Private evaluator can observe student in the classroom

SRO 11-074: Parents have the right to have the evaluator of their choice, for whose services they have not sought reimbursement from the district, observe the student in his district classroom.

Attorney fees

The issue of attorney fees has been in the forefront of late. Today’s case of note is not a special education case, but is one that is of interest in the special ed lawyer’s world, as it addresses a court’s decision to award negligible fees in light of the small monetary award achieved by the plaintiff. The case, MILLEA v. METRO NORTH RAILROAD COMPANY, decided by the 2nd Circuit on August 8, 2011, was brought pursuant to the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which has an attorney fee provision similar to the IDEA fee provision. There are a few things of note in the decision. The district court reduced the fee award reasoning that the claim upon which the plaintiff prevailed “had no public policy significance.” The 2nd Cir. held that that was error reasoning that “[b]y enacting a fee-shifting provision for FMLA claims, Congress has already made the policy determination that FMLA claims serve an important public purpose disproportionate to their cash value. We cannot second-guess this legislative policy decision.”

        The Second Circuit found that “the district court impermissibly reduced its initial fee award based on an incorrect conclusion that Millea's victory was “de minimis.” Millea, 2010 WL 126186, at *6. The $612.50 award was not de minimis; to the contrary, the award was more than 100% of the damages Millea sought on that claim. It was not a derisory or contemptuous rejection by the jury. The district court conflated a small damages award with a de minimis victory.”

        The Second Circuit found that “calculating attorneys' fees as a proportion of damages runs directly contrary to the purpose of fee-shifting statutes: assuring that civil rights claims of modest cash value can attract competent counsel. The whole purpose of fee-shifting statutes is to generate attorneys' fees that are disproportionate to the plaintiff's recovery. Thus, the district court abused its discretion when it ignored the lodestar and calculated the attorneys' fees as a proportion of the damages awarded.”

EDNY affirms reimbursement award and addresses mootness and justiciability

NYC v. V.S. (E.D.N.Y. 7-29-2011): Parents disagreed with the NYC DOE recommendations, placed their autistic child at the Rebecca School and sought reimbursement. The IHO ruled in favor of the parents; the SRO dismissed the DOE appeal on mootness grounds as the DOE had paid the full year of tuition as pendency. The DOE appealed to federal court. The EDNY held that the case was not moot, given that the child’s continued pendency placement would turn on the court’s ruling. Next, the DOE sought remand to the SRO; the Court declined to remand reasoning that while remand is permissible under some circumstances, the drawbacks outweigh the benefits, particularly since the IHO had issued a well reasoned decision. The court than deferred to the judgment of the IHO finding that her conclusions were well supported by the record. In particular, the court affirmed the IHO’s conclusions regarding methodology (while the Rebecca School administrator testified “in some detail as to why TEACCH would be unable to teach V.S. the basic skills he needs to learn, the DOE has cited no evidence that TEACCH would be an effective method for educating V.S.”) and the size and mixed-use nature of the school building (“the general education school in which the self-contained 6:1:1 class would be housed would create a sensory overload for [V.S.] which would interfere with not only his learning but the learning of his classmates as well”).

SRO holds that regents diploma does not moot compensatory education claim

see SRO 11-044

D.C. Circuit reverses award of attorney fees to district

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. IJEABUONWU, 09-7092 (D.C. Cir. 6-28-2011): Parent filed a hearing request alleging failure to timely evaluate. District fairly quickly offered a comprehensive independent evaluation. IHO dismissed the hearing request as moot. The District then sued for attorney fees. The District Court awarded fees to the school district. The Circuit Court reversed, finding that

If the District were considered a prevailing party under these circumstances, then DCPS could ignore its legal obligations until parents sue, voluntarily comply quickly, file for and receive a dismissal with prejudice for mootness, and then recover [attorneys'] fees from the parents' lawyers. Straus, 590 F.3d at 902. To allow this practice would deter lawyers from taking IDEA cases and thereby deprive parents of their most effective means of enforcing the statute.

