Board of Education of the North Rockland Central School District v. C.M.
7:16-cv-03924
S.D.N.Y.Jun 20, 2017Background
- P.G., adopted from Russia, has significant developmental and behavioral disabilities, very low IQ, and longstanding educational/behavioral problems from elementary through middle school.
- The District repeatedly placed P.G. in increasingly restrictive BOCES programs (8:1+1, 1:1 aide, Hilltop), denied parent requests for residential placement, and classified him as "Other Health Impairment."
- Parent sought private evaluations and advocacy; private clinicians and an advocate recommended residential placement by mid-2011; the District maintained its placements for 2011–2012.
- Parent filed a due process complaint on January 9, 2015 alleging IDEA and Section 504 violations for school years 2005–2006 through 2011–2012. An IHO dismissed IDEA claims as time-barred but found a Section 504 violation for Jan–June 2012 and ordered one additional year at Whitney Academy.
- The SRO affirmed the IHO’s dismissal of IDEA claims as untimely and declined jurisdiction over Section 504 claims. District filed this federal action; the district court reversed the IHO on Section 504 and affirmed the SRO on IDEA timeliness, vacating the preliminary injunction funding Whitney Academy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Section 504 claim | Parent argued claim was timely because District’s denial continued into Jan–June 2012 | District argued Section 504 claim accrued no later than June 2011 and is barred by the 3-year statute | Court: Claim accrued by June 2011 when Parent knew/should have known; Section 504 claim time-barred |
| Timeliness of IDEA claims | Parent argued IDEA claims timely or tolled by specific misrepresentation/withholding exceptions | District argued claims untimely under 2‑year IDEA limitations and no tolling applies | Court: Claims untimely; no tolling for specific misrepresentation or withholding of procedural safeguards |
| Application of IDEA tolling exceptions — specific misrepresentation | Parent contended District misrepresented P.G.’s progress/placement, preventing timely filing | District showed Parent and advocate knew the issues at the May 24, 2011 CSE meeting | Court: No tolling; record shows Parent knew of alleged misrepresentations by May 24, 2011 |
| Application of IDEA tolling exceptions — withholding of information | Parent argued District failed to provide procedural safeguards notices, preventing filing | District produced evidence Parent consulted counsel and acknowledged receipt of safeguards by Aug 28, 2012 | Court: No tolling; Parent received procedural information and had counsel before filing |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (U.S. 1982) (IDEA’s FAPE standard and IEP framework)
- Walczak v. Fla. Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 1998) (IEP must be reasonably calculated to confer educational benefit)
- Sch. Comm. of Burlington v. Dep’t of Educ., 471 U.S. 359 (U.S. 1985) (parents may obtain reimbursement for private placement if FAPE not provided)
- Florence Cty. Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (U.S. 1993) (standards for reimbursement of private placement)
- Morse v. Univ. of Vermont, 973 F.2d 122 (2d Cir. 1992) (accrual rule for discrimination claims/statute of limitations)
- Harris v. City of N.Y., 186 F.3d 243 (2d Cir. 1999) (accrual when plaintiff knew or had reason to know of injury)