T.M. ex rel. A.M. v. Cornwall Central School District
752 F.3d 145
| 2d Cir. | 2014Background
- T.M., a child with autism, was found by Cornwall CSE to need a 12-month program including ESY to prevent regression; his parents placed him at a private mainstream school (Butterhill) and obtained private services.
- Cornwall’s April 2010 IEP proposed ESY only in self-contained special-education summer programs (no mainstream ESY offered) and school-year placement primarily in mainstream kindergarten with some pull-out special classes.
- Parents filed due-process complaints invoking pendency (stay-put) and rejected Cornwall’s ESY proposal; an IHO ordered pendency services and later found Cornwall denied a FAPE in LRE, awarding reimbursement for 2010–11 tuition and services.
- The SRO limited pendency reimbursement to the 2010–11 year and reversed the IHO on the LRE/FBA/BIP and class-size issues, finding Cornwall’s IEPs appropriate.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Cornwall on FAPE/LRE for 2010–11 but ordered Cornwall to keep reimbursing parents for private pendency providers; both parties appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IDEA's LRE applies to ESY placements and required Cornwall to offer mainstream ESY | LRE applies equally to ESY; Cornwall should have offered mainstream ESY or considered continuum including outside mainstream programs | LRE need not apply to ESY unless district already operates less-restrictive ESY programs | Court held LRE applies to ESY like school year; Cornwall violated LRE by offering only self-contained ESY without considering continuum |
| Whether district’s failure to conduct FBA/BIP denied FAPE | Parents: FBA/BIP required because T.M.'s behaviors impeded learning | Cornwall: existing evaluations/safeguards sufficed; behaviors did not impede learning | SRO and court: no denial—evaluations and IEP strategies adequate; no reimbursement on this ground |
| Scope of pendency (stay-put) entitling child to same providers | Parents: pendency guarantees same private providers; district must continue paying private providers | Cornwall: pendency guarantees general placement/services, not identical providers; it may provide services directly | Court held pendency protects general program type, not identical providers; Cornwall need not fund private providers after offering same services directly, though limited reimbursement up to district’s cost may be appropriate |
| Remedy: entitlement to tuition reimbursement under Burlington/Carter | Parents: substantive LRE violation entitles them to reimbursement for private placement if alternative appropriate and equities favor | Cornwall: no LRE violation so no reimbursement liability | Court found LRE violation for ESY component and vacated district judgment; remanded to decide remaining Burlington/Carter prongs and appropriate remedy |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (IEP must be reasonably calculated to confer educational benefit)
- Sch. Comm. of Town of Burlington v. Dep’t of Educ., 471 U.S. 359 (parents may obtain reimbursement when district fails to provide FAPE)
- Florence Cnty. Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (reimbursement framework for private placements)
- Walczak v. Fla. Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119 (LRE preference and analysis)
- M.W. ex rel. S.W. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 725 F.3d 131 (IDEA standards and LRE principles)
- R.E. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 694 F.3d 167 (procedural vs. substantive IEP errors; FBA/BIP analysis)
- P. ex rel. Mr. & Mrs. P. v. Newington Bd. of Educ., 546 F.3d 111 (Newington factors for LRE analysis)
- Concerned Parents & Citizens v. N.Y.C. Bd. of Educ., 629 F.2d 751 (pendency refers to general educational placement type)
- Mackey ex rel. Thomas M. v. Bd. of Educ., 386 F.3d 158 (stay-put/pendency funding obligations)