403 F. App'x 832
4th Cir.2010Background
- S.L. is autistic and eligible for IDEA special education services; MCPS prepared July 18, 2006 and November 14, 2006 IEPs proposing Strathmore placement; Lorenzens enrolled S.L. at Kingsbury for 2006-2007 and sought tuition reimbursement.
- ALJ found July 18 IEP violated IDEA procedural requirements and denied FAPE for the first semester; amended November 14 IEP was reasonably calculated to provide FAPE for the remainder of 2006-2007.
- ALJ awarded tuition reimbursement for the first semester only; district court later granted summary judgment to Lorenzens denying reimbursement for the second semester.
- Lorenzens moved for summary judgment and sought to introduce “additional evidence” not in the administrative record; MCPS filed evidence via affidavit from Virginia Ross.
- Ross affidavit avers the July 24, 2007 IEP team found S.L.’s needs changed and that the team concluded Strathmore could not meet her needs for 2007-2008; district court relied on this to deny relief for the second semester.
- We vacate the district court’s summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly treated new evidence about the July 24, 2007 change of placement. | Lorenzens contend the July 24 reversal shows Strathmore was inappropriate for 2006-2007. | MCPS argues Ross affidavit creates a genuine factual dispute about reasons for changing placement. | Yes; district court erred; genuine issue of material fact remains. |
| Whether Ross’s affidavit admissibly supports a change of placement for 2007-2008 and affects 2006-2007 analysis. | No admissible evidence refuting initial IEPs; changes are irrelevant to 2006-2007. | Ross affidavit is admissible and indicates a prospective change for 2007-2008. | Admissible; creates material fact issue about reasons for July 2007 change. |
| Whether the district court appropriately applied summary-judgment standards in IDEA context with new evidence. | Court should consider record as a whole and defer to administrative process. | Court should test evidence under summary judgment; need to respect substantial deference with some clear-error review. | District court erred in ruling without properly weighing in MCPS’s favor. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (U.S. 1982) (establishes standard for FAPE and IDEA review)
- MM ex rel. DM v. School Dist. of Greenville County, 303 F.3d 523 (4th Cir. 2002) (regarding standard when district court takes additional evidence in IDEA proceedings)
- County School Bd. of Henrico County, Virginia v. Z.P. ex rel. R.P., 399 F.3d 298 (4th Cir. 2005) (discusses whether to apply clear-error or de novo review with new evidence)
- Doyle v. Arlington County Sch. Bd., 953 F.2d 100 (4th Cir. 1991) (notes the balance of de novo review with due weight to administrative proceedings)