R.E. Ex Rel. J.E. v. New York City Department of Education, 785 F. Supp. 2d 28

J.E. is a child with autism, attending the McCarton School since 2001-2002; DOE seeks to provide a FAPE under IDEIA; CSE May 21, 2008 IEP proposed 6:1:1 setting with 1:1 paraprofessional but not a 1:1 teacher; IEP relied on McCarton reports; FBA and BIP were developed post-IEP based on outside reports; Plaintiffs rejected DOE’s proposed placement and pursued tuition reimbursement; IHO found the IEP inadequate and awarded reimbursement; SRO reversed, finding DOE offered a FAPE; Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment and DOE cross-moved; court reverses SRO and reinstates IHO, granting reimbursement with fee-shifting permission.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether SRO erred under Prong I by finding a FAPE was offered	IHO found IEP inadequate; SRO erred reversing.	DOE offered a FAPE; SRO proper.	Yes, SRO erred; IHO findings reinstated.
Whether the private McCarton placement was reasonably calculated to provide meaningful benefits (Prong II)	Private placement appropriate despite not meeting public standards.	DOE argued 6:1:1 could meet needs; IEP supported by DOE witnesses.	Prong II favoring plaintiffs; private placement deemed reasonably calculated.
Whether equities (Prong III) support reimbursement despite DOE offering a FAPE	Equities favor parents given late notice and cooperative behavior.	Equities not sufficient to override DOE's FAPE offering.	Equities favor plaintiffs; relief appropriate.
Whether the Jose P. Consent Order affects FAPE analysis for placement	Consent Order requires placement information and meetings.	Order irrelevant since placement timely and information offered.	DOJ violated by nothing; Jose P. not controlling, but SRO erred on 1:1 ratio assessment.
Whether SRO’s reliance on testimony about hypothetical services was proper; standard of review	IHO credibility should govern; SRO misapplied evidence.	SRO appropriately weighed record.	SRO reversal is erroneous; IHO findings adopted.

Rowley, Board of Education v. Bar Contents, 458 U.S. 176 (U.S. 1982) (FAPE requires an IEP reasonably calculated to provide meaningful benefit)
Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (U.S. 1993) (Three-part Burlington/Carter test for reimbursing private placements)
Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (U.S. 1982) (central teaching on FAPE standard and procedural safeguards)
Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ. of Hyde Park, 459 F.3d 356 (2d Cir. 2006) (Prong II standard: reasonably calculated to provide meaningful benefits; less stringent than Prong I)
A.D. v. Bd. of Educ., 690 F. Supp. 2d 193 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (private placement need not meet state standards to qualify for reimbursement under Prong II)
Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2007) (deference to state proceedings; standard of review under IDEIA)
Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. TA, 129 S. Ct. 2484 (U.S. 2009) (private services may be reimbursed when public program fails to provide FAPE)
Jose P. v. Ambach, 669 F.2d 865 (2d Cir. 1982) (Consent Order governing placement process; relevance to FAPE)