L.C. v. The New York City Department of Education, 1:15-cv-04092

Plaintiff L.C. sued on behalf of her son T.B., who has autism and expressive-language deficits, alleging the NYC Department of Education (DOE) denied him a FAPE for 2013–2014 by recommending an inappropriate public placement and/or issuing an untimely final notice of recommendation (FNR).
The CSE issued a July 15, 2013 IEP recommending a 6:1:1 District 75 program at PS 771 with a full-time one-on-one paraprofessional; IEP speech goals emphasized pragmatic and expressive language and peer verbal interaction.
L.C. visited one of two 6:1:1 classes at PS 771, observed mostly nonverbal or non‑English-speaking peers, and wrote to the CSE that the placement was unsuitable. She then unilaterally placed T.B. at the Cooke Center (private school) and sought tuition reimbursement.
An IHO awarded reimbursement, finding DOE failed to present evidence that PS 771 could implement the IEP or appropriately group T.B. The SRO reversed, holding the parent’s challenge to the placement was speculative because T.B. never attended PS 771.
The district court reviewed the SRO decision under IDEA standards and granted summary judgment to DOE, holding L.C.’s prospective challenge to the placement was speculative and the FNR was timely.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of final notice of recommendation (FNR)	FNR was untimely, depriving T.B. of a FAPE	FNR dated Aug 30, 2013 (10 days before school start) satisfied requirement that an IEP be in effect at the start of the year	Held: FNR timely; no IDEA violation
Adequacy of proposed placement (prospective challenge)	PS 771 lacked capacity to implement IEP speech goals because observed classmates were nonverbal/non‑English and classroom lacked language use	DOE: Parent’s observations of one class are speculative; because T.B. never attended, DOE need not prove anything about implementation	Held: Challenge was speculative; absent evidence school would not or could not implement the IEP, DOE carried no burden and reimbursement denied
Burden to prove placement capacity	L.C.: DOE must show proposed site could implement IEP	DOE: Burden only arises if parent's challenge is a permissible prospective challenge showing lack of capacity	Held: Burden applies only if parent states a non‑speculative prospective challenge; here parent failed to do so
Deference to administrative findings	N/A (procedural)	SRO’s reasoned reversal should be afforded deference	Held: Court deferred to SRO; reviewed record and adopted SRO’s reasoning

M.O. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 793 F.3d 236 (2d Cir. 2015) (prospective challenges and district burden to show placement can implement IEP)
R.E. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 694 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2012) (Burlington/Carter framework and IEP adequacy principles)
MH v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 685 F.3d 217 (2d Cir. 2012) (standard of review and deference to administrative determinations)
A.C. ex rel. M.C. v. Board of Educ., 553 F.3d 165 (2d Cir. 2009) (courts must give due weight to administrative proceedings)
Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230 (U.S. 2009) (parents may obtain reimbursement when public school fails to provide FAPE and private placement is appropriate)
T.Y. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 584 F.3d 412 (2d Cir. 2009) (capacity to implement IEP and grouping considerations)
Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F.3d 377 (2d Cir. 2003) (SRO review and scope of administrative review)
D.C. ex rel. E.B. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 950 F. Supp. 2d 494 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (evidence required to show site can implement IEP)