Ridley School District v. M.R.
680 F.3d 260
| 3rd Cir. | 2012Background
- M.R. and J.R. (parents) challenged Ridley School District under IDEA and §504 for their child E.R., a minor with learning disabilities and allergies, and pursued tuition reimbursement for Benchmark School enrollment.
- E.R. attended Grace Park Elementary; kindergarten evaluations were deemed not to qualify her for special education, but she received extended-day kindergarten and OT services under a §504 plan.
- During first grade, E.R. continued to struggle; parents requested evaluation, leading to a February 2008 reevaluation identifying multiple disabilities and recommending placement options.
- Ridley proposed IEPs for 2007-2008 and 2008-2009; a reading program (Project Read) was considered, but parents objected to it and ultimately enrolled E.R. in Benchmark for 2008-2009.
- A Due Process Hearing Officer found violations in first and second grade, awarding compensatory education and tuition/transportation reimbursements, which the District Court reversed in part.
- On appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision, addressing burden of persuasion, child-find timing, IEP adequacy, and §504 considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who bears the burden of persuasion in district court? | Parents argued burden on them should persist. | Ridley contended burden on the losing party per IDEA. | Burden on the party seeking relief; district court error harmless. |
| Did Ridley's early child find/identification violate FAPE by not identifying E.R. at the start of first grade? | Parents contended failure to identify denied FAPE. | District argued reasonable time to monitor progress; not a bright-line rule. | Ridley complied; no denial of FAPE at start of first grade. |
| Was the IEP for reading adequate given peer-reviewed literature requirements? | IEP lacked peer-reviewed, scientifically based instruction specifically for E.R. | Project Read was peer-reviewed and reasonably calculated to benefit E.R. | IEP (with related NOREPs) reasonably calculated to provide benefit; not required to maximize research. |
| Did Ridley violate § 504 by discriminating against E.R. in first grade? | Parents claimed discrimination in accommodations and participation. | Incidents were accommodations, not discriminatory denial of participation or benefits. | No § 504 violation; appropriate accommodations and participation were provided. |
| Did the case warrant damages claims under Rehabilitation Act/ADA and state law claims? | Damages sought under Rehab Act and ADA, plus state-law distress claim. | District court properly disposed of these claims; monotonic bases waived. | Remains affirmed; no damages under Rehab Act/ADA; state-law claim dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (U.S. 2005) (burden of persuasion lies on party seeking relief)
- Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (U.S. 1982) (IEP must provide meaningful educational benefits)
- Matula, 67 F.3d 484 (3d Cir. 1995) (reasonable time for child find/identification in absence of deadlines)
- D.S. v. Bayonne Bd. of Educ., 602 F.3d 553 (3d Cir. 2010) (deference to administrative findings; preponderance standard)
- Chambers v. Sch. Dist. of Phila. Bd. of Educ., 587 F.3d 176 (3d Cir. 2009) (IEP adequacy; reasonable calculation to provide benefit)
- W.B. v. Matula, 67 F.3d 484 (3d Cir. 1995) (standard for reviewing § 504/IDEA implications)