## Facts

- L.J., a student with autism and a speech-and-language impairment, received special-education services under the IDEA.
- As L.J. transitioned to middle school, the School Board proposed a new IEP; L.J.’s mother challenged its adequacy and invoked the IDEA “stay-put” provision.
- During the dispute, L.J. continued under the last agreed-upon elementary-school IEP while administrative and federal-court proceedings continued.
- In an initial due-process proceeding, an ALJ found the proposed new IEP substantively appropriate and found adequate implementation of the elementary IEP during that administrative phase; the district court affirmed.
- While the first matter remained in federal court, L.J.’s mother filed a second due-process complaint alleging the School Board failed to implement significant parts of the stay-put elementary IEP during the federal-court phase.
- A second ALJ found the School Board failed to implement “significant provisions” of the IEP and awarded relief.
- On review, the district court reversed the second ALJ, concluding there was no actionable failure to implement the IEP.
- L.J. and his mother appealed to the Eleventh Circuit.

## Issues

1. What standard governs an IDEA claim alleging failure to implement an IEP: any deviation from the IEP, or only a material failure to implement substantial or significant provisions?
2. Under the proper standard, did the School Board’s alleged implementation shortcomings during the stay-put period amount to a denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE)?

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment for the School Board.
- The court adopted a “materiality” standard for failure-to-implement claims: liability requires failure to implement substantial or significant provisions of the IEP.
- Applying that standard, the court held the School Board did not materially deviate from L.J.’s IEP and therefore did not deny FAPE.
- The court upheld the district court’s rejection of the second ALJ’s conclusion that the identified lapses constituted actionable nonimplementation.

## Legal Principles

- An IDEA implementation violation occurs only when a school materially fails to implement substantial or significant provisions of a student’s IEP.
- Minor, technical, or non-material deviations from an IEP do not, without more, establish a denial of FAPE.
- Implementation claims are evaluated in light of the IDEA’s substantive guarantee of educational benefit; the IEP serves as the operative measure of that guarantee, and only material departures that compromise it are actionable.
- In IDEA judicial review, a district court must give “due weight” to administrative findings but may reach a different conclusion based on the preponderance of the evidence; appellate review is de novo on legal questions with deference to the district court’s application of the standard to the record.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit held that an IDEA failure-to-implement claim requires proof of a material failure to carry out substantial or significant IEP provisions and concluded that the School Board’s identified shortcomings did not materially alter L.J.’s program or deny him FAPE.


L.J. ex rel. N.N.J. v. Sch. Bd. of Broward Cnty., 927 F.3d 1203 (11th Cir. 2019)