. In this case, the ALJ cited the state regulation and expressly concluded that the District took all reasonable steps to provide instructional materials in accessible formats in a timely manner. In regard to the non-IDEA claims, the district court used the correct standard and correctly concluded that I.Z.M. failed to present evidence of bad faith or gross misjudgment
Court Description: Loken, Author, with Colloton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil Case - Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. On appeal from the district court's conclusion that the District took steps to provide I.Z.M. accessible instructional materials in a timely manner, that I.Z.M. received an educational benefit from the services provided, and that to the extent the District imperfectly complied with IEP requirements, the IDEA does not require perfection, the district court did not err in applying an incorrect standard. State law did not impose a heightened standard to guarantee that a blind student will use Braille instruction provided to attain a specific level of proficiency, only that the instruction is sufficient to enable attainment of a specified level of proficiency; Department of Education regulations do not create a heightened "strict" compliance standard; the District took all reasonable steps to provide instructional materials in accessible formats in a timely manner. Because the district court concluded I.Z.M. failed to present evidence of bad faith or gross misjudgment, the dismissal of the non-IDEA claims is affirmed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.