Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. East Lyme Board of Education
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10851
| 2d Cir. | 2015Background
- John Doe, a resident of East Lyme Public School District with autism, attended private Solomon School (tuition paid by parent) while the Board funded related services per the amended 2008–2009 IEP (Orton‑Gillingham reading, speech, OT/PT).
- In June 2009 the parties reached an impasse over the 2009–2010 IEP; the Board issued a 2009–2010 IEP proposing public placement and different related‑service levels, which the parent rejected and kept John at Solomon.
- The parent paid privately for some, but not all, related services during 2009–2010 and demanded the Board continue funding those services; the Board refused and later declined to offer IEPs for 2010–2011 and subsequent years.
- The parent filed administrative due‑process proceedings (initial complaint April 27, 2010; briefly withdrawn and refiled), sought reimbursement for related services and tuition, and then sought judicial review after adverse administrative decision.
- The district court found (1) the 2009–2010 IEP provided a FAPE, (2) the Board denied a FAPE by failing to issue IEPs for 2010–2011 and later, but the private placement (Solomon) was inappropriate so no relief on that FAPE claim, and (3) the Board violated IDEA’s stay‑put by refusing to fund related services in the amended 2008–2009 IEP once impasse was reached, awarding reimbursement limited to the parent’s out‑of‑pocket expenses.
- The Second Circuit affirmed most rulings but vacated and remanded the remedy: it held stay‑put is triggered by the filing of administrative proceedings and that equitable relief must cover the full value of services owed (reimbursement for what was paid plus compensatory education for the unpaid remainder).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 2009–2010 IEP denied a FAPE | 2009–2010 IEP procedurally and substantively inadequate | IEP provided appropriate services and placement | Court: IEP provided a FAPE (affirmed) |
| Whether Board had duty to offer IEPs for 2010–2011+ | Board failed to offer IEPs, denying FAPE | Enrollment at out‑of‑district private school terminated Board’s obligations | Court: Board violated IDEA by failing to offer IEPs, but parent’s private placement was inappropriate so no remedial relief on that claim (affirmed) |
| Whether stay‑put applied and when it was triggered | Parent: Board must fund related services under amended 2008–2009 IEP during pendency | Board: stay‑put triggered at impasse (June 17, 2009); alternatively, obligations end if FAPE provided | Court: stay‑put applies to related services; obligation is triggered by initiation of administrative proceedings (filed April 27, 2010), not by impasse; Board violated stay‑put (affirmed) |
| Proper remedy for stay‑put violation | Parent: full value of services owed should be awarded (not limited to what parent could afford) | Board: reimbursement should be limited (exclude pre‑filing services; limited to out‑of‑pocket) | Court: district must award reimbursement for services actually paid since filing plus compensatory education to cover the unpaid portion up to full value of stay‑put services; vacated and remanded for calculation |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (interpretive baseline for FAPE requirement)
- Bd. of Educ. v. Burlington, 471 U.S. 359 (remedies under IDEA; reimbursement principles)
- Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230 (district’s duty to propose IEPs; private placement reimbursement principles)
- Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186 (deference to administrative findings on IEP adequacy)
- Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ. of Hyde Park, 459 F.3d 356 (private placement appropriateness analysis)
- Mackey ex rel. Thomas M. v. Bd. of Educ. for Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 386 F.3d 158 (stay‑put scope and analysis)
- T.M. ex rel. A.M. v. Cornwall Cent. Sch. Dist., 752 F.3d 145 (stay‑put preserves status quo including related services)
- Polera v. Bd. of Educ. of Newburgh Enlarged City Sch. Dist., 288 F.3d 478 (damages unavailable under IDEA)
- Reid ex rel. Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516 (compensatory education must be reasonably calculated to remedy earlier deprivation)