SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA v. POST
2:15-cv-04501
| E.D. Pa. | Jul 5, 2017Background
- D.P., a child diagnosed with autism, transitioned from early intervention to kindergarten in 2014; his Early Intervention IEP showed he was served in regular preschool and benefited from peer modeling.
- District psychologists recommended autistic-support programming based largely on diagnosis, producing PRRs and RRs that led District staff to conclude McCall Elementary (family’s neighborhood school) could not support D.P. in general education.
- Parents sought placement at McCall; after meetings the District circulated an October 2014 draft IEP placing D.P. at McCall but removed from general education 52% of the day (learning support). Parents refused that IEP.
- With no finalized IEP, starting mid-October the District unilaterally pulled D.P. out of the regular classroom for reading/math 45–90 minutes daily (360 minutes/week) without notifying or obtaining parents’ agreement; teacher purportedly continued to implement the outdated Early Intervention IEP.
- Parents filed an IDEA due process complaint alleging denial of a FAPE, disability discrimination (Section 504/ADA), and retaliation; the Hearing Officer found a FAPE denial and discrimination but no retaliation, and ordered an IEP meeting and compensatory education for the hours D.P. was removed.
- The District appealed; the district court reviewed the administrative record, affirmed the Hearing Officer’s findings, granted Parents’ motion for partial judgment on the administrative record, and denied the District’s motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether District denied a FAPE by failing to consider LRE (mainstreaming) | District failed to seriously consider educating D.P. in the regular classroom with supplementary aids and services; IEP driven by placement and diagnosis, not individualized needs | District contends it considered placement options and acted on RTI and evaluation recommendations supporting removal or blended programs | Court held District violated Oberti LRE obligations: little to no serious consideration of supplementary aids; IEP and placement were diagnosis-driven rather than individualized |
| Whether unilateral removal from class violated IDEA (stay-put and parental participation) | Removal 45–90 min/day changed D.P.’s then-current placement (Early Intervention IEP) and occurred without adequate parental notice/participation, thus violating stay-put and procedural rights | District claims removal was an RTI-based instructional decision to address needs and was not a change in placement; District noted teacher implemented prior IEP | Court held removal was a unilateral change likely to affect D.P.’s learning experience, violated stay-put and parental-participation requirements, and caused substantive harm (loss of observational learning) |
| Whether compensatory education was appropriate remedy | Compensatory education is appropriate to remedy deprivation of LRE and compensates lost opportunity to learn with peers; award should equal hours removed (360 min/week from mid-Oct to year end) | District argued compensatory education improper because record showed D.P. made progress and was not deprived of special education services | Court held compensatory education appropriate; afforded due weight to Hearing Officer’s calculation and remedied the deprivation of integrated learning time |
| Whether District discriminated under Section 504/ADA | District’s actions—placement determinations and removal—were motivated by D.P.’s disability and denied him program benefits/reasonable integration | District argued removal resulted from RTI/instructional need, not disability discrimination | Court held RA/ADA claims succeed where failure to provide FAPE/LRE occurred; affirmed Hearing Officer that District discriminated by excluding D.P. from general education and removing him because of his disability |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Ctr. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982) (defines FAPE and gives deference to educational authorities while requiring IEPs reasonably calculated to confer meaningful benefit)
- Oberti v. Bd. of Educ. of Borough of Clementon Sch. Dist., 995 F.2d 1204 (3d Cir. 1992) (two‑part LRE test: (1) can child be educated satisfactorily in regular class with supplementary aids; (2) whether mainstreaming to maximum extent appropriate)
- Daniel R.R. v. State Bd. of Educ., 874 F.2d 1036 (5th Cir. 1989) (framework for analyzing mainstreaming and supplementary aids)
- Ridley Sch. Dist. v. M.R., 680 F.3d 260 (3d Cir. 2012) (IEP standards; substantive versus procedural IDEA review principles)
- M.C. v. Cent. Reg’l Sch. Dist., 81 F.3d 389 (3d Cir. 1996) (compensatory education may be awarded for period equal to deprivation; bad faith not required)
- Ferren C. v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., 612 F.3d 712 (3d Cir. 2010) (courts have broad equitable discretion to fashion relief to fully compensate IDEA violations)