I.H. v. Cumberland Valley School District
842 F. Supp. 2d 762
M.D. Penn.2012Background
- Plaintiff I.H. is a middle school student with disabilities in Cumberland Valley SD, residing in the district with guardian D.S.
- Defendants Cumberland Valley School District and Superintendent Harner move to dismiss the complaint; court grants in part and denies in part.
- Plaintiff sues under IDEA, Section 504, ADA, PSER, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking an IEP in his neighborhood school and related relief.
- Plaintiff alleges numerous failures of the district to provide appropriate evaluations, IEPs, and services, including during 2009–2010 and later periods, leading to significant stress and exclusion from appropriate educational opportunities.
- Hearing Officer previously found failures to provide FAPE during specified periods; disputes whether the district of residence must provide an IEP to a student who enrolled in a cyber charter school; issues include statute of limitations and exhaustion concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district of residence must provide an IEP after unenrollment | I.H. is entitled to an IEP from the district of residence regardless of enrollment status | Agora is the LEA; the district is not obligated to provide an IEP post-enrollment | District of residence must provide an IEP despite unenrollment (IEP, not necessarily FAPE) |
| Statute of limitations on compensatory education claims | Exceptions to the two-year limit apply to include pre-June 2007 harms | Exceptions do not apply; claims barred pre-June 2008 | Exceptions not pled sufficiently; claims prior to June 8, 2008 are dismissed; compensatory education limited to post-June 8, 2008 |
| ADA claim exhaustion | ADA claim rises from same IDEA conduct and relief; not raised administratively | ADA claims must be exhausted when based on IDEA facts | ADA claim dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under IDEA |
| Viability of the Section 1983 claim | Section 1983 provides additional remedies for IDEA violations | IDEA precludes Section 1983 as sole remedy for IDEA rights | Section 1983 claim dismissed as exclusive remedy lies in IDEA (not duplicative) |
| Expert fees under Section 504 | Prevailing party should recover expert fees under Section 504 | Arlington limits expert fees under IDEA; not applicable to 504 | Expert fees recoverable under Section 504; claim not dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Murphy, 548 U.S. 291 (U.S. 2006) (expert fees not available under IDEA; 504 permits broader remedies allowing fees to prevailing party)
- Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230 (U.S. 2009) (parents’ remedial rights under IDEA and remedial framework related to evaluations)
- Moorestown Twp. Bd. of Educ. v. S.D., 811 F. Supp. 2d 1057 (D.N.J. 2011) (district must evaluate and propose FAPE when parents seek reevaluation for potential re-enrollment)
- James v. Upper Arlington City Sch. Dist., 228 F.3d 764 (6th Cir. 2000) (limits of enrollment prerequisites to obtain an IEP; remedial nature of IDEA)
- A.W. v. Jersey City Pub. Sch., 486 F.3d 791 (3d Cir. 2007) (IDEA rights and §1983 remedies; IDEA precludes §1983 for IDEA violations)
- Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (government entities as persons under §1983; framework for Monell claims)
- R.R. v. Manheim Twp. Sch. Dist., 412 Fed.Appx. 544 (3d Cir. 2011) (exhaustion and relation of ADA claims to IDEA remediess (nonprecedential))