## Facts

- D.L., a minor student with autism and other significant behavioral and medical conditions, had longstanding school-related toileting, emotional, and safety issues.
- D.L.’s prior educational programming included occupational therapy (OT) and sensory-based supports viewed as important to his ability to regulate behavior and access instruction.
- For fourth grade, the District’s IEP team selected Educational Therapeutic Support at Madison, a separate public day school for students with serious behavioral needs.
- At the time of the placement decision, Madison lacked autism-specific programming and did not provide direct OT or a sensory diet plan, and the IEP removed OT services.
- D.L.’s parents concluded the IEP and Madison placement could not meet his autism-related needs and unilaterally placed him at Giant Steps, a private autism-focused school where he received OT and related supports.
- Before the administrative hearing, Madison added autism-related resources, including a sensory room, but the District did not inform the parents of these changes or warn that reimbursement could be reduced if D.L. remained at Giant Steps.

## Issues

1. Whether the parents’ reimbursement claim was moot or outside federal jurisdiction because D.L. later left the District and attended private school.
2. Whether the District denied D.L. a free appropriate public education (FAPE) by proposing an IEP/placement that did not provide direct OT or a sensory plan to address autism-related needs.
3. Whether tuition reimbursement could be limited based on later improvements at the proposed public placement that were not communicated to the parents.

## Decision

- The court rejected the District’s jurisdiction and mootness arguments because the complaint sought compensation for past educational obligations and was filed while D.L. was enrolled in the District.
- The court held the District denied FAPE by placing D.L. in a program that, at the time of the decision, lacked direct OT and a sensory plan despite D.L.’s known autism-related needs and history of requiring those supports.
- The court held the district court improperly limited reimbursement based on subsequent, undisclosed improvements at Madison.
- Disposition: affirmed the finding of a FAPE denial; reversed the reimbursement limitation; remanded with instructions to award full tuition reimbursement for Giant Steps.

## Legal Principles

- A FAPE/IEP must be reasonably calculated to enable progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances and known disability-related needs.
- A placement that omits necessary related services (such as OT and sensory supports for autism) can constitute a substantive denial of FAPE.
- The legality and adequacy of an IEP/placement are assessed based on the information and program available when the decision is made; later changes do not retroactively cure a denial of FAPE.
- Equitable reductions in tuition reimbursement are improper when based on post-decision improvements that were not disclosed to parents, because lack of notice undermines informed parental decision-making.
- Reimbursement claims for past educational expenses are not mooted by a later move or change in enrollment when the dispute concerns past obligations.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit held that the District denied D.L. a FAPE by proposing a placement and IEP that omitted direct OT and sensory supports necessary for his autism-related needs, and it required full tuition reimbursement for the parents’ unilateral private placement because later, undisclosed improvements at the public school could not justify limiting relief.


D.L. ex rel. Landon v. St. Louis City Sch. Dist., 950 F.3d 1057 (8th Cir. 2020)