Reyes ex rel. R.P. v. New York City Department of Education
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14224
| 2d Cir. | 2014Background
- R.P., a teenager with autism and significant sensory and behavioral needs, attended the private Rebecca School; DOE had funded that placement for 2009–2010 after an IHO order.
- For 2010–2011 the CSE proposed a public-school 6:1:1 class with related services and a 1:1 paraprofessional for only three months as a transitional measure; DOE offered P.S. 79.
- Reyes rejected the DOE placement, re-enrolled R.P. at Rebecca, and sought tuition reimbursement under the IDEA.
- An IHO found DOE denied a FAPE (noting the 6:1:1 ratio and three-month 1:1 were inadequate and P.S. 79 lacked sensory resources) and ordered reimbursement; the SRO reversed, finding the IEP offered a FAPE and treating the three-month paraprofessional as modifiable.
- The district court affirmed the SRO; the Second Circuit reviews de novo, gives due weight to administrative findings, and applies the Burlington/Carter test for reimbursement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SRO improperly relied on retrospective testimony (i.e., testimony that IEP could be modified mid-year to extend services) | Reyes: SRO relied impermissibly on post-hoc/retrospective assurances to alter the written IEP available when she made placement decisions | DOE: testimony showing an "understanding" that services would be re-evaluated is not retrospective and shows the IEP could be modified as needed | Court: Reliance on testimony that would effectively supplement the written IEP was improper under R.E.; mid-year amendment possibilities cannot cure a deficient written IEP |
| Whether the 6:1:1 ratio with only three months of 1:1 paraprofessional support provided a FAPE | Reyes: IEP was substantively inadequate; R.P. required more than three months of 1:1 support to make progress | DOE: records and testimony show the placement likely would produce progress and services could be extended if necessary | Court: IHO’s finding that R.P. needed 1:1 beyond three months was persuasive; the IEP as written denied FAPE |
| Whether P.S. 79 could meet R.P.’s sensory needs and whether TEACCH methodology was appropriate | Reyes: P.S. 79 lacked sensory gym/equipment and staff familiar with sensory diets; TEACCH alone would not meet R.P.’s needs | DOE: school observations, staff testimony, and records showed P.S. 79 could meet needs using TEACCH and available resources | Court: Declined to decide because reversal on paraprofessional ground dispositive; noted SRO reliance on retrospective testimony to dismiss sensory/TEACCH concerns would be improper |
| Whether burden-shifting by the SRO undermines the decision | Reyes: SRO’s language suggests she required Reyes to prove the IEP inadequate, contrary to New York practice and problematic under Schaffer | DOE: pointed to New York law placing initial burden on district | Court: Not decisive here; but SRO’s possible failure to adhere to state burden rules decreased confidence in his reasoning; outcome rests on substantive inadequacy finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982) (IEP must be reasonably calculated to enable educational benefit)
- Sch. Comm. of Burlington v. Dep’t of Educ., 471 U.S. 359 (1985) (parents may seek reimbursement for private placement if public IEP inadequate; Burlington/Carter test)
- Florence Cnty. Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993) (reaffirming Burlington reimbursement framework)
- Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230 (2009) (reaffirming parents’ reimbursement rights)
- R.E. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 694 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2012) (disapproves reliance on retrospective testimony to alter written IEP)
- M.H. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 685 F.3d 217 (2d Cir. 2012) (standards for appellate deference and burden considerations in IDEA review)
- Walczak v. Fla. Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 1998) (IEP must be reasonably calculated to produce progress, not mere potential)