SRO reverses IHO and awards partial reimbursement to parent

SRO 11-041: The IHO found against the parent on a private school reimbursement case. In what is an extraordinarily rare occurrence, the SRO reversed in favor of the parent holding that the CSE had inadequate evaluative information from which to develop the IEP, that the private placement was appropriate, and that the equities weighed in favor of a partial reimbursement award. The equities section is the most interesting. The SRO held that the parent had not provided adequate prior notice of the intent to seek reimbursement for the private placement, the SRO only docked the parent 25% for said failure. The SRO then found that the parents had not adequately established that they lacked the resources to front the student’s tuition costs. Thus, it appears that the SRO denied the parents request for an order that the DOE pay the private school directly; rather the SRO ordered that the DOE reimburse the parent 75% upon proof of payment of the tuition.

3rd Circuit upholds reimbursement for supplemental home based services

NEW MILFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION v. CR (3rd Cir. 2011): Parents supplemented the school program for their autistic child with two hours of nightly in-home education at their own expense. The parents alleged that the district failed to provide a FAPE asserting that an appropriate IEP required substantial in-home instruction to curb their child’s aggression and self-stimulation. The parents sought reimbursement for two hours of nightly in-home education secured at their own expense. The ALJ, district court and 3rd Cir. all ruled for the parent. The 3rd Circuit reasoned:

T.R.'s IEP was inadequate because the "complementary nature of the home program was required for [him] to receive the meaningful educational benefit mandated by the IDEA." New Milford Bd. of Educ. v. C.R., 2010 WL 2571343, at *6 (D.N.J. June 22, 2010). If a mentally disabled child continuously presents an adverse behavior that genuinely interferes with his ability to garner any real benefit from the education provided and the IEP does not adequately remedy this behavior, it stands to reason that the school district has failed to provide even a "basic floor of opportunity," much less the meaningful benefit required by our Court. D.S., 602 F.3d at 557. Here, the record included substantial evidence that T.R.'s behaviors were not only detrimental to his home life, but also interfered with his learning. For example, T.R.'s aggressive behavior resulted in his avoidance of educational tasks during his IEP program. For this reason, we agree that T.R. did not receive the meaningful educational benefit required by the IDEA.

4th Circuit upholds reimbursement for home schooling placement

Sumter v. Heffernan (4th Cir. 2011): Parents pulled their autistic child from the public school system and set up a program for him at home. They then sought reimbursement for the costs of an ABA therapist. In what appeared to be a close decision, one that prompted a dissent in part, the Court ruled in favor of reimbursement. Of particular interest is the 4th Circuit’s rejection of a strict application of the LRE requirement as applied to a parental placement. The 4th Circuit joins the 8th Circuit as Courts recently adopting a looser standard for LRE as a factor in determining the appropriateness of the parental placement.

5th Circuit: Failure to attend meeting subsequent to resolution session does not defeat parents attorney fee claim

ECTOR CTY. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. v. VB (5th Cir. 2011): Parent requested an impartial hearing. At the resolution session, the school district offered to schedule another CSE meeting to address the parent’s concerns. The district did in fact schedule such a meeting and, on the advice of counsel, the parent refused to attend. The matter went to hearing and the parent prevailed. The school district appealed. The district court held in favor of the parent, rejecting the school district’s argument that the parent had “unreasonably and needlessly protracted the litigation by refusing to attend the [CSE] meeting that would have implemented an alleged agreement made at the meetings.” The district court also awarded attorney fees to the parent. The 5th Circuit affirmed. The Court reasoned that alleged protraction of litigation is irrelevant with respect to the analysis as to whether a party has prevailed. It may, however, be relevant to whether a fee award should be reduced. Here, however, the Court rejected the district’s argument that a fee reduction was warranted. The Court refused to read into the law a requirement that the parent participate in a meeting subsequent to the resolution session.

EDNY addresses whether bullying could result in the denial of FAPE

T.K. v. NYC (EDNY 2011): This case presents the interesting and timely issue of whether bullying can result in a denial of FAPE. Parent placed child privately and sought reimbursement. The IHO and the SRO ruled against the parent. Judge Weinstein of the EDNY examined the issues from a variety of different angles, ultimately denying the District’s motion for summary judgement and adopting a test as follows: “under IDEA the question to be asked is whether school personnel were deliberately indifferent to, or failed to take reasonable steps to prevent bullying that substantially restricted a child with learning disabilities in her educational opportunities.” Judge Weinstein determined that “the issue requires a court evidentiary hearing, and, a possible remand to the state authorities for a rehearing.”

