## Facts

- Kevin Fitzgerald, a high school student eligible for special education under the IDEA due to an emotional disability, also had diagnoses including Tourette’s Syndrome, ADHD, generalized anxiety disorder, and OCD.
- Kevin experienced anxiety-related symptoms affecting attendance and performance; the school developed and annually updated his IEP.
- The IEP reflected behavioral concerns, including being negative or sarcastic toward teachers and being drawn into inappropriate behavior.
- Kevin participated in a paintball attack on his high school, persuading other students to drive to the school and shoot paintball guns at the building and vehicles.
- The misconduct was carried out over several hours with multiple trips to obtain additional supplies; Kevin played a leading role.
- The principal recommended expulsion, in part because state law mandated expulsion for bringing certain weapons, including the type of paintball gun at issue, onto school property.
- The school convened a Manifestation Determination Review (MDR) to decide whether the conduct was a manifestation of Kevin’s disability and whether the IEP had been properly implemented.
- The MDR team found the conduct was not caused by, and did not have a direct and substantial relationship to, Kevin’s disability, and that the IEP and its implementation were appropriate.
- Kevin was suspended for the remainder of the school year; his parents challenged the MDR through an IDEA due process hearing, and an independent hearing officer upheld the MDR.
- The parents sought judicial review in federal court; the parties filed cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record.

## Issues

1. Whether the school district violated IDEA procedural requirements in conducting the MDR, including notice, parental participation, and proper team composition and review of relevant information.
2. Whether Kevin’s paintball-related misconduct was caused by, or had a direct and substantial relationship to, his disability (or resulted directly from failure to implement the IEP), requiring the conduct to be treated as a manifestation under the IDEA.
3. Whether the resulting long-term removal violated the IDEA’s requirement of a free appropriate public education (FAPE).

## Decision

- The court granted the school board’s motion for judgment on the administrative record and denied the parents’ motion.
- The court held the MDR complied with IDEA procedures, including adequate notice and parental opportunity to participate, proper team membership, and review of relevant information (IEP, evaluations, and parental input).
- The court upheld the MDR’s substantive conclusion that the conduct was not a manifestation of Kevin’s disability and was not the direct result of any failure to implement the IEP.
- The court affirmed the administrative decision and the long-term suspension.

## Legal Principles

- In IDEA civil actions reviewing administrative outcomes, the court gives “due weight” to administrative findings while independently deciding the case based on the preponderance of the evidence in the administrative record.
- An MDR must find misconduct is a manifestation if either: (a) the conduct was caused by, or had a direct and substantial relationship to, the child’s disability, or (b) the conduct was the direct result of the school’s failure to implement the IEP.
- Alleged procedural violations under the IDEA warrant relief only if they significantly impede parental participation, deprive the student of educational benefits, or otherwise result in denial of FAPE.
- Evidence of planned, extended, and organized misconduct may support a finding that the behavior is not directly caused by, and lacks a direct and substantial relationship to, a student’s disability, particularly where the IEP is appropriate and implemented.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed the school district’s IDEA-compliant MDR and the administrative ruling, holding that Kevin’s premeditated paintball vandalism was not a manifestation of his disability and could be disciplined as it would be for a nondisabled student.


Fitzgerald v. Fairfax Cnty. Sch. Bd., 556 F. Supp. 2d 543 (E.D. Va. 2008)