Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., No. 06-1494 (2nd Cir. May 30, 2007)
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. S. G., a student receiving special education services, was attending Arlington High School in New York State his junior year. However, after he began exhibiting emotional problems, his parents, Anthony and Adele Gagliardo, request that school officials develop a new individualized education plan (IEP) decided against sending their son, S.G., a placement the state chose and instead enrolled him in an unauthorized private school for his senior year. The Gagliardo’s then requested tuition reimbursement for their unilateral private school placement. S.G. was first classified as having an emotional disturbance in June 2001. The Gagliardos requested an impartial process hearing, claiming the placement the CSE had chosen was inappropriate for their son. An impartial hearing officer (IHO) found the IEP was appropriate, and that the parents had not meet their burden of demonstrating Oakwood was an appropriate placement and the parents’ reimbursement request should be denied. The Gagliardos appealed to a state review officer (SRO) who upheld the IHO’s decision. The Gagliardos then appealed to federal district court, which reversed the SRO’s ruling and awarded tuition reimbursement to the parents. The district court found the IEP was not appropriate and Oakwood was an appropriate placement. The school district appealed to the Second Circuit.
The Second Circuit stated that in order to obtain tuition reimbursement the parents must show that: 1) the IEP proposed by the school district was inappropriate; and (2) the private placement was appropriate to the child’s needs.
Because the court found the parents did not meet the burden in proving Oakwood was an appropriate placement, it did not address whether the IEP was inappropriate. In finding Oakwood was not an appropriate placement, the court rejected the district court’s finding that it was appropriate claiming it was not supported by the record. The court found that Oakwood did not meet the key criteria Dr. Ditkowsky outlined in his evaluation, i.e. that the placement provide a therapeutic setting. It also rejected the district court’s finding that Oakwood provided special education services, citing that although Oakwood provided generalized services, it did not provide the services which S.G. needed.
Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., No. 06-1494 (2nd Cir. May 30, 2007)
[Full opinion]