Conduct need not be outrageous to fit within the category of harassment that rises to a level of deprivation of rights of a disabled student. The conduct must, however, be sufficiently severe, persistent, or pervasive that it creates a hostile environment. Id. Where a student is verbally abused repeatedly and suffers other indignities such as having his property taken or is struck by his fellow students, and a school does nothing to discipline the offending students despite its knowledge that the actions have occurred, the student has been deprived of substantial educational opportunities. Id. The rule to be applied is as follows: When responding to bullying incidents, which may affect the opportunities of a special education student to obtain an appropriate education, a school must take prompt and appropriate action. It must investigate if the harassment is reported to have occurred. If harassment is found to have occurred, the school must take appropriate steps to prevent it in the future. These duties of a school exist even if the misconduct is covered by its anti-bullying policy, and regardless of whether the student has complained, asked the school to take action, or identified the harassment as a form of discrimination. Compare, DOE Bullying and Harassment Letter, supra, to Werth v. Bd. of Dirs. of Pub. Schs., 472 F. Supp.2d 1113, 1127 (E.D. Wisc. 2007); K.M. v. Hyde Park Cen. Sch. Dist., 381 F. Supp. 2d 343, 358-60 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (citing Davis, 526 U.S. at 640-53). It is not necessary to show that the bullying prevented all opportunity for an appropriate education, but only that it is likely to affect the opportunity of the student for an appropriate education. The bullying need not be a reaction to or related to a particular disability.

To be denied educational benefit a student need not regress, but need only have her educational benefit adversely affected. Academic growth is not an all-or-nothing proposition. There are levels of progress. A child may achieve substantial educational gains despite harassment, and yet she still may have been seriously hindered. Growth may be stunted providing an education below the level contemplated by IDEA. In New York, IEP's are required to give children more than an opportunity for just "trivial advancement." Mamaroneck Union Free Sch. Dist., 554 F.3d at 254. The law recognizes that a student can grow academically, but still be denied the educational benefit that is guaranteed by IDEA. Where bullying reaches a level where a student is substantially restricted in learning opportunities she has been deprived a FAPE. Whether bullying rose to this level is a question for the fact finder.

8th Circuit holds that private placement need not satisfy a least-restrictive environment requirement

CB v. Special School District No. 1 (8th Circuit 2011): IHO awarded reimbursement to parents for the costs of a private placement. The district court reversed the IHO finding that although the public school had not provided the student with a FAPE, the private school was not appropriate because the student body was comprised mostly of students with disabilities. The 8th Circuit reinstated the IHO’s ruling.

We conclude that the mainstreaming preference of the IDEA does not make Groves an inappropriate private placement under the circumstances. The statute calls for educating children with disabilities together with children who are not disabled "[t]o the maximum extent appropriate." Id. (emphasis added). Here, the School District failed to develop an IEP that made available a free appropriate public education. At that point, C.B.'s parents had a "right of unilateral withdrawal," Florence Cnty., 510 U.S. at 13, and a right to reimbursement for private tuition, so long as the placement was "proper under the Act," Burlington, 471 U.S. at 369, and the award "furthers the purposes of the Act." Forest Grove, 129 S. Ct. at 2493 n.9.

The overriding purpose of the Act is to provide an education for disabled children that is both free and appropriate. The Act was designed, as the hearing officer noted, "to open the door of public education to handicapped children on appropriate terms." Rowley, 458 U.S. at 192. But once the School District failed to fashion an IEP that made available a free appropriate public education, it did not frustrate the purposes of the Act for C.B.'s parents to enroll him at Groves, where he could receive the educational benefit that was lacking in the public schools.

