Recent Cases

Resources

• Robert K. ex rel. T.K. v. Cobb County Sch. Dist., No. 07-14137 (11th Cir. May 28, 2008) [HTML 1,850kb]
  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (AL, FL, GA) has affirmed a U.S. district court order denying a request for attorney’s fees under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA).
  
• Pardini v. Allegheny Intermediate Unit, No. 07-1403 (3d Cir. May 12, 2008) [HTML 2,954kb]
  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (PA, NJ, DE, V.I.) has affirmed a U.S. district court order denying attorney’s fees for a Pennsylvania attorney-parent who brought a case on his daughter’s behalf under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA).
  
• Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A., No. 05-35641 (9th Cir. Apr. 28, 2008) [HTML 7,552kb]
  In a two to one split, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (AK, AZ, CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA, GU, MP) has ruled that the parents of a student who never received special education services from an Oregon school district may be able to recover the costs of private school placement under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
  
• Lessard v. Wilton-Lyndeborough Coop. Sch. Dist., No. 07-1860 (1st Cir. Feb. 25, 2008) [HTML 5,150kb]
  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (MA, ME, NH, RI, P.R.) has ruled that a New Hampshire school district’s failure to have a completed and signed individualized education program (IEP) in place at the beginning of the school year did not violate the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) because it was attributable to the parents’ own intransigence and obstruction.
  
• Draper v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 07-11777 (11th Cir. Mar. 6, 2008) [HTML 5,333kb]
  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (AL, FL, GA) has ruled that a disabled student could be placed in private school at public expense as compensation for a school district’s violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), even though the administrative law judge who first had considered his case also had offered a public school remedy.
  
• New York State Div. of Human Rights v. East Meadow Union Free Sch. Dist., No. 10115533 (N.Y. Div. H.R. Mar. 10, 2008) [HTML 5,167kb]
  New York’s Commissioner of the Division of Human Rights (DHR) has ruled that a school district’s refusal to allow a hearing impaired student to bring his service dog to school violates the state’s Human Rights Law (HRL).
  
• Cave v. East Meadows Union Free Sch. Dist., No. 07-1120 (2d Cir. Jan. 23, 2008) [HTML 4,570kb]
  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (CT, NY, VT) has ruled that a hearing impaired student who was forbidden to bring his service dog to school was required to exhaust the administrative remedies available to him under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) before suing under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of Rehabilitation Act, and Section 1983.
  
• Mark H. v. Lemahieu, No. 05-16236 (9th Cir. Jan. 17, 2008) [HTML 4,390kb]
  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (AK, AZ, CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA, GU, MP) has reversed a U.S. district court in Hawai‘i that had ruled that the availability of injunctive relief under IDEA precludes a suit for damages under § 504 over actions that violate both statutes.
  
• Hjortness v. Neehah Joint Sch. Dist., No. 06-3044 (7th Cir. Nov. 14, 2007) [HTML 3,892kb]
  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (IL, IN, WI) has ruled that a Wisconsin school district did not deny a student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) when it “predetermined” that he should attend public school and failed to hold a second individualized education program (IEP) meeting in the face of the parents’ uncooperativeness.
  
• Avjian v. Weast, No. 05-2236 (4th Cir. July 12, 2007) [HTML 2,875kb]
  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has ruled that the terms written into a student’s individualized education program (IEP) supersede any oral representations that may have been made to the parents before the IEP was finalized.
  
• Coleman v. Newburgh Enlarged City Sch. Dist., No. 06-1466 (2d Cir. Sept. 25, 2007) [HTML 4,294kb]
  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (CT, NY, VT) has held that a student was not excused from the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s (IDEA) requirement that he exhaust his administrative remedies before resorting to litigation just because doing so would have caused him to miss graduation.
  
