Albright v. Mountain Home School District, No. 17-3298 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of the school district in an action originally alleging that plaintiff's daughter, a young student with autism and significant intellectual deficits, was not provided a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Plaintiff also brought additional claims for constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. 1983, disability discrimination and retaliation under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, disability discrimination under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and violations of Arkansas law.
The court found no clear error in the district court's factual findings and gave due weight to the hearing officer's credibility determinations, concluding that the child was not denied a FAPE. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motions for extensions of time and her motion to accept her summary judgment response out of time. The court also held that some of plaintiff's claims were barred for failure to exhaust and that her retaliation claim based on a violation of the IDEA also failed.
Court Description: Wollman, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Grasz, Circuit Judge] Civil case - Individuals with Disabilities Act. The district court's finding that Child Doe was not denied a Free and Appropriate Public Education is affirmed; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for extension of time and to file a response an out-of-time response to a summary judgment motion; the district court did not err in concluding plaintiff had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies with respect to certain of her allegations; because of the court's decision that the District did not violate the IDEA, a retaliation suit under Section 504 based on an IDEA violation is precluded.
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.