included only cognitive and achievement tests. Doc. No. 85 at 5. Based on deficiencies identified in the 1998 BCH evaluation, the parents believe that Tingley also should have evaluated J.B.’s motor skills, speech/language skills, social/emotional skills, pragmatic skills, visual abilities, vocational/life skills, and adaptive behavior. Id. at 9. The [¶] appears to have rejected the parents’ argument as time-barred. A.R. 1 at 14. This conclusion was based on the fact that the allegedly improper evaluation occurred in May 2002, more than two years before the parents requested a due process hearing. See Conn. GemStat. § 10-76h(a)(3) (2002) (current version at Conn. Gen-Stat. § 10-76h(a)(4) (2007)) (setting a two-year statute of limitations for IDEA claims); M.D., 334 F.3d at 221-222 (<HOLDING>). The HO’s conclusion was correct. Without
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 holding that the charge was timely when filed within the statute of limitations period even though served after the period holding that the threeyear statute of limitations applicable to  1983 actions in arkansas governed idea claims holding that damages are not relief that is available under the idea holding that in an idea case state law sets the relevant limitations period