G.L. v. Ligonier Valley School District Authority
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 16776
| 3rd Cir. | 2015Background
- G.L., a student with disabilities, faced repeated bullying and denial of evaluation for IDEA services after entering the Ligonier Valley School District in 2008.
- District delays in evaluating G.L. and addressing bullying culminated in an inadequate IEP in 2009 and worsening conditions, leading to withdrawal to a cyber charter in March 2010.
- Reasonable discovery date for the violation was March 9, 2010; parents filed a due process complaint on January 9, 2012, within two years of discovery.
- District Court adopted a 2+2 remedy cap, limiting compensatory education to a three-month period from January–March 2010, and denied other compensation.
- The Third Circuit granted plenary review to resolve how §1415(b)(6)(B) and §1415(f)(3)(C) interact and what remedies are available under IDEA when timely filed claims span multiple years.
- The court ultimately held that §1415(b)(6)(B) mirrors §1415(f)(3)(C) and that the remedial power under the IDEA is not limited to a two-year retroactive cap when claims are timely filed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do §1415(b)(6)(B) and §1415(f)(3)(C) set a single two-year discovery-based filing deadline rather than a remedy cap? | G.L. contends both provisions tie to a two-year period from discovery, but do not cap the remedy. | District contends §1415(b)(6)(B) functions as a two-year window prior to discovery, effectively capping remedies. | They restate the same two-year limitations, not a remedy cap. |
| Is compensatory education available beyond two years of deprivation when a timely complaint is filed? | Plaintiff asserts broad remedies; may recover for the entire deprivation period. | Remedy should be limited by the statute of limitations. | Remedy is not capped for timely-filed claims; compensatory education may cover the full period of deprivation with timely filing. |
| What is the proper interpretation of the DOE regulation and legislative history regarding these provisions? | Regulatory text and history support a broader remedial approach. | Interpretation should align with a two-year deadline and possible state-law overrides. | DOE interpretation persuasive: §1415(b)(6)(B) mirrors §1415(f)(3)(C); not a remedy cap. |
| Did the district court err in adopting the 2+2 approach and limiting G.L.’s relief accordingly? | 2+2 is consistent with a two-year discovery rule extending the remedy period. | 2+2 improperly narrows relief and conflicts with IDEA’s remedial scope. | The 2+2 approach is rejected; the court must provide complete remedy consistent with IDEA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230 (U.S. 2009) (broad remedial powers under IDEA; compensatory education must be complete to make student whole)
- D.K. v. Abington Sch. Dist., 696 F.3d 233 (3d Cir. 2012) (two-year discovery-based deadline; tolling exceptions are exclusive)
- Steven I. v. Cent. Bucks Sch. Dist., 618 F.3d 411 (3d Cir. 2010) (pre-2004 amendments; retroactive application of §1415(f)(3)(C))
- M.C. ex rel. J.C. v. Cent. Reg’l Sch. Dist., 81 F.3d 389 (3d Cir. 1996) (compensatory education equals period of deprivation, with time to rectify excluded)