Charlene R. v. Solomon Charter School
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164161
E.D. Pa.2014Background
- M.R., a high-school student with a disability, and his mother settled an IDEA due-process complaint with Solomon Charter School via a resolution agreement requiring compensatory education, a trust fund, and attorney-fee payments.
- The agreement (signed Sept. 26, 2013) obligated Solomon to fund an $18,502 educational trust, provide 190 compensatory hours, and pay $9,250 to plaintiff’s counsel; it required notice and accelerated payments if Solomon ceased operations.
- Solomon ceased operations on Oct. 11, 2013 without making payments or giving the contractually required notice; Plaintiffs sued Solomon and then amended to add the Commonwealth (Pennsylvania Department of Education).
- Plaintiffs allege Solomon is insolvent and seek to enforce the IDEA resolution agreement against the State Education Agency (SEA) as the only practical source to secure M.R.’s FAPE remedies.
- The Commonwealth moved to dismiss all counts, arguing it is not a party to the contract and Pennsylvania law immunizes it from charter-school debts; Plaintiffs invoke the SEA’s ultimate responsibility under the IDEA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an IDEA resolution agreement with an LEA (charter school) can be enforced against the SEA when the LEA is insolvent | SEA must honor the agreement because IDEA makes the SEA ultimately responsible to ensure a FAPE and resolution agreements are enforceable to vindicate that right | State not party to contract; state law bars liability for charter-school debts so SEA cannot be bound or held liable | Court denied motion to dismiss: where LEA is insolvent and only way to secure a child’s FAPE is to shift obligations, the SEA can be required to honor the agreement in this limited scenario |
| Whether state statutes disclaiming liability for charter debts immunize the SEA from IDEA-based obligations | Disclaimers cannot defeat Congress’s design that the SEA be the backstop for FAPE obligations | State-law provisions limit financial liability and allocation among LEAs; thus SEA not liable as matter of state contract law | Court held federal IDEA obligations and congressional intent preempt state-law disclaimers where they would frustrate SEA’s ultimate responsibility to provide a FAPE |
| Whether contractual principles govern enforcement of IDEA resolution agreements | Resolution agreements are binding contracts and should be enforced, but federal IDEA purposes control when conflict exists | Emphasizes traditional contract limits: nonparties cannot be bound | Court applied contract principles but limited them: enforcement against SEA is appropriate when necessary to vindicate the child’s IDEA right and the LEA is insolvent |
| Proper remedy at pleading stage vs. merits (contract breach counts) | IDEA claim is viable against Commonwealth; contract claims may await later development | Commonwealth sought dismissal of all counts | Court denied dismissal of IDEA claim; reserved ruling on breach of contract counts for later in litigation |
Key Cases Cited
- Kruelle v. New Castle Cnty. Sch. Dist., 642 F.2d 687 (3d Cir. 1981) (SEA has primary responsibility as centralized backstop to ensure FAPE)
- Burlington Sch. Comm. v. Dep’t of Educ., 471 U.S. 359 (U.S. 1985) (tuition reimbursement is an appropriate remedy to vindicate the child’s FAPE right)
- D.R. v. E. Brunswick Bd. of Educ., 109 F.3d 896 (3d Cir. 1997) (resolution agreements under §1415(f) are binding contracts enforceable as written)
- Gadsby v. Grasmick, 109 F.3d 940 (4th Cir. 1997) (SEA may be liable where it must provide services directly because an LEA failed to comply)
- Carlisle Area Sch. v. Scott P., 62 F.3d 520 (3d Cir. 1995) (courts may craft equitable remedies, including compensatory education, to ensure a child’s FAPE)
- Lester H. v. Gilhool, 916 F.2d 865 (3d Cir. 1990) (recognition of compensatory education as an IDEA remedy)