Tenth Circuit rejects categorical “hub” placements: Individualized placement determinations are required under IDEA, ADA, and Section 504; futility excuses Section 504 exhaustion when hearing officers lack jurisdiction

Tenth Circuit rejects categorical “hub” placements: Individualized placement determinations are required under IDEA, ADA, and Section 504; futility excuses Section 504 exhaustion when hearing officers lack jurisdiction

Introduction

In Jacobs v. Salt Lake City School District, No. 23-4058 (10th Cir. Oct. 9, 2025), the Tenth Circuit revives systemic challenges brought by two elementary school students with intellectual disabilities and the Disability Law Center (Utah’s P&A) to the District’s centralized “hub” model. Plaintiffs alleged the District predetermines placement for students with intellectual disabilities based solely on IQ categories and assigns them to self-contained classes at designated “hub” schools, without first conducting individualized placement determinations or meaningfully considering placement in general education with supplementary aids and services.

The district court dismissed the suit at the pleading stage, reading the complaint as asserting only an entitlement to attend a neighborhood school—relief the Tenth Circuit has previously held is not guaranteed. The court of appeals disagreed with that characterization, holding that plaintiffs plausibly alleged unlawful predetermination of placement, a distinct claim cognizable under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504). The panel also held that Section 504 exhaustion is excused as futile where IDEA hearing officers lack jurisdiction to hear ADA/Section 504 claims. The case is remanded for further proceedings.

Summary of the Opinion

  • Neighborhood school vs. individualized placement: The court rejects the district court’s narrow reading that plaintiffs sought only neighborhood-school placement. Instead, the complaint plausibly alleges the District predetermines placements based on IQ categories and a “hub” model, without individualized assessments and without first considering general education with supports.
  • IDEA claim reinstated: Allegations that the District fails to make individualized, IEP-based placement determinations and fails to consider the continuum of placements and the least restrictive environment (LRE) state a plausible IDEA claim. The court cites K.D. v. Department of Education (9th Cir.) for the principle that predetermining placement violates IDEA.
  • ADA and Section 504 claims reinstated: Plaintiffs plausibly allege denial of equal opportunity and failure to provide services in the most integrated setting appropriate, in violation of Title II and Section 504.
  • Exhaustion for Section 504: Although plaintiffs did not present a Section 504 claim in the IDEA administrative process, exhaustion is excused as futile because hearing officers lack jurisdiction over ADA/Section 504 claims (as shown by dismissal of plaintiffs’ ADA claims in the administrative proceedings).
  • Standing: The court confirms Article III standing for the individual student plaintiffs.
  • Scope of appeal: Plaintiffs did not adequately plead judicial challenges to the outcomes of their individual IDEA hearings; only their systemic/representational claims proceed. The effect of the unchallenged administrative decisions on the systemic claims is left for the district court to consider on remand.

Background

In 2019, the Salt Lake City School District implemented a “hub” system that consolidates services for students with intellectual disabilities at a handful of schools. Students are “categorized” as “mild/moderate” or “severe” based on IQ thresholds and assigned accordingly to specific hub schools with self-contained classes. Plaintiffs allege these assignments occur without individualized analysis of the student’s needs and without meaningful consideration of placement in general education with supplementary aids and services in their home schools.

Plaintiffs are two individual students, E.J. and H.S., and the Disability Law Center (Utah’s Protection & Advocacy system). Each student pursued IDEA due process; the hearing officers dismissed their ADA claims for lack of jurisdiction and rejected (E.J.) or refused to hear (H.S., due to lack of parental consent to services) the individual IDEA claims. Plaintiffs filed a federal suit asserting systemic violations of IDEA, ADA, and Section 504. The district court dismissed, concluding plaintiffs sought a right to attend a neighborhood school. The Tenth Circuit reverses.

