## Facts

- Parents of handicapped children and a legal services organization sued Connecticut’s education commissioner, the state board of education, and board members.
- Plaintiffs alleged Connecticut failed to establish and implement adequate statewide complaint-resolution procedures for disputes involving handicapped children’s educational rights.
- Plaintiffs asserted violations of the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA), related federal education regulations requiring complaint procedures for federally funded programs, and federal rights enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief requiring the state to adopt compliant complaint-resolution procedures, rather than relief tied to a single child’s individualized education program (IEP).
- Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c).
- The district court granted the motion, ruling that the EHA’s remedial scheme displaced § 1983 and barred the action.
- Plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether alleged violations of the EHA and related federal regulations may be enforced through a private action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
2. Whether the administrative remedies associated with EHA procedures must be exhausted (or excused) before bringing a § 1983 action challenging statewide complaint-resolution mechanisms.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed the judgment on the pleadings and remanded.
- The court held § 1983 was available to enforce the asserted federal statutory and regulatory rights because Congress had not clearly foreclosed a § 1983 remedy for these claims.
- The court held the EHA exhaustion requirement did not preclude the suit because the complaint alleged systemic procedural failures and the administrative process was not designed to provide the statewide injunctive relief sought (and, to the extent applicable, exhaustion would be futile or inadequate).

## Legal Principles

- A § 1983 remedy for deprivation of federal statutory rights is presumed available unless Congress expressly or impliedly precludes it.
- An education statute’s detailed procedures do not displace § 1983 absent clear congressional intent to make the statute’s remedies exclusive for the particular rights and injuries asserted.
- EHA administrative exhaustion requirements are tailored to child-specific disputes (e.g., identification, evaluation, placement, or provision of FAPE) and may be inapplicable to, or excused for, systemic challenges seeking structural relief beyond the scope of administrative hearings.
- Federal education regulations requiring state complaint procedures can create enforceable obligations that support § 1983 claims when the state allegedly fails to implement required complaint-resolution mechanisms.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit allowed plaintiffs to proceed under § 1983 to pursue injunctive relief for alleged statewide failures in complaint-resolution procedures related to special-education obligations, and it held that EHA exhaustion did not bar a systemic, structural challenge seeking relief unavailable through the statute’s individual due-process framework.


Mrs. W. v. Tirozzi, 832 F.2d 748 (2d Cir. 1987)