• Blanchard v. Morton Sch. Dist., No. 06-35388 (9th Cir. Sept. 20, 2007) [HTML 2,837kb]
  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (AK, AZ, CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA, GU, MP) has upheld a federal district court’s ruling that a Washington parent could not seek money damages under Section 1983 for lost income and emotional distress suffered while pursuing relief under the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
  
• A.K. v. Alexandria City Sch. Bd., No. 06-1130 [HTML 5,538kb]
  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in a two to one split, has ruled that a Virginia school district failed to provide a special education student with a free appropriate public education (FAPE) as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) because the district’s individualized education plan (IEP) did not identify a particular school at which it anticipated the student would be educated.
  
• Supreme Court affirms decision allowing private school tuition reimbursement [HTML 4,175kb]
  The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed a federal appellate decision allowing the father of a learning-disabled child to seek private school tuition reimbursement from New York City without first giving the city's public school program a chance to meet the boy's needs.
  
• John M. v. Board of Educ. of Evanston Twp. High Sch. Dist. 202, Nos. 06-3274/06-3739 (7th Cir. Sept. 17, 2007) [HTML 5,920kb]
  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (IL, IN, WI) has ruled that a federal district court applied an incorrect standard in holding that because a disabled Illinois student had received co-teaching in middle school, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) required his high school to provide co-teaching as well.
  
• Jamie S. v. Milwaukee Public Schools, No. 01-928 (E.D. Wis. Sept. 11, 2007) [HTML 4,767kb]
  A Wisconsin federal district court has ruled that Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) and the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI) violated the “Child Find” provisions of the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) from September 2000 to June 2005.
  
• Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., No. 05-983 (U.S. May 21, 2007) [HTML 9,273kb]
  The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) grants parents independent, enforceable rights, which are not limited to procedural and reimbursement-related matters but also encompass the entitlement to a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for their child.
  
• Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., No. 06-1494 (2nd Cir. May 30, 2007) [HTML 2,941kb]
  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (CT, NY, VT) has ruled that parents, who unilaterally chose to send their disabled child to a private school, are not entitled to reimbursement for tuition expenses under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) because the parents had not met their burden of showing the placement they chose was appropriate to meet the needs of the child.
  
• A.W. v. The Jersey City Pub. Sch., No. 05-2553 (3d Cir. May 24, 2007) [HTML 2,858kb]
  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (DE, NJ, PA, VI) has ruled that actions cannot be brought against school officials under § 1983 for violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), nor can § 1983 be used to remedy alleged violations of the Rehabilitation Act.
  
• Winkelman v. Parma City School District, No. 04-4159 (6th Cir. Sept. 20, 2005) [HTML 2,275kb]
  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in per curiam decision has ruled that parents who are not lawyers do not have the right to represent their child with disabilities, or themselves, in federal court under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
  
• Cave v. East Meadows Union Free Sch. Dist., 2007 WL 878497 (E.D. N.Y. Mar. 19, 2007) [HTML 3,855kb]
  A federal district court in New York has denied a hearing impaired student’s motion for a preliminary injunction ordering school officials to allow him to bring his service dog to school.
  
• Mr. I. et al. v. Maine Admin. Dist. No. 55, No. 06-1368/1422 (1st Cir. Mar. 5, 2007) [HTML 10,980kb]
  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has ruled that a student suffering from Asperger’s Syndrome qualified as a “child with a disability” under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) entitled to special education services, even though she excelled academically, because any negative impact her condition had on her educational performance, regardless of degree, could qualify as an “adverse effect” for purposes of IDEA’s eligibility test.
  
• P.N. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, No. 04-36141 (9th Cir. Amended Opinion Jan. 29, 2007) [HTML 2,478kb]
  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that parents who entered into a settlement agreement involving special education services that was not approved by a court were not entitled to attorneys’ fees under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), because they were not “prevailing parties” as defined by the act.
  
• Jester v. District of Columbia, No. 05-7183 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 23, 2007) [HTML 2,816kb]
  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has ruled for purposes of the fee-shifting provision of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) that an administrative hearing and a subsequent judicial action are one action for which the prevailing party can recover attorneys’ fees.
  
• Malone v. Nielson, No. 05-4112 (7th Cir. Jan. 22, 2007) [HTML 3,250kb]
  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seven Circuit has ruled that nonlawyer parents acting as administrators of their deceased child’s estate may not proceed pro se, i.e., without legal counsel, in federal court to pursue the estate’s Section 1983 or Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) claims.
  
