Y.F. v. New York City Department of Education
659 F. App'x 3
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Parent Y.F. appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the NYC Department of Education (DOE) denying reimbursement for private-school tuition for her child K.H. under the IDEA for the 2012–2013 school year.
- Y.F. had unilaterally placed K.H. at a private school after the DOE recommended placement at P721X (Stephen D. McSweeney School); she conceded the IEP itself was adequate.
- The core dispute was whether the McSweeney School could implement K.H.’s IEP (Burlington-Carter inquiry) and whether Y.F. was therefore entitled to reimbursement.
- Y.F. pointed to reports and testimony alleging various deficiencies at McSweeney (service delivery gaps, weak math program, lack of internships/specific curricula) and offered testimony from a private-school employee claiming K.H. would regress at McSweeney.
- The Administrative Law Judge (IHO), State Review Officer (SRO), and district court found the challenges speculative or otherwise unsupported as showing the placement lacked the capacity to implement the IEP; summary judgment for DOE was affirmed by the Second Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the DOE placement school could implement the IEP | McSweeney had documented deficiencies and would not implement required services | Challenges are speculative or not tied to IEP requirements; school had capacity | Challenges were largely speculative or untethered to the IEP; placement could implement the IEP; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether DOE had a duty to introduce evidence rebutting plaintiff’s evidence of school deficiencies | DOE’s failure to submit evidence means alleged deficiencies go uncontradicted | Duty to rebut arises only when challenges are non-speculative | No duty here because most challenges were speculative; even where non‑speculative issues existed, IHO/SRO found sufficient evidence of adequacy |
| Weight of testimony from private-school employee (Sally Ord) | Ord’s testimony showed likely regression and supported parent’s claims | Testimony was conclusory, based on limited observation, and of little weight | Even if considered, the testimony did not create reversible error; SRO/IHO and district court reasonably rejected it |
| Effect of parent’s concession that the IEP was adequate | Parent can still challenge placement on non‑IEP grounds | Concession limits complaints to those tethered to IEP; cannot complain about services not required by the IEP | Parent may not rely on complaints about matters not required by the IEP; many of Y.F.’s claims therefore fail |
Key Cases Cited
- C.F. ex rel. R.F. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 746 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2014) (describing IDEA review scope and Burlington‑Carter test)
- M.O. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 793 F.3d 236 (2d Cir. 2015) (non‑speculative challenges to a placement can require district to provide evidence of adequacy)
- Hardison v. Bd. of Educ. of the Oneonta City Sch. Dist., 773 F.3d 372 (2d Cir. 2014) (standard of review for district court’s grant of summary judgment in IDEA cases)
- R.E. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 694 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2012) (past failures to provide services do not necessarily show lack of capacity to implement a particular IEP)