## Facts

- Christopher W., a student with learning and behavioral disabilities, received special-education services and multiple placements beginning in elementary school.
- He was diagnosed as “school phobic” and behaviorally disordered and at times placed in specialized programs, including a hospital day school and later self-contained classrooms.
- In high school, he was subject to an attendance policy removing students from classes and assigning failing grades when absences reached a set threshold; he received no academic credit due to extensive absences and tardiness.
- He also received suspensions and other discipline connected to attendance and behavior.
- A multidisciplinary team recommended continued self-contained placement but did not determine whether the conduct leading to discipline was related to his disability.
- Christopher’s mother obtained an independent behavior-management plan; the school committee declined to implement it.
- The family filed an early state administrative complaint that resulted in an order requiring the district to investigate and comply with applicable requirements.
- As disputes continued (including later programming decisions and refusal to reenroll Christopher), the family did not pursue additional due-process hearings or administrative appeals and instead filed a federal action under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA).

## Issues

1. Whether the EAHCA required Christopher and his mother to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit in federal district court, such that nonexhaustion deprived the court of subject-matter jurisdiction.
2. Whether an exception excused exhaustion (e.g., futility, inadequacy of administrative relief, or the presence of purely legal claims such as a general challenge to attendance/discipline policies).

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The plaintiffs failed to exhaust the EAHCA’s administrative procedures regarding the later and continuing disputes (including discipline-related decisions, program implementation, and reenrollment).
- No recognized exception to exhaustion applied because the administrative process could address the relief sought and develop a record on disability-related educational and behavioral questions.

## Legal Principles

- When plaintiffs seek relief for alleged denial or improper implementation of special-education rights within the EAHCA/IDEA remedial scheme, they must ordinarily exhaust the statute’s administrative procedures before suing in federal court.
- Initiating an administrative complaint at an earlier stage does not constitute exhaustion for later, evolving disputes if additional administrative steps (due-process hearing and review) remain available and uninvoked.
- Exceptions to exhaustion are limited; they do not apply when administrative procedures can provide meaningful relief, apply educational expertise to fact-intensive questions, and create an adequate record for judicial review.
- Disputes framed as discipline or attendance matters may still fall within the EAHCA/IDEA process when they relate to the provision of a free appropriate public education, including whether behavior is disability-related and whether services and placement appropriately address behavioral needs.

## Conclusion

The case held that EAHCA plaintiffs challenging disability-related educational programming and discipline-linked consequences must exhaust available administrative remedies, and that courts lack jurisdiction absent exhaustion unless a narrow exception is established.


Christopher W. v. Portsmouth Sch. Comm., 877 F.2d 1089 (1st Cir. 1989)