Leggett v. District of Columbia, 19 F. Supp. 3d 140

Background

K.E., a high-school student with emotional disorders and superior verbal ability, was found eligible for IDEA services after DCPS evaluations in spring 2012.
DCPS convened IEP meetings in May and June 2012 but did not complete K.E.’s IEP before the DCPS school year began on August 27, 2012; the IEP was finalized on September 11, 2012.
K.E.’s mother withdrew her from Wilson and enrolled her at The Grier School (a private residential school in Pennsylvania) beginning September 6, 2012; she sought DCPS reimbursement for tuition and related costs.
An administrative hearing officer found DCPS denied K.E. a FAPE due to the IEP delay but denied reimbursement because the hearing officer concluded the residential placement at Grier was not necessary for educational purposes.
The district court reviewed cross-motions for summary judgment, agreed DCPS denied a FAPE by missing the IEP deadline, but affirmed the hearing officer’s denial of reimbursement because Grier was not an appropriate residential placement and the parent’s actions were partly unreasonable.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DCPS' failure to have a completed IEP by the first day of school denied K.E. a FAPE	Leggett: Missing the IEP deadline is a denial of FAPE and justified unilateral placement	DCPS: Eleven-school-day delay was de minimis procedural violation not amounting to denial of FAPE	Court: DCPS’ failure to have an IEP in effect by start of school denied K.E. a FAPE
Whether Grier (private residential school) was an appropriate placement such that reimbursement is warranted	Leggett: Grier met K.E.’s needs and provided educational benefit; therefore it was appropriate	DCPS: Grier is not a therapeutic residential program, not primarily for students with disabilities, and residential placement was not shown to be necessary	Court: Grier was not shown to be necessary for educational purposes; hearing officer’s conclusion that it was not appropriate is upheld
Whether plaintiffs are entitled to reimbursement for unilateral private placement under IDEA standards	Leggett: Because DCPS denied a FAPE, reimbursement for the private placement is required	DCPS: Even if a FAPE denial occurred, reimbursement requires that the private placement be appropriate and parental actions reasonable	Held: Reimbursement denied because private placement was not shown to be necessary/appropriate and parental conduct was unreasonable in timing and choice
Impact of parent’s conduct (timing/reasonableness) on equitable relief	Leggett: Withdrawal and placement were reasonable given DCPS’ delay	DCPS: Parent withdrew prematurely and chose an expensive out-of-state residential program not primarily for disabled students	Court: Parent’s early withdrawal and selection of Grier were unreasonable factors supporting denial of reimbursement

Key Cases Cited

Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (U.S. 1982) (IDEA does not require maximizing student potential; courts review for basic floor of opportunity)
Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (U.S. 1993) (parents who unilaterally enroll child in private school may obtain reimbursement only if public agency violated IDEA and private placement was appropriate)
Lesesne v. District of Columbia, 447 F.3d 828 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (procedural violations actionable only if they affect student’s substantive rights)
C.H. v. Cape Henlopen Sch. Dist., 606 F.3d 59 (3d Cir. 2010) (failure to finalize IEP by start of school may not deny FAPE where district showed consistent willingness to evaluate and develop IEP and parent acted unreasonably)
McKenzie v. Smith, 771 F.2d 1527 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (to justify residential placement reimbursement, placement must be necessary for educational purposes)
Reid ex rel. Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (standard of review for administrative IDEA decisions; courts owe less deference to hearing officers but must explain departures)