A.R. v. Connecticut
5f4th155
2d Cir.2021Background
- IDEA requires states receiving funds to provide a FAPE to children with disabilities from age 3 through the last day of their 21st year (i.e., until their 22nd birthday).
- Connecticut law and regulations direct local/regional boards to provide special education but terminate that obligation when a child graduates or reaches age 21 (with continuation to the end of the school year if the child turns 21 during the year).
- Plaintiffs are a class of Connecticut students with disabilities who had not earned a regular high school diploma and whose special-education services were terminated because they turned 21.
- The action began in 2016 (originally by D.J.); the district court resolved a standing challenge after discovery showed D.J. had deferred receipt of a diploma and continued receiving services, so he lacked a diploma and had standing.
- The district court certified a class (A.R. as named plaintiff), held that Connecticut adult-education programs (GED, NEDP, AHSCD) constitute "public education" under IDEA, enjoined the Board from terminating FAPEs before a class member's 22nd birthday, and awarded compensatory education for systemic violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of original plaintiff (D.J.) | D.J. had not received a regular diploma (he deferred it) and thus suffered loss of FAPE when aged out at 21. | D.J. had been awarded a diploma earlier, so his claims were moot / he lacked Article III standing. | Court affirmed that discovery showed D.J. did not accept/receive a diploma and lost months of special education due to age-based termination; he had Article III standing. |
| Meaning of "public education" under IDEA | "Public education" includes state-funded, state-supervised adult-education programs (GED, NEDP, AHSCD) that lead to diplomas and are free to students. | "Public education" should be limited to traditional public-school instruction; adult programs are different and not within IDEA's concept. | Court adopted a common-sense IDEA definition: publicly funded, state-supervised programs aiming at secondary-school proficiency; Connecticut adult-education programs meet it. |
| Remedy: compensatory education for class members | Systemic termination prior to 22 caused gross IDEA violations warranting compensatory education for severely affected students. | Award was an abuse of discretion. | Court upheld compensatory education as within district court's equitable discretion given systemic, longstanding deprivation of IDEA rights. |
Key Cases Cited
- E.R.K. ex rel. R.K. v. Hawaii Dep't of Educ., 728 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2013) (interpreting "public education" under IDEA to include state adult-education programs)
- K.L. v. Rhode Island Bd. of Educ., 907 F.3d 639 (1st Cir. 2018) (similar construction of "public education" and IDEA age protections)
- St. Johnsbury Acad. v. D.H., 240 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2001) (clarifying that the IDEA eligibility period ends on the last day of the 21st year)
- Lillbask ex rel. Mauclaire v. State of Conn. Dep't of Educ., 397 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (confirming IDEA age-range interpretation through the Board of Education context)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing doctrine: injury, causation, redressability)
- Taniguchi v. Kan Pac. Saipan, Ltd., 566 U.S. 560 (2012) (use of ordinary meaning in statutory interpretation)