848 F. Supp. 2d 902
C.D. Ill.2012Background
- TG, a minor disabled student, and her parents filed an IDEA due process complaint in Illinois on Oct 16, 2007.
- ISBE appointed an impartial hearing officer (IHO); a five‑day hearing occurred in May–June 2009 and the IHO issued a decision on July 17, 2009.
- The IHO identified three issues: implementation of IEPs, whether the IEPs denied a FAPE, and the adequacy of evaluations.
- The IHO concluded the seventh and eighth grade IEPs provided a FAPE, but the ninth grade IEP did not and required compensatory education and related relief.
- Plaintiffs appealed; the district court granted summary judgment for Defendant, denied Plaintiffs’, and limited new evidence; damages/fees and a permanent injunction were addressed and largely denied.
- The court deferentially reviewed the IHO’s determinations under the IDEA; Plaintiffs were not entitled to fees or a permanent injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the IHO properly found a FAPE for the seventh grade | TG’s seventh grade IEP lacked reading/writing goals and proper measures | Seventh grade goals and supports were adequate; district credited with progress | Seventh grade IEP provided a FAPE; deference to IHO affirmed |
| Whether the IHO properly denied a FAPE for the ninth grade and ordered compensatory education | Ninth grade lacked reading/writing goals and vocational evaluation; compensatory relief needed | Ninth grade deficiencies did not preclude overall progress; compensatory relief limited | Ninth grade IEP deficient; compensatory education reasonably calculated to address deficits |
| Whether Defendant must reimburse private evaluations | District must reimburse private evaluations used for services | Procedural/regulatory requirements bar reimbursement absent proper notice | Defendant not required to reimburse private evaluations |
| Whether Plaintiffs are prevailing party and entitled to attorney’s fees | IEO’s partial denial yields prevailing party status and fees | Prevailing status is de minimis; fees denied | Plaintiffs not entitled to attorney’s fees; limited prevailing party status does not trigger fees |
| Whether a permanent injunction is warranted given ISBE compliance | ISBE rubber-stamped IHO; injunction necessary to enforce compliance | ISBE compliance supported by independent determination; injunction unwarranted | Permanent injunction denied; ISBE compliance sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (U.S. 1982) (standard: IEP must be reasonably calculated to provide educational benefits; deference to educational judgments)
- Heather S. v. State of Wisconsin, 125 F.3d 1045 (7th Cir. 1997) (deference to administrative decisions; evidentiary standard in review)
- Grim v. Rhinebeck Central School Dist., 346 F.3d 377 (2d Cir. 2003) (deference to IDEA administrative findings on goals/strategies)
- Kerkam v. McKenzie, 862 F.2d 884 (D.C.Cir. 1988) (presumption in favor of school district’s educational plan; burden on challenger)
- Morton Community Unit School Dist. No. 709 v. J.M., 152 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 1998) (appeals court deferential review of IHO decisions)
- Monticello Sch. Dist. No. 25 v. George L., 102 F.3d 895 (7th Cir. 1996) (de minimis relief considerations in IDEA context)
- Reid ex rel. Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516 (D.C.Cir. 2005) (compensatory education standards and calculation guidance)