J.P. v. City of N.Y. Dep't of Educ.
17-0440-cv
| 2d Cir. | Dec 19, 2017Background
- Parents (J.P. and M.P.) sought tuition reimbursement under the IDEA for their son J.P. for the 2013–2014 school year after disputes over his public-school IEP.
- An Impartial Hearing Officer (IHO) upheld the DOE’s IEP; a State Review Officer (SRO) affirmed; the District Court granted summary judgment for the DOE; parents appealed to the Second Circuit.
- The central claim: the 2013–2014 IEP failed to provide a FAPE because it was substantively inadequate and procedurally defective.
- Key contested facts: adequacy of behavioral supports (FBA/BIP), whether the IEP was predetermined (denying meaningful parental participation), and whether later IEPs showed the 2013–2014 IEP was improper.
- Second Circuit conducted a circumscribed de novo review of the administrative record and deferred to well-reasoned administrative findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantive adequacy of the 2013–2014 IEP | The IEP was not reasonably calculated to enable appropriate progress | The IEP was reasonable given J.P.’s circumstances and supported by the record | Court affirmed: IEP was substantively adequate; IHO/SRO decisions entitled to deference |
| Use of subsequent IEPs to show inadequacy | Later IEPs demonstrate the 2013–2014 IEP was deficient | Subsequent IEPs have limited probative value; adequacy is a prospective judgment | Court affirmed: later IEPs are of limited relevance to the prospective sufficiency of the 2013–2014 IEP |
| Adequacy of FBA/BIP (procedural) | DOE failed to perform proper FBA and develop a compliant BIP, a serious procedural violation denying FAPE | Even if FBA/BIP requirements were not fully followed, the IEP identified problem behaviors and prescribed management (1:1 aide, services) | Court affirmed: procedural lapse did not amount to denial of FAPE because IEP addressed behaviors and prescribed remedies |
| Predetermination / meaningful parental participation | CSE had a closed mind and predetermined placement, denying meaningful participation | CSE considered parents’ submissions, convened a second meeting, and engaged with objections | Court affirmed: parents failed to show predetermination; they meaningfully participated |
Key Cases Cited
- Endrew F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017) (IEP must be reasonably calculated to enable progress appropriate to child’s circumstances)
- M.W. ex rel. S.W. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 725 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 2013) (standard of review and deference to administrative findings in IDEA cases)
- R.E. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 694 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2012) (procedural violations do not necessarily deny FAPE if IEP addresses problem behavior)
- Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186 (2d Cir. 2005) (substantial deference owed to state administrators on IDEA matters)
- Walczak v. Fla. Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 1998) (deference to administrative findings and substantive adequacy inquiry)
- M.H. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 685 F.3d 217 (2d Cir. 2012) (IEP reasonableness standard)
- T.P. ex rel. S.P. v. Mamaroneck Union Free Sch. Dist., 554 F.3d 247 (2d Cir. 2009) (predetermination/meaningful parental participation analysis)
- Hardison v. Bd. of Educ., 773 F.3d 372 (2d Cir. 2014) (when IEP adequate, court need not reach appropriateness of private placement or equitable reimbursement factors)