Detailed Analysis

Precedents and Authorities Cited and Their Role

  • Murray ex rel. Murray v. Montrose County School District RE-1J, 51 F.3d 921 (10th Cir. 1995) and Urban ex rel. Urban v. Jefferson County School District R-1, 89 F.3d 720 (10th Cir. 1996): Establish there is no absolute right to attend the neighborhood school; proximity is a factor, not a mandate. The panel distinguishes Murray/Urban: plaintiffs here challenge predetermination and failure to individualize—not merely insistence on neighborhood-school attendance.
  • Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, 580 U.S. 386 (2017) and Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982): Confirm IDEA’s core requirement of an IEP “tailored to the unique needs” of the child and meaningful progress. Support the individualized nature of IDEA decision-making.
  • Ellenberg v. New Mexico Military Institute, 478 F.3d 1262 (10th Cir. 2007): Emphasizes LRE and the required “continuum of alternative placements.” Bolsters the claim that categorical placements conflict with IDEA’s individualized, continuum-based scheme.
  • T.Y. v. New York City Department of Education, 584 F.3d 412 (2d Cir. 2009): Clarifies “educational placement” concerns programmatic level (services and setting), not bricks-and-mortar; supports the distinction between program placement and specific school location.
  • K.D. ex rel. C.L. v. Department of Education, 665 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2011): A district violates IDEA if it predetermines placement or steers the IEP to a predetermined placement; persuasive authority the Tenth Circuit invokes to frame predetermination as an actionable IDEA violation.
  • Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools, 580 U.S. 154 (2017) and Luna Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, 598 U.S. 142 (2023): Interpret IDEA’s exhaustion provision, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(l). The panel uses these to situate when exhaustion is required and why futility applies here for Section 504.
  • Chavez ex rel. M.C. v. New Mexico Public Education Department, 621 F.3d 1275 (10th Cir. 2010): Recognizes futility exception to IDEA exhaustion; relied upon to excuse Section 504 exhaustion given hearing officers’ lack of jurisdiction.
  • N.M. Association for Retarded Citizens v. New Mexico, 678 F.2d 847 (10th Cir. 1982) and Association for Community Living in Colorado v. Romer, 992 F.2d 1040 (10th Cir. 1993): Acknowledge representational/class claims challenging systemic failures under Section 504 and IDEA; support allowing plaintiffs’ systemic assault on the hub system to proceed.
  • G.T. v. Board of Education of County of Kanawha, 117 F.4th 193 (4th Cir. 2024): Cited as a survey of IDEA class actions; shows nationwide recognition of systemic IDEA litigation.
  • Regulations:
    • 34 C.F.R. § 300.114(a)(2), § 300.115, § 300.116: LRE mandate, continuum of placements, and placement based on the IEP and as close as possible to home.
    • 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(2), (b)(7): ADA Title II regulations on equal participation and reasonable modifications.
    • 28 C.F.R. § 41.51(d): Section 504 regulation requiring services in the “most integrated setting appropriate.”
  • Twombly/Iqbal pleading standards: The court applies plausibility review and holds the complaint adequately alleges unlawful predetermination and discrimination.

Legal Reasoning

The Tenth Circuit’s analysis proceeds in three principal steps.

1) IDEA: Predetermination as a plausible claim

The IDEA requires individualized, IEP-based placement determinations that prioritize education in the least restrictive environment and consider the full continuum of placements, including general education with supplementary aids and services. The complaint alleges the District categorizes students with intellectual disabilities solely by IQ and assigns them to self-contained hub schools as a matter of policy and administrative convenience—without individualized analysis, without meaningful consideration of general education, and without considering proximity except insofar as the hub model dictates. Accepting these allegations as true at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, the court holds this states a plausible IDEA violation. Predetermination of placement contravenes the IDEA’s individualized decision-making structure.

Critically, the panel distinguishes the plaintiffs’ claims from a categorical demand to be educated at a neighborhood school. Under Murray and Urban, there is only a preference for neighborhood-school placement; it is not guaranteed. But that principle does not insulate a district from claims that it is predetermining placements and failing to individualize. The court emphasizes the key regulatory text: placement must be “based on the child’s IEP” and, unless the IEP requires otherwise, the child should be educated in the school he or she would attend if nondisabled, with proximity considered as a factor.

The District’s reliance on a hearing officer’s individualized finding in E.J.’s case is premature at the pleading stage. The court must credit plaintiffs’ systemic allegations; any contrary factfinding belongs to later stages on a fuller record.

2) ADA and Section 504: Equal access and integration

The same factual allegations also plausibly state discrimination under Title II and Section 504. Plaintiffs allege they are denied an equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from educational services offered to nondisabled peers and are denied services in the most integrated setting appropriate. Those allegations align with the statutory and regulatory mandates prohibiting exclusion and segregation on the basis of disability and requiring reasonable modifications to avoid discrimination. The court relies on the long-standing Tenth Circuit view that when a federally funded education system’s practices preclude students with disabilities from obtaining system benefits realized by nondisabled peers, a Section 504 violation may be found.

3) Exhaustion and futility for Section 504

While 20 U.S.C. § 1415(l) requires exhaustion of IDEA remedies before bringing ADA/Section 504 claims that seek relief also available under IDEA, the court holds that exhaustion of Section 504 was futile here. In the students’ IDEA proceedings, hearing officers dismissed ADA claims for lack of jurisdiction; those same officers would have lacked jurisdiction over Section 504 claims. Insisting on presentation of a Section 504 claim to a forum that cannot hear it would be pointless. Accordingly, the district court erred in dismissing Section 504 for failure to exhaust.

