45 F. Supp. 3d 400
S.D.N.Y.2014Background
- Parents of D.B., a child with autism and apraxia, sought relief under IDEA, Section 504, and NY Education Law for the 2010-2011 school year.
- D.B. was about six during 2010-2011; vaccination status was a central issue affecting placement.
- The CSE proposed a 6:1:1 classroom in a specialized setting with services; the parents unilateral placed D.B. at the McCarton Center.
- Department denied exemption from vaccination requirement prior to 2010-2011; exemptions require physician-verified medical basis.
- IHO Interim Order dismissed vaccination-based exclusion claims as governed by NY Public Health Law; SRO later found a FAPE was offered.
- Plaintiffs did not appeal the IHO decision to the SRO; the court later addressed exhaustion and Section 504 claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IDEA exhaustion is required and proper for this action | Plaintiffs exhausted as to at least some claims or relying on exceptions | Exhaustion required; plaintiffs did not appeal the IHO decision on vaccination/placement | Exhaustion required; no applicable exceptions shown; dismissal without prejudice |
| Whether any exhaustion exception applies to avoid jurisdiction | No exception applies to allow federal action | Exceptions not established by plaintiffs; burden on plaintiffs | No exhaustion exception; jurisdiction lacking for Section 504 claim |
| Whether, even if jurisdiction existed, the Section 504 claim has merit | D.B. was discriminated against due to autism and denied FAPE | Vaccination policy not solely due to disability; no exclusion solely by reason of disability | Section 504 claim lacking merit; no exclusion solely by reason of disability; no jurisdictional basis to reach merits |
Key Cases Cited
- J.S. ex rel. N.S. v. Attica Cent. Schs., 386 F.3d 107 (2d Cir.2004) (exhaustion required under IDEA before suit)
- Cave v. E. Meadow Union Free Sch. Dist., 514 F.3d 240 (2d Cir.2008) (exhaustion mandatory; exceptions burden on party seeking to avoid)
- Polera v. Bd. of Educ. of Newburgh Enlarged City Sch. Dist., 288 F.3d 478 (2d Cir.2002) (exhaustion analysis; theory behind grievance governs)
- McAdams v. Bd. of Educ. of the Rocky Point Union Free Sch. Dist., 216 F.Supp.2d 86 (E.D.N.Y.2002) (exhaustion required in NY state administrative review)
- Murphy v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 297 F.3d 195 (2d Cir.2002) (exhaustion exceptions and claims processing)
- Coleman v. Newburgh Enlarged City Sch. Dist., 503 F.3d 198 (2d Cir.2007) (equivocal stance on jurisdictional vs. non-jurisdictional exhaustion)
- R.S. v. Bedford Cent. Sch. Dist., 899 F.Supp.2d 285 (S.D.N.Y.2012) (untimely SRO appeal esp. for exhaustion failure)
- D.C. ex rel. E.B. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 950 F.Supp.2d 494 (S.D.N.Y.2013) (section-504 claim framework and remedies)
- Flight v. Gloeckler, 68 F.3d 61 (2d Cir.1995) (discusses discrimination standards under Section 504)
- Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988) (distinction between exclusion due to disability vs. conduct; educational context)