Hardison v. Bd. of Ed. Oneonta City School District
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 22735
| 2d Cir. | 2014Background
- Student A.N.H., with significant emotional/mental-health issues, was removed from Oneonta public school in 2008 and placed by her parents at Family Foundation, a private therapeutic boarding school; parents sought IDEA tuition reimbursement.
- District convened CSE meetings in 2008–2009, eventually classifying A.N.H. as emotionally disturbed in April 2009 and recommending a therapeutic/day-treatment or residential placement but did not identify a specific placement acceptable to the parents.
- Parents unilaterally kept A.N.H. at Family Foundation (not state-approved as a special education school); Family Foundation provided therapeutic groups and some academic instruction but limited standardized academic measurement and no clear, credentialed one-on-one psychotherapy record in the administrative file.
- IHO found the District denied a FAPE for parts of 2008–2010 and ordered reimbursement; the SRO reversed most of the IHO, agreeing District denied a FAPE only after May 1, 2009, but concluded the record lacked objective detail showing Family Foundation was an appropriate special-education placement and denied reimbursement on that basis and on equitable grounds.
- The district court reviewed the same administrative record, concluded Family Foundation was appropriate, and ordered reimbursement for May 1–31, 2009 and 2009–2010; the Second Circuit reviews de novo but must give due weight to SRO determinations when the record is identical.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Family Foundation was an "appropriate" unilateral private placement under IDEA | Hardison: Family Foundation provided therapeutic and academic services that addressed A.N.H.’s unique needs and produced improved functioning/grades | District: Record lacks objective, specific evidence tying Family Foundation’s therapeutic services to tailored academic instruction showing educational benefit | Court: SRO entitled to deference; record lacked sufficient objective detail tying services to educational progress -> no reimbursement |
| Standard of review / deference to SRO | Hardison: district court could independently weigh evidence and reject SRO | District: district court should defer to SRO because review was based on same administrative record | Court: federal courts must give due weight to reasoned SRO decisions especially when reviewing same record; SRO decision merited deference |
| Whether District denied a FAPE (time periods) | Hardison: District denied FAPE for 2008–2009 and 2009–2010 | District: any denial occurred only after May 1, 2009; earlier periods were not denials | Court: did not disturb SRO’s finding re: FAPE timing; remanded to affirm SRO (SRO found denial beginning May 1, 2009) |
| Equitable considerations for reimbursement (notice, collaboration) | Hardison: equities favor reimbursement because of cooperation and collaboration with District | District: parents failed to provide notice of unilateral placement/reimbursement claim and Family Foundation not approved; equities weigh against reimbursement | Court: because parental burden to prove appropriateness was unmet, court did not reach further equitable arguments; SRO also concluded equities did not support reimbursement |
Key Cases Cited
- Reyes ex rel. R.P. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 760 F.3d 211 (2d Cir. 2014) (standards for FAPE and IEP content under IDEA)
- R.E. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 694 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2012) (deference to state educational authorities and standard of review)
- M.H. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 685 F.3d 217 (2d Cir. 2012) (review duties of district court and deference to SRO when based on same record)
- Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ. of Hyde Park, 459 F.3d 356 (2d Cir. 2006) (objective evidence of progress and assessing appropriateness of private placement)
- Florence Cnty. Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (U.S. 1993) (parents may recover tuition when private placement is appropriate)
- Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186 (2d Cir. 2005) (district court’s independent review of administrative record)
- Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2007) (institutional competence and deference to administrative educational decisions)
- C.F. ex rel. R.F. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 746 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2014) (analysis of appropriateness of private placements)
- C.L. v. Scarsdale Union Free Sch. Dist., 744 F.3d 826 (2d Cir. 2014) (parents’ burden to show private placement appropriate)