Leggett v. District of Columbia
417 App. D.C. 59
| D.C. Cir. | 2015Background
- K.E., a teenager with diagnosed learning, attention, and disabling anxiety/depression, attended D.C. public schools and struggled academically; psychologists recommended a small, highly structured therapeutic educational program.
- DCPS agreed to evaluate and develop an IEP in mid-2012 but had not finalized an IEP by the start of the 2012–13 school year despite repeated requests from parent Jane Leggett.
- Leggett notified DCPS in early August 2012 that she would enroll K.E. at Grier School (a private residential boarding school) unless DCPS produced an acceptable IEP; she remained open to returning K.E. if DCPS provided one.
- DCPS produced no IEP before the school year began; Leggett enrolled K.E. at Grier, where K.E. subsequently made significant academic improvement.
- An administrative hearing officer and the district court denied reimbursement, reasoning the residential placement was unnecessary and that Leggett acted unreasonably; the D.C. Circuit reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Leggett’s Argument | DCPS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to have an IEP in place at start of year denied FAPE | DCPS’s lack of an IEP by start-of-year was a substantive denial of FAPE | The delay was procedural/de minimis and did not deprive K.E. of educational opportunity | Court: The untimely IEP was a substantive denial of FAPE because it deprived K.E. of needed services that would have changed her education |
| Whether unilateral private placement is “proper under the Act” (Rowley standard) | Grier was reasonably calculated to confer educational benefits and thus proper | Grier was improper because a non-residential placement could have sufficed; DCPS stressed Grier’s residential nature | Court: Rowley’s “reasonably calculated to enable educational benefit” standard applies; Grier met it |
| Whether residential component (room & board) was “necessary” and reimbursable | Grier’s residential program was necessary to deliver the educational program and thus its room & board are reimbursable | Residential care was unnecessary; placement addressed medical/social issues separable from education | Court: Residential component was necessary here (no alternative on the record) and thus room & board are reimbursable, though non-educational extras may be reduced on remand |
| Whether equities permit full reimbursement (parent acted unreasonably) | Leggett acted reasonably given DCPS’s nonresponse and failure to provide an IEP; she gave notice and offered to return if an IEP materialized | Leggett acted unreasonably by withdrawing before DCPS finished an IEP, choosing an expensive distant boarding school, and not challenging the later IEP | Court: Leggett’s conduct was not unreasonable on this record; full reimbursement appropriate subject to remand determinations about specific non-educational or unreasonable costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982) (IEP must be reasonably calculated to enable educational benefit)
- Burlington v. Dep’t of Educ. of Mass., 471 U.S. 359 (1985) (equitable authority to order reimbursement for proper private placement)
- Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993) (private placement reimbursable if proper under the Act; districts can avoid liability by providing a FAPE)
- McKenzie v. Smith, 771 F.2d 1527 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (residential placement unnecessary when addressing segregable medical/social problems; but reimbursement required where district failed to meet obligations and placement was the only program supported by the record)
- Lesesne ex rel. B.F. v. District of Columbia, 447 F.3d 828 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (procedural IDEA violations actionable only if they result in loss of educational opportunity)
- Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (standard of review for IDEA judicial review where district court relies on the administrative record)
- Branham v. District of Columbia, 427 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (IEP need only provide some educational benefit)
- Dale M. ex rel. Alice M. v. Bd. of Educ. of Bradley-Bourbonnais High Sch. Dist. No. 307, 237 F.3d 813 (7th Cir. 2001) (placement must be primarily oriented toward education to be reimbursable)
- Munir v. Pottsville Area Sch. Dist., 723 F.3d 423 (3d Cir. 2013) (presence of classes supports educational purpose of placement)
- Kerkam v. Superintendent, D.C. Pub. Schs., 931 F.2d 84 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (least restrictive environment principle under IDEA)