PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-1596

Z.W., a minor, by and through his parent and guardian, David Warner; DAVID WARNER,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

HORRY COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

DOES 1-10.

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (4:20-cv-00931-JD)

Argued: March 8, 2023 Decided: May 26, 2023

Before WYNN, HARRIS, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Reversed and remanded by published opinion. Judge Heytens wrote the opinion, in which Judge Wynn and Judge Harris joined. USCA4 Appeal: 21-1596 Doc: 47 Filed: 05/26/2023 Pg: 2 of 10

ARGUED: Mary Skahan Willis, ETHRIDGE LAW GROUP, LLC, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, for Appellants. Kevin Alan Hall, WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: R. Michael Ethridge, ETHRIDGE LAW GROUP, LLC, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, for Appellants. M. Todd Carroll, Bryant S. Caldwell, WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 21-1596 Doc: 47 Filed: 05/26/2023 Pg: 3 of 10

TOBY HEYTENS, Circuit Judge:

This case asks whether a student with disabilities had to exhaust state administrative

remedies before filing a disability discrimination suit against a school district. Concluding

the answer is “no,” we reverse the district court’s dismissal of the student’s complaint and

remand for further proceedings.

I.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and its implementing

regulations promise students with disabilities a “free appropriate public education” tailored

to their individual needs. 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d). The IDEA also grants various procedural

protections to parents, including “the right to bring a civil action” to address violations of

the statute. § 1415(i)(2)(A). Before suing, however, a parent generally must exhaust state

administrative remedies. See MM v. School Dist. of Greenville Cnty., 303 F.3d 523, 535–

36 (4th Cir. 2002).

The IDEA is not the only federal statute that protects students with disabilities from

unfair treatment. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) forbids any “public

entity” (including a school) from excluding, denying services to, or discriminating against

any “qualified individual with a disability.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. The Rehabilitation Act

imposes similar restrictions on “any program or activity receiving Federal financial

assistance” (including schools). 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). Unlike the IDEA, neither the ADA nor

the Rehabilitation Act requires plaintiffs to exhaust administrative remedies before suing

non-federal entities. See 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.101(a), 35.172(d) (ADA); Williams v. Milwaukee

3 USCA4 Appeal: 21-1596 Doc: 47 Filed: 05/26/2023 Pg: 4 of 10

Health Servs., Inc., 732 F.3d 770, 770–71 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 794a(a)(2))

(Rehabilitation Act).

This case involves the interaction between these three statutes, specifically the

question of when a plaintiff who is ostensibly suing under the ADA, the Rehabilit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document