C.L. v. Scarsdale Union Free School District
744 F.3d 826
| 2d Cir. | 2014Background
- C.L., a student with ADHD, nonverbal learning disability, and executive-function weaknesses, received escalating supports at Greenacres (504 Plan, LRC, speech and OT) but was denied an IDEA classification/IEP by the District.
- Parents placed C.L. at Eagle Hill, a private school for language-based learning disabilities (small classes, daily advisor, diagnostic/individualized instruction), for 2008–09 and paid tuition.
- The IHO found the District denied C.L. a FAPE, held Eagle Hill appropriate, and awarded tuition reimbursement.
- The SRO agreed a FAPE was denied but reversed reimbursement, reasoning Eagle Hill was too restrictive (no interaction with nondisabled peers) and noting some progress at Greenacres; the SRO did not analyze Eagle Hill’s services or C.L.’s progress there.
- The district court deferred to the SRO and granted summary judgment to the District on the IDEA claim; it also granted summary judgment dismissing a Section 504/Rehabilitation Act claim for lack of evidence of bad faith or gross misjudgment.
- The Second Circuit reversed the IDEA ruling (deferring to the IHO rather than the SRO because the SRO’s analysis was insufficient) and affirmed dismissal of the Rehabilitation Act claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parents are entitled to tuition reimbursement under the IDEA after District denied FAPE | Parents: District denied FAPE; Eagle Hill was an appropriate private placement and equities favor reimbursement | District: Eagle Hill too restrictive (no meaningful interaction with nondisabled peers); progress at Greenacres shows less restrictive placement available | Reversed: IHO’s detailed finding that Eagle Hill was appropriate is persuasive; SRO’s narrow focus on restrictiveness (without analyzing Eagle Hill’s services/progress) was insufficiently reasoned, so defer to IHO and award reimbursement |
| Role of restrictiveness / LRE in assessing parental private placement appropriateness | Parents: Restrictiveness is a factor but not dispositive when public school denied FAPE; specialized restrictive placement can be appropriate | District/SRO: Highly restrictive program precludes reimbursement when public placement provided peer interaction and progress | Held: Restrictiveness is a relevant factor but not dispositive; when a public school denies FAPE parents may choose a more restrictive specialized school if it appropriately meets the child’s needs |
| Standard of review for conflicting IHO and SRO decisions | Plaintiffs: Court should defer to the more thorough administrative decision | District: Deference to SRO as final state authority | Held: Defer to SRO generally, but where SRO’s decision is insufficiently reasoned and IHO is more thorough, courts may defer to the IHO (applied here) |
| Rehabilitation Act claim (Section 504): whether District’s actions amounted to discrimination requiring bad faith or gross misjudgment | Parents: Denial of appropriate services and limiting accommodations was discriminatory | District: Decisions were judgment calls; absence of evidence of bad faith/gross misjudgment | Held: Affirmed dismissal — plaintiffs failed to show bad faith or gross misjudgment necessary for a Section 504 violation in this context |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (establishes the FAPE/educational benefit standard under IDEA)
- Sch. Comm. of Town of Burlington v. Dep't of Educ., 471 U.S. 359 (permits parental unilateral placement reimbursement when public FAPE is denied)
- Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ., 459 F.3d 356 (2d Cir.) (private placement need not provide every special service; appropriateness assessed by totality)
- Walczak v. Fla. Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119 (2d Cir.) (IEP must be tailored to child; LRE preference discussed)
- M.S. ex rel. S.S. v. Bd. of Educ., 231 F.3d 96 (2d Cir.) (restrictiveness/LRE is a factor in private-placement appropriateness)
- R.E. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 694 F.3d 167 (2d Cir.) (standards on deference between IHO and SRO; when to defer to IHO)