Piazza v. Florida Union Free School District
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42899
| S.D.N.Y. | 2011Background
- Piazzas sue Florida Union Free School District for Nicholas's education rights under IDEA and Rehabilitation Act.
- Nicholas has spinal muscular atrophy, requires extensive home instruction and assistive technology, but attends school as medically feasible.
- IEPs from kindergarten through 2008-2009 and a 2009 NYS SRO decision are in record, showing home instruction and tech provisions.
- District moved for judgment on the pleadings; the court must assess exhaustion and timeliness of claims.
- SRO found some failures to implement May 14, 2008 IEP for 2008-2009, but the court ultimately limited relief to a narrow scope and emphasized exhaustion in most claims.
- Court disposition: denial of motion in part and grant in part; most IDEA and Rehabilitation Act claims dismissed unless tied to a properly exhausted or non-exhausted-but-not-time-barred 2008-2009 adaptation claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IDEA exhaustion applies to all claims in federal court | Piazzas contend exhaustion not required for some substantive claims | District: exhaustion required for all claims seeking relief under IDEA | Exhaustion generally required; exceptions apply for certain claims like 6(f) but not here |
| Whether the 6(a) home-instruction claim is exhausted or falls under the failure-to-implement exception | Claim alleges failure to provide home instruction; may fall under implementation exception | IEPs are vague; not clearly stating obligations; must exhaust | Exhaustion not excused; 6(a) largely time-barred and not purely a failure to implement; some narrow exception for 6(f) |
| Whether the 6(f) adapted physical education claim can proceed | Adapted PE was guaranteed by IEPs and should not be time-barred | Most claims time-barred; generally exhausted; 6(f) may proceed | Allowed to proceed to the extent it concerns 2008-2009 adapted PE; others dismissed or time-barred |
| Whether Rehabilitation Act claims are subject to IDEA exhaustion | Claims independent of IEPs but related to disability discrimination | Exhausted under same IDEA framework | Rehabilitation Act claims are exhausted to the extent relief is available under the IDEA |
| Whether claims are time-barred under IDEA or Rehabilitation Act limitations | Equitable tolling or infancy tolling may apply; minors tolling considered | Claims older than 3 years (pre-2006) barred; 6(f) timely; tolling rejected | Most pre-2005/2006 claims time-barred; 6(f) accrues within one year; tolling denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Cave v. E. Meadow Union Free Sch. Dist., 514 F.3d 240 (2d Cir.2008) (exhaustion required; aims of IDEA and administrative process paramount)
- Murphy v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 297 F.3d 195 (2d Cir.2002) (exhaustion required for claims seeking IDEA relief)
- Polera v. Bd. of Educ., 288 F.3d 478 (2d Cir.2002) (exhaustion narrow; failure-to-implement claims are limited)
- Somoza v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., 538 F.3d 106 (2d Cir.2008) (borrowing three-year limitations for exhausted IDEA claims; tolling issues discussed)
- J.S. ex rel. N.S. v. Attica Cent. Sch., 386 F.3d 107 (2d Cir.2004) (exhaustion as prerequisite; administrative record development)
- Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988) (IEP as centerpiece of FAPE and educational decision-making)