## Facts

- Terri Ann Miener, a minor with serious learning and behavioral disabilities following a recurrent brain tumor and surgery, sought special education services.
- In 1976, after hospital release, her father requested evaluation and special education from the Special School District of St. Louis County (SSD).
- SSD determined she was eligible for special education, but she allegedly did not receive appropriate educational services for an extended period.
- Her father placed her in a state mental hospital when he could not afford private educational placement.
- In 1979, Miener sued state and local governmental entities alleging denial of special education and related rights.
- She asserted claims under the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA), § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking mainly compensatory educational services for past denial of appropriate education.

## Issues

1. Whether, after Burlington School Committee v. Department of Education, compensatory educational services are available under the EHA as equitable relief rather than barred “damages.”
2. Whether the complaint stated viable claims against the named state defendants under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act for denial of appropriate educational services to a handicapped child.
3. Whether § 1983 claims (including constitutional/statutory theories) could proceed against the state defendants, or were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity and limitations arising from the EHA’s remedial scheme.
4. Whether the pleadings adequately connected the challenged deprivation to the conduct or legally relevant responsibilities of the specific state-level defendants.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit held that relief is available under the EHA, concluding that compensatory educational services may be awarded as equitable relief in light of Burlington.
- The court rejected the earlier characterization of compensatory education as categorically unavailable “damages” under the EHA.
- The court affirmed dismissal of the remaining claims in the complaint, including claims seeking damages and various § 504 and § 1983 theories against the state defendants.
- The court limited potential recovery to properly framed equitable relief and required an adequate link between the alleged denial and the particular defendants’ actions or omissions.

## Legal Principles

- The EHA’s authorization to “grant such relief as the court determines is appropriate” permits equitable remedies with retrospective effect, including compensatory education, to remedy past denial of a free appropriate public education.
- Compensatory educational services may function as equitable relief to place a disabled child in the position the child would have occupied absent statutory violations, and are not automatically barred as “damages.”
- Claims for monetary relief against a state or state officials in their official capacities are generally barred by the Eleventh Amendment absent a valid waiver or congressional abrogation.
- Where Congress provides a detailed remedial scheme for enforcing a federal education right, efforts to recast those violations as broader § 1983 claims may be restricted.
- To proceed against particular state-level officials or agencies, a plaintiff must plead a concrete basis tying those defendants to the alleged denial, beyond generalized supervisory authority.

## Conclusion

The court aligned EHA remedies with Burlington by recognizing compensatory education as available equitable relief, but it largely upheld dismissal of Miener’s other statutory and constitutional theories against state defendants, limiting the case to narrowly defined, properly pleaded equitable relief.


Miener v. Missouri, 800 F.2d 749 (8th Cir. 1986)