The parents were not required to allow the District another opportunity to try yet again with a different IEP that featured the CLASS program when the District did not propose that alternative in any of the IEPs that preceded C.B.'s withdrawal. Reimbursement for the costs of enrollment in a private school is authorized if the hearing officer finds that the District "had not made a free appropriate public education available to the child in a timely manner prior to that enrollment." 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(C)(ii)(emphasis added). A less restrictive environment is the ideal, but C.B.'s move to Groves after years of frustration in the public schools is a far cry from "the apparently widespread practice of relegating handicapped children to private institutions or warehousing them in special classes" that concerned Congress. See Burlington, 471 U.S. at 373. We thus join the Third and Sixth Circuits in concluding that a private placement need not satisfy a least-restrictive environment requirement to be "proper" under the Act. See Warren G. v. Cumberland Cnty. Sch. Dist., 190 F.3d 80, 83-84 (3d Cir. 1999); Cleveland Heights-Univ. Heights City Sch. Dist. v. Boss, 144 F.3d 391, 399-400 (6th Cir. 1998).

Aside from the concern that Groves educates primarily children with disabilities, there is no doubt that it was a proper placement for C.B. As the hearing officer summarized:

Groves offers the Student teaching methods and programs that the School District has not provided. In addition to these methods and programs, the ability to group and re-group students throughout the day to ensure reading skills are reinforced across subjects sets Grove[s] apart. Moreover, the District's own teachers thought that Groves is an appropriate place for the Student. His mother has seen an "explosion" of learning since the Student entered Groves.
We conclude that the placement at Groves was proper under the Act, and that reimbursement for tuition paid by C.B.'s parents to Groves for the 2008-2009 academic year is not precluded by the statute's preference for education in the least restrictive environment.

Can a parent sue a district for negligently failing to classify her child?

see School Law Blog

Damages case for wrongful use of timeout room lives on

Schafer v. HICKSVILLE UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Dist. Court, ED New York 2011: Parents alleged that their 14 year old son had been wrongfully confined numerous times and without good cause in a 4 x 5 foot, dark, possibly windowless, locked timeout room. Upon discovery that this was occurring, they pulled their son from the Nassau BOCES program and refused to send him back to the school. The child was placed on home instruction. Parents brought legal claims arising out of their son’s confinement as well as FAPE claims against numerous defendants and based upon a garden variety of theories. The Court granted summary judgement in favor of all defendants except for BOCES. With respect to BOCES, the Court allowed the following claims to go forward:

1. §1983 claim based upon a 4th Amendment unreasonable seizure theory
2. false imprisonment
3. negligence
4. intentional infliction of emotional distress
5. negligent infliction of emotional distress

Court upholds ruling upholding denial of recognition of prosthetic arm as AT device

J. C. THROUGH HER PARENTS v. NEW FAIRFIELD BD. OF ED. (Conn. 3-31-2011): Parents sought recognition of their daughter’s myoelectric prosthetic arm as an assistive technology device necessary to secure a free appropriate public education ("FAPE") within the meaning of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The IHO and Court found otherwise, holding instead that it was a medical device and alternatively, that it was not necessary for the child to receive a FAPE.

9th Circuit affirms award of full reimbursement where private school provided only some of services student needed

C.B. v. Garden Grove (9th Cir. 2011): Guardian placed the child privately and sought reimbursement. The ALJ found that the district had not provided the child with a FAPE. The ALJ awarded only partial reimbursement reasoning that the private placement did not provide a program designed to address all of the child’s needs. The District Court rejected the ALJ’s conclusion and the District's argument, that reimbursement is warranted only when a private placement provides the full range of educational services that a disabled student requires. The District Court held that “because [the child] received educational benefits from all services that the Center provided, the district court awarded full reimbursement to Guardian for the cost of obtaining those services, along with transportation.” The 9th Circuit affirmed the District Court rejecting the school district’s argument that “because the Center could not meet some of C.B.'s additional needs (such as instruction in arithmetic), the placement was not "proper" within the meaning of the IDEA.” Interestingly, the 9th Circuit adopted the 2nd Circuit standard from Frank G.,
       

To qualify for reimbursement under the IDEA, parents need not show that a private placement furnishes every special service necessary to maximize their child's potential. They need only demonstrate that the placement provides educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child, supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from instruction.

Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ., 459 F.3d 356, 365 (2d. Cir. 2006)

The Court then applied the standard to the facts of the case and found that the fact that the private placement delivered “many, but not all, of the special education services that [the student] needed” was sufficient to satisfy the standard.