D.O., INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF M.O., ETC. VS. JACKSON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION (L-1738-16, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-3783-19

Background

D.O., mother of M.O. (a child eligible for special education), requested a complete copy of her son’s school records on July 13, 2015; the Jackson Township Board of Education produced multiple sets of records between Aug. 2015 and Mar. 2016 and certified production of all records in its possession.
D.O. filed a second IDEA due process complaint (Sept. 9, 2015) asserting the District failed to provide complete records; that petition did not allege a denial of FAPE.
An ALJ dismissed the second due process complaint as not a proper subject for an IDEA due process hearing; D.O. sued in the Law Division challenging that dismissal and sought an IDEA hearing based in part on dicta in footnote 6 of Fry.
The Law Division dismissed D.O.’s suit (finding available administrative remedies under the Commissioner’s process and concluding earlier production likely mooted the dispute); after remand and further briefing Judge Brenner again granted summary judgment for the District.
The Appellate Division affirms, holding (1) no statutory right to a stand-alone IDEA due process hearing for a records-only dispute, and (2) Fry’s footnote 6 does not create such an independent entitlement; the Commissioner’s petition process (N.J.A.C. 6A:3 / N.J.A.C. 6A:32-7.7) is the proper route for records-access disputes.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a parent is entitled to a stand-alone IDEA due process hearing when dispute concerns only alleged denial of access to student records	Fry footnote 6 allows a due process hearing to obtain records and related relief	IDEA and state rules do not grant a due process hearing for a records-only dispute; available remedy is Commissioner/OAL process	No. IDEA and NJ implementing regs limit due process hearings to FAPE/placement/evaluation/discipline disputes; records-only claims are not entitled to IDEA due process hearings
Whether Fry v. Napoleon’s footnote 6 created an independent right to an IDEA due process hearing for records access	Footnote 6’s example (ordering compliance with procedural requirements, e.g., allowing parents to examine records) establishes such a right	Fry’s footnote is illustrative; it does not amend IDEA or create a standalone hearing right where statute/regulations do not	Fry’s footnote 6 does not confer an independent entitlement; read in context it shows what a hearing officer may order during an IDEA hearing, not a new basis to invoke IDEA due process
Proper administrative remedy for alleged denial of access to student records and availability of fee-shifting under IDEA	IDEA due process provides forum and fee-shifting potential	State law/regulations provide a separate records appeal path (NJPRA / N.J.A.C. 6A:32 and N.J.A.C. 6A:3) to the Commissioner or OAL; that route lacks IDEA fee-shifting	The Commissioner’s petition process (and possible OAL hearing) is the appropriate avenue for records-access disputes; IDEA fee-shifting under a stand-alone records claim is not available

Key Cases Cited

Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Schs., 137 S. Ct. 743 (2017) (IDEA exhaustion applies only when suit seeks relief for denial of a FAPE; footnote 6 illustrates procedural orders a hearing officer may impose at an IDEA hearing)
Endrew F. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017) (describes IDEA’s FAPE substantive guarantee and IEP role)
D.S. v. Bayonne Bd. of Educ., 602 F.3d 553 (3d Cir. 2010) (procedural IDEA violations are actionable only if they impede FAPE or parental participation or cause deprivation of educational benefits)
L.R. v. Camden City Pub. Sch. Dist., 238 N.J. 547 (2019) (state precedents addressing access to educational records and scope of NJPRA/regulatory implementation)
Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. v. Murphy, 548 U.S. 291 (2006) (fee-shifting under IDEA and limits on statutory conditions attached to federal funds)
Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002) (FERPA overview and its role in governing student-records privacy)
Hasbrouck Heights Bd. of Educ. v. W.J., 358 N.J. Super. 8 (App. Div. 2003) (scope of judicial review of administrative IDEA proceedings)