D.S. v. Trumbull Bd. of Ed., 975 F.3d 152

D.S., a student with disabilities, had a comprehensive triennial reevaluation in October 2014 and annual Functional Behavioral Assessments (FBAs) in 2015, 2016, and March 2017; the school planned the next comprehensive reevaluation for October 2017.
After the March 2017 FBA, D.S.’s parents disputed the adequacy of prior "evaluations" (including the FBA and the 2014 triennial reevaluation) and requested a comprehensive independent educational evaluation (IEE) at public expense covering behavioral and non‑behavioral domains.
The Board refused the parents’ IEE request and filed a due process complaint; an administrative hearing officer treated the March 2017 FBA as an IDEA "evaluation," but denied a comprehensive IEE beyond behavior because the requested assessments exceeded the FBA’s scope (granting only an independent behavioral assessment).
The district court affirmed, concluding (1) the Board had waived arguing that an FBA is not an IDEA "evaluation," (2) a parent’s right to an IEE is limited by the scope of the contested evaluation, and (3) any challenge to the October 2014 triennial reevaluation was time‑barred by the IDEA’s two‑year statute of limitations.
The Second Circuit reversed: it held an FBA standing alone is not an IDEA "evaluation" that triggers a publicly funded IEE, and the two‑year limitations period does not bar a parent’s request for an IEE; instead, the applicable practical time frame is tied to the statutory reevaluation cycle.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an FBA is an "evaluation" under the IDEA that triggers a right to an IEE at public expense	Parents: the March 2017 FBA is an "evaluation" and their disagreement entitles them to a comprehensive IEE	Board: an FBA is either an evaluation or, if treated as one, parents cannot use a limited FBA to demand a comprehensive IEE unrelated to behavior	Court: An FBA is an assessment tool, not a comprehensive "evaluation" as defined by IDEA; disagreement with an FBA does not entitle parents to a publicly funded comprehensive IEE
Whether the IDEA’s two‑year statute of limitations for due process complaints bars a parent's IEE request challenging the October 2014 triennial reevaluation	Parents: their challenge to the 2014 reevaluation is timely and entitles them to an IEE	Board: any disagreement with the 2014 reevaluation was untimely under the two‑year limitations period	Court: The two‑year due process limitations period does not apply to IEE requests; a parent need not file a due process complaint to request an IEE, and the practical window to seek an IEE is tied to the evaluation/reevaluation cycle (typically within the three‑year triennial period)

Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist. RE‑1, 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017) (describing IDEA FAPE/IEP standards)
Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (2005) (explaining parental rights to examine records and challenge evaluations)
Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. LY USA, Inc., 676 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2012) (statutory‑interpretation approach: read provision in statutory scheme)
Christensen v. Harris Cnty., 529 U.S. 576 (2000) (limits on deference to agency opinion letters)
T.P. ex rel. T.P. v. Bryan Cnty. Sch. Dist., 792 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir. 2015) (describing IEE purpose as supplemental to district evaluation)
Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186 (2d Cir. 2005) (standard of review for IDEA mixed questions of law and fact)