Impact and Implications

For school districts

  • Center-based “hub” models are not per se unlawful, but they cannot be administered as categorical assignment systems that bypass individualized IEP-based placement analysis. A district-wide policy that defaults students with disabilities to segregated settings based on disability category (e.g., IQ cutoffs) risks violating IDEA, ADA, and Section 504.
  • Document individualized decision-making: IEP teams must show they considered general education with supplementary aids and services, the full continuum of placements, and proximity to home, and that the selected placement is based on the child’s unique needs—not administrative convenience, program availability, or space.
  • Integration mandate: ADA/Section 504 require services in the most integrated setting appropriate. Segregation for efficiency is not a defense; reasonable modifications must be considered unless they would fundamentally alter the program.

For parents, guardians, and advocates

  • Systemic predetermination claims are viable at the pleading stage: Carefully plead facts showing categorical or policy-driven placements, absence of individualized analysis, and failure to consider general education with supports.
  • Exhaustion strategy: ADA/Section 504 claims may not need to be exhausted where the IDEA forum lacks jurisdiction to hear them; however, pleading and preserving the futility basis is prudent. By contrast, individualized IDEA claims typically require exhaustion and clear presentation if you intend to challenge the administrative outcomes in court.
  • Neighborhood school expectations: There is no absolute right to the neighborhood school; the stronger claim is that the district must conduct individualized placement analysis, consider general education with supports, and consider proximity as a factor.

For litigation in the Tenth Circuit

  • Pleading line clarified: Murray/Urban do not bar claims alleging systemic predetermination or failure to individualize. Complaints emphasizing individualized decision-making failures will survive Rule 12(b)(6).
  • Section 504 exhaustion hurdle lowered where administrative jurisdiction is absent: Jacobs provides clear Tenth Circuit support for futility where hearing officers lack authority to resolve ADA/Section 504 claims.
  • Class/representational posture viable: The court’s discussion and citations reaffirm the availability of systemic IDEA/Section 504 litigation, even as questions of class certification or representative adequacy remain for later stages.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • FAPE (Free Appropriate Public Education): Under IDEA, schools must provide special education and related services tailored to the child’s unique needs through an IEP.
  • IEP (Individualized Education Program): A written plan developed by an IEP team (including parents) that sets goals and specifies services and placement; placement decisions must be based on the IEP.
  • LRE (Least Restrictive Environment): Children with disabilities must be educated with nondisabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate; removal from general education is allowed only when education there cannot be achieved satisfactorily even with supports.
  • Continuum of placements: Districts must make available a range of placements—from general education with supports to special classes, special schools, home or hospital instruction.
  • Educational “placement” vs. school “location”: “Placement” refers to the educational program and setting (e.g., general education with support, special class)—not necessarily the specific building. Regulations also require placement as close as possible to home and, absent IEP-required alternatives, in the school the child would attend if nondisabled.
  • Predetermination: When a district decides a student’s placement or services outside the IEP process and then steers the IEP to that decision, it violates IDEA’s requirement of individualized, team-based decision-making.
  • Integration mandate (ADA/Section 504): Services must be delivered in the most integrated setting appropriate, favoring inclusion with nondisabled peers absent a legitimate, individualized reason to segregate.
  • Exhaustion and futility: Generally, families must use IDEA’s administrative process before suing under ADA/Section 504 if they seek relief available under IDEA. If the administrative forum lacks jurisdiction to hear those claims, requiring exhaustion is futile and excused.

Key Takeaways

  • Newly clarified principle in the Tenth Circuit: Allegations that a district predetermines special education placements via a categorical, hub-based system—without individualized analysis mandated by IDEA, ADA, and Section 504—state plausible claims and cannot be dismissed as mere “neighborhood school” demands.
  • Section 504 exhaustion is excused as futile where IDEA hearing officers lack jurisdiction over ADA/Section 504 claims; plaintiffs need not perform a useless administrative exercise.
  • Districts must prioritize individualized, IEP-based LRE decisions and cannot rely on administrative convenience, space, or preconfigured programs as the primary drivers of placement.
  • Systemic/representational challenges are viable avenues for addressing district-wide placement practices, though parties should expressly plead any intended appeals of individual hearing decisions if they want those adjudications reviewed.

Conclusion

Jacobs meaningfully refines the Tenth Circuit’s special education jurisprudence by separating an impermissible systemic predetermination claim from an impermissible demand for a guaranteed neighborhood-school placement. The decision underscores IDEA’s core commitment to individualized, IEP-based placement in the least restrictive environment and harmonizes that commitment with ADA/Section 504’s integration requirements. It also eases the exhaustion path for Section 504 claims where administrative tribunals cannot hear them, recognizing futility in such circumstances. On remand, the parties and district court will grapple with the factual merits, but Jacobs already sends a clear signal: district-wide policies that effectively default students with disabilities into segregated programs, without individualized analysis and consideration of general education with supports, face serious legal jeopardy under IDEA, ADA, and Section 504.

Case Details

Year: 2025
Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Comments