643 F. App'x 31
2d Cir.2016Background
- Parents (J.C. and J.F.) sought IDEA tuition reimbursement for private school placement of their child C.C. for the 2011–2012 school year after rejecting the NYC DOE IEP.
- The District Court granted DOE summary judgment and denied parents’ summary judgment; parents appealed.
- Administrative history includes an Impartial Hearing Officer (IHO) decision and a contrary State Review Officer (SRO) decision; the SRO’s conclusions were reasoned.
- Key contested issues: whether procedural IDEA violations (missing parent counseling, lack of FBA/BIP, summer relocation notice) and alleged substantive IEP defects deprived C.C. of a FAPE.
- The court applied the Burlington-Carter three-part test (FAPE procedural/substantive adequacy; appropriateness of private placement; equities) and the two-step inquiry for IEP adequacy (procedural compliance and substantive reasonable calculation of educational benefit).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of deference between IHO and SRO | Defer to IHO because SRO decision was not careful/thorough | Defer to SRO as final state administrative determination | Court defers to SRO where SRO reasoned; no deference to IHO when SRO addressed issue |
| Procedural violation: omission of parent training/counseling in IEP | Omission was a procedural violation warranting reimbursement | Omission was a less serious procedural error that did not deny FAPE | Court held omission alone did not deny FAPE and deferred to SRO's conclusion |
| Procedural violation: failure to conduct FBA / develop BIP | Failure to perform FBA/BIP was a serious procedural violation denying FAPE | DOE contended IEP nonetheless adequately addressed behavior; FBA omission did not necessarily deny FAPE | Court held FBA/BIP omission did not deny FAPE where IEP adequately identified/treated behaviors; no cumulative denial found |
| Substantive adequacy: retrospective evidence about classroom grouping & summer relocation notice | Parents argued grouping evidence and inadequate summer relocation notice showed IEP substantively inadequate | DOE argued retrospective grouping evidence is speculative and relocation notice did not render IEP inadequate | Court rejected retrospective grouping evidence as speculative under R.E./M.O.; affirmed that relocation notice did not make IEP substantively inadequate |
Key Cases Cited
- C.F. ex rel. R.F. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 746 F.3d 68 (2d Cir.) (defers to reasoned SRO when IHO and SRO disagree)
- R.E. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 694 F.3d 167 (2d Cir.) (limits review to written IEP and information known at placement decision; two-step procedural/substantive IEP analysis)
- Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186 (2d Cir.) (IDEA procedural compliance inquiry)
- M.W. ex rel. S.W. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 725 F.3d 131 (2d Cir.) (failure to provide counseling is a less serious procedural violation; standards for behavioral strategies in IEP)
- M.O. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 793 F.3d 236 (2d Cir.) (parents may challenge an assigned school’s actual noncompliance with an IEP without first enrolling the child there)