• Louisiana Dept. of Educ. v. Sch. Bd. of Ouachita Parish, No. 0530767 (5th Cir. Aug. 22, 2006) [HTML 1,571kb]
  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has ruled that a Louisiana high school student was not denied his rights under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or denied a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by a route to his family and consumer science classroom that was substandard and an auditorium stage that was not accessible by wheelchair.
  
• State of Connecticut Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities v. Hartford Board of Education, No. 05-1240 (2d Cir. Sept. 15, 2006) [HTML 4,832kb]
  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ruled that the Connecticut Office of Protection and Advocacy (COPA) is entitled to access to a local school district’s facility for students with serious emotional disturbances and the school’s student directory information, including contact information for parents or guardians, in order to investigate allegations of abuse and neglect at the school pursuant.
  
• Disability Rights Wisconsin v. State of Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, No. 05-4171 (7th Cir. Sept. 13, 2006) [HTML 4,696kb]
  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has ruled that the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI) must give the names of several students to the state’s protection and advocacy agency (P&A) charged with investigating alleged abuse or neglect of people with mental or physical disabilities without requiring the P&A to first obtain parental consent.
  
• Frank G. v. Board of Educ. of Hyde Park, No. 04-4981-CV (July 27, 2006) [HTML 7,119kb]
  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in late July that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) does not preclude public reimbursement of private school tuition for a student who never received any special education or related services from the school district.
  
• Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Murphy, No. 05-18 (U.S. June 26, 2006) [HTML 7,528kb]
  The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, 6-3, that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) does not require school districts to reimburse parents who prevail in special education disputes for the costs of experts.
  
• M.P. v. Independent School District No. 721, No. 05-1584 (8th Cir. Mar. 8, 2006) [HTML 3,019kb]
  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has ruled that a disabled student may maintain a legal claim for violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act independent of an Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) claim, without exhausting his administrative remedies.
  
• West Platte R-II School District v. Wilson, No. 05-1973 (8th Cir. Mar. 2, 2006) [HTML 3,239kb]
  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has ruled that both an administrative panel and the federal district court improperly placed the burden of proof on the school district where the parents were challenging the adequacy of their child’s individualized education plan (IEP) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
  
• Fitzgerald v. Camdenton R-III School District, No. 04-3102 (8th Cir. March 1, 2006) [HTML 3,006kb]
  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has ruled that a school district does not have the authority under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to require a child to undergo an initial evaluation where the child is privately educated and the parents have expressly waived all benefits under IDEA.
  
• Goldring v. District of Columbia, 416 F.3d 70 (D.C. Cir. 2005) [HTML 4,403kb]
  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has ruled that a prevailing party is not entitled to expert witness fees under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
  
• M.M. v. School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, No. 04-14982 (11th Cir. Jan. 25, 2006) [HTML 4,644kb]
  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has ruled that the parents of a special education student who never attended public school are entitled to reimbursement for private school tuition and related services under the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) if the school district's proposed individualized education program (IEP) fails to provide the student with a free appropriate public education (FAPE).
  
• Schaffer v. Weast, No. 04-698 (U.S. Nov. 14, 2005) [HTML 4,356kb]
  The U.S. Supreme Court in a six to two decision has ruled that the burden of persuasion in an administrative hearing challenging an IEP is properly placed upon the party seeking relief, whether that is the disabled child or the school district.
  
• Vaughn G. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, No. 84-1911 (D. Md. Aug. 12, 2005) [HTML 4,397kb]
  A Maryland federal district court has issued an emergency order turning control of the Baltimore City Public Schools System's (BCPSS) special education operations over to the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE).
  
• Fitzpatrick v. Town of Falmouth, No. 05-97 (Me. Aug. 10, 2005) [HTML 4,166kb]
  The Maine Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that a school district did not violate a disabled, home-schooled student's right to use public accommodations under the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA) when it suspended him from using an elementary school's playground during recess periods until his parents agreed to a behavior assessment.