With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Mr. I v. Maine School Administrative Dist. 55, 416 F.Supp.2d 147, 174 (D.Me.2006). Defendant has thus argued that plaintiffs failure to exhaust her administrative remedies under the IDEA is fatal to her claim under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. Plaintiffs claim in this case seems to be that defendant discriminated against Arshad because of his disability by refusing to allow him to fully participate in its programs solely because of his disability, autism. This is a challenge to defendant’s allegedly discriminatory actions, i.e., a “pure discrimination claim,” for which the IDEA offers no relief. Accordingly, plaintiffs failure to exhaust administrative rem edies under IDEA does not bar their claim. See Ellenberg v. New Mexico Military Institute, 478 F.3d 1262, 1279 (10th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Breach of Contract The gist of plaintiffs

A: holding that by its terms the idea does not require exhaustion where the relief sought is unavailable in an administrative proceeding under the idea monetary damages are not available so exhaustion is not required
B: holding that bjecause idea provides a comprehensive remedial scheme for violations of its own requirements  parties may not sue under section 1983 for an idea violation
C: recognizing that idea is simply not an antidiscrimination statute so that pure discrimination claim was not barred by parents failure to exhaust remedies under idea
D: holding that a student with disabilities who suffered a fractured skull and exacerbation of a seizure disorder when placed in an unsupervised windowless closet did not have to exhaust her administrative remedies under the idea because these physical injuries were outside the scope of the idea
C.