924 F. Supp. 2d 273
D.D.C.2013Background
- G.G. is a DC public school student diagnosed with Asperger syndrome requiring special education services.
- Parents alleged DCPS failed to timely evaluate and determine G.G.’s eligibility for special education.
- Hearing officer found a timely evaluation/eligibility were violated but allowed time to complete an IEP, and denied reimbursement for MAP placement.
- G.G. attended the MAP (non-public) school in Maryland beginning fall 2011; DCPS later was ordered to evaluate and determine eligibility.
- Court held the District failed to timely evaluate and determine eligibility, denied a timely IEP, and must reimburse MAP placement from the date the eligibility determination should have been made, while other aspects of the hearing decision were left intact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did DCPS’s untimely evaluation/eligibility denial deny FAPE? | G.G. was denied a timely FAPE due to late evaluation/eligibility. | District contends timing issues did not deny FAPE. | Yes, denial of FAPE due to untimely evaluation/eligibility. |
| Was there a timely IEP after the evaluation/eligibility? | Delay prevented timely IEP development. | Even with delay, potential IEP could follow later. | District failed to timely create an IEP. |
| Should DCPS reimburse MAP placement given lack of timely FAPE? | Reimbursement is appropriate from date eligibility should have been made. | No reimbursement because timing of referral blocked FAPE. | Plaintiffs entitled to reimbursement from eligibility-due-date until IEP completed. |
| What about placement in MAP or future placement decisions? | MDT/IEP team should determine appropriate placement; MAP may remain appropriate. | Court should not pre-empt MDT/IEP determination. | Remand to MDT/IEP; no standalone MAP placement order here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (U.S. Supreme Court 1982) (foundation for FAPE standards; educational benefit requirement)
- Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (heightened review of IDEA decisions; weight given to administrative findings)
- Florence Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Dept. of Educ. of Mass., 510 U.S. 7 (U.S. Supreme Court 1993) (authorizes equitable relief when public placement violates IDEA)