Albright v. Mountain Home School District

926 F.3d 942 (2019)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 37,200+ case briefs...

Albright v. Mountain Home School District

United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

926 F.3d 942 (2019)


Child Doe (plaintiff) was the daughter of Jacquie Albright (plaintiff) and was a student in the Mountain Home School District (district) (defendant). Doe was diagnosed with autism and significant intellectual deficits, and the district convened a team to create an individualized education program (IEP) for her with Albright. Susanne Belk was a board-certified behavior analyst and consultant brought in by the district as part of Doe’s IEP team. Albright was heavily involved in the creation of Doe’s IEP by emailing and calling regularly and choosing to attend every meeting but one. Doe’s IEP included educational accommodations and services and a behavioral-intervention plan (BIP) to address any problematic behaviors. The IEP included many peer-reviewed services and educational methods, as well as sensory-integration techniques. The IEP team reconvened and reassessed the program as needed. Originally, Doe’s IEP was created for autism needs specifically, but upon diagnosis of intellectual deficits, the IEP and BIP were adjusted. Doe evidenced some behavioral issues, but with the updated BIP, Belk observed Doe showing improvement. Despite being in the fourth grade, district testing showed that Doe was not ready to advance past first-grade subject matter. However, the test scores showed improvement over the course of Doe’s most recent year. Albright and the rest of the IEP team disagreed strongly on several aspects of Doe’s IEP, including the best services to offer and the academic capabilities of Doe herself. As a result, Albright filed multiple due-process complaints against the district over the course of several years, all of which were resolved through settlement agreements. Albright filed another due-process complaint in Doe’s fourth-grade year, arguing that the district violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and denied Doe a free appropriate public education. Albright claimed that she was denied meaningful participation in creating Doe’s IEP, that the IEP used non-peer-reviewed, pseudoscientific methods of treatment like sensory-integration techniques, and that the IEP was not creating academic progress for Doe. The hearing officer rendered a decision in favor of the district, and Albright appealed to federal district court. The district court affirmed the decision, and Albright appealed to the Eighth Circuit.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Wollman, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 630,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 630,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 37,200 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 630,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 37,200 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership