810 F.3d 869
2d Cir.
2016
Read the full case

Background

  • L.K., a child eligible under IDEA (reclassified as learning disabled), experienced severe, ongoing peer bullying during 3rd grade in a NYC public school, affecting attendance, class participation, concentration, and emotional availability to learn.
  • Parents repeatedly reported bullying and sought incident reports; school officials largely ignored complaints and, at two IEP-related meetings, refused to discuss bullying as part of developing L.K.’s IEP or behavior plan.
  • Fearing continued harm, parents signed an enrollment contract and paid a deposit for The Summit School (a State‑approved private school) before the final IEP meeting and later rejected the IEP, enrolling L.K. in Summit for 2008–2009.
  • Administrative officers (IHO and SRO) found for the Department; the District Court concluded the Department’s refusal to discuss bullying violated the IDEA procedural right to parent participation, that Summit was an appropriate placement, and that equities favored reimbursement.
  • The Second Circuit affirmed: it held the Department denied a FAPE by significantly impeding parental participation in the IEP process, upheld Summit’s appropriateness (private placement likely to produce progress), and found the equities supported tuition reimbursement.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether refusing to discuss bullying at IEP meetings violated IDEA parental‑participation rights and denied a FAPE DOE’s refusal blocked parents from raising a matter that substantially interfered with L.K.’s education; procedural violation significantly impeded participation DOE argued IEP already addressed behavior goals and some anti‑bullying measures lie outside IEP Held: Refusal to discuss bullying at IEP development meetings procedurally denied a FAPE by significantly impeding parental participation
Whether bullying is a proper consideration in IEP development Bullying that substantially restricts learning must be considered when developing IEP supports FAPE DOE conceded bullying can be considered when it substantially restricts learning but argued some remedies belong elsewhere Held: Court assumed bullying can be appropriate IEP consideration where it substantially interferes with learning (DOE conceded this)
Whether Summit (private school) was an appropriate placement justifying reimbursement Summit was specialized, state‑approved, recommended by psychologist, and L.K. made measurable academic/behavioral progress there IHO/SRO argued Summit lacked some recommended therapies/services, rendering it inappropriate Held: Summit appropriate — parents need only show placement reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit, not perfection
Whether equities bar reimbursement (parents’ pre‑IEP deposit and alleged unwillingness to cooperate) Parents made good‑faith efforts to address bullying, cooperated with DOE, and deposited to secure a seat amid unresolved bullying concerns DOE argued parents intended private placement beforehand, made deposit prior to IEP, rejected evaluations and IEP Held: Equities favor parents — deposit was precautionary and parents acted in good faith after DOE rebuffed bullying complaints

Key Cases Cited

  • M.O. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 793 F.3d 236 (2d Cir. 2015) (IEP must be likely to produce progress, not regression)
  • C.F. ex rel. R.F. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 746 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2014) (standard of review and burdens in IDEA appeals)
  • M.H. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 685 F.3d 217 (2d Cir. 2012) (deference in IDEA administrative-review appellate review)
  • Murphy v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 297 F.3d 195 (2d Cir. 2002) (IEP is centerpiece of IDEA)
  • Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988) (centrality of procedural protections in special education law)
  • R.E. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 694 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2012) (district cannot rehabilitate an IEP after the fact)
  • Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ. of Hyde Park, 459 F.3d 356 (2d Cir. 2006) (parents’ burden to show private placement appropriate is lower than district’s burden to show IEP provided a FAPE)
  • Deal v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Educ., 392 F.3d 840 (6th Cir. 2004) (predetermination of issues before IEP meeting can deny FAPE)
  • Amanda J. ex rel. Annette J. v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 267 F.3d 877 (9th Cir. 2001) (failure to inform parents of facts significant to IEP development can deny FAPE)
  • C.L. v. Scarsdale Union Free Sch. Dist., 744 F.3d 826 (2d Cir. 2014) (equitable factors for reimbursement include parental cooperation)
  • Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2007) (evidence to assess whether placement likely to produce progress)
  • Florence Cty. Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter ex rel. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993) (parents may be reimbursed for unilateral private placement when public program fails to provide FAPE)
  • Sch. Comm. of Town of Burlington, Mass. v. Dep’t of Educ. of Mass., 471 U.S. 359 (1985) (framework for reimbursement and equitable considerations)
Read the full case