## Facts

- Mark H. and Rie H., on behalf of their minor daughters Michelle and Natalie, alleged Hawaii public schools failed to properly evaluate and educate their autistic children.
- The state education agency evaluated the children and developed IEPs, but the plans allegedly rested on incorrect diagnoses and omitted appropriate autism-related services for an extended period.
- In IDEA administrative proceedings, a hearing officer found significant IDEA violations, including denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) and procedural deficiencies; the agency complied and did not appeal.
- The parents filed a federal action seeking, among other relief, compensatory and punitive damages under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act based on denial of FAPE and disability discrimination.

## Issues

1. Whether the availability of relief under the IDEA limits or precludes a damages remedy under § 504 for denial of FAPE.
2. Whether the Department of Education’s § 504 FAPE regulations are enforceable through § 504’s private right of action.
3. Whether an IDEA FAPE violation automatically establishes a § 504 FAPE violation (or otherwise disposes of the § 504 claim).
4. What mental state is required to recover compensatory damages under § 504 in the education context.
5. Whether Eleventh Amendment immunity bars § 504 damages claims against a state educational agency receiving federal funds.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment for defendants on the § 504 damages claims and remanded.
- IDEA remedies did not displace or limit potential damages under § 504 for a denial of FAPE.
- § 504’s FAPE regulations were privately enforceable through § 504 to the extent they validly implement and construe the statute.
- IDEA-FAPE and § 504-FAPE standards were overlapping but distinct; an IDEA administrative FAPE finding was not automatically dispositive of § 504 liability.
- Compensatory damages under § 504 required at least deliberate indifference, not merely negligence, and not necessarily discriminatory animus.
- Hawaii’s acceptance of federal funds effected a valid waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity for § 504 claims.

## Legal Principles

- The IDEA’s remedial scheme does not foreclose damages actions under § 504 for education-related disability discrimination or denial of meaningful access.
- § 504 regulations may be enforced via § 504’s private right of action when they are within the statute’s scope and authoritatively construe its anti-discrimination command.
- IDEA-FAPE focuses on compliance with IDEA’s substantive and procedural requirements for individualized educational programming; § 504-FAPE focuses on meeting disabled students’ educational needs as adequately as those of non-disabled students and ensuring meaningful access.
- Compensatory damages under § 504 require proof of intentional discrimination shown by deliberate indifference: knowledge that harm to a federally protected right is substantially likely and failure to act.
- A state agency that accepts federal financial assistance waives Eleventh Amendment immunity for § 504 claims.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit reinstated the parents’ § 504 damages claims, holding that § 504’s FAPE regulations can support a private damages action and that IDEA relief does not bar § 504 damages, provided plaintiffs prove a § 504 violation and deliberate indifference; it also held Hawaii waived sovereign immunity by accepting federal funds.


Mark H. v. Lemahieu, 513 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2008)