Abstract:
The IDEA’s exhaustion provision is subject to confusion among courts as well as the parties. Its proper judicial compromise that this provision represents in reversing the Smith v. Robinson exclusivity ruling. The result of the confusion is making the adjudicative process under federal special education laws even more ponderous and wasteful and, in some cases, leaving plaintiff-parents in an inescapable dead end for the § 504/ADA claims. Although not necessarily resolving the relatively limited issues at their margins to a definitive extent, the two culminating recommendations of this Article provides an interpretation of the exhaustion provision before, after, and, thus, separable from Fry that aligns with the purposes of exhaustion, the language of the IDEA’s exhaustion provision, and fundamental fairness for the parties.