Special Education Archives

Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court, in an unanimous opinion written by Justice Kagan, issued guidance to lower courts trying to sort out technicalities in a clash between the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or Rehabilitation Act.

This case began with the Fry’s five-year-old, who has cerebral palsy, being denied her request to bring her goldendoodle, Wonder, to kindergarten, after a brief trial period with the dog at school. The local school district decided that the child’s human aide could do everything her goldendoodle could do, thus barring Wonder.

After filing a discrimination suit based on ADA or Rehabilitation Act violations, the lower courts decided that the Frys’ claim was barred, because they did not first go through the administrative process outlined in IDEA. Yesterday’s ruling overturned that decision, holding that when the claim is, at its essence, an ADA or Rehabilitation Act violation, there is no requirement to go through the IDEA administrative process first and that no remedy that could be granted through an administrative adjudication under IDEA in this case. The Court noted that IDEA only applied when the essence of the student’s claim was denial of a free appropriate public education, which was not alleged by the Frys.

The Court gave some guidance about sorting out the difference between the claims by telling courts to ask two hypothetical questions: First, could the plaintiff have brought essentially the same claim if the alleged conduct had occurred at a public facility that was not a school — say, a public theater or library? And second, could an adult at the school—say, an employee or visitor — have pressed essentially the same grievance? If those questions can be answered in the affirmative, today’s ruling posited, then a complaint that does not expressly allege the denial of a FAPE is also unlikely to be truly about that subject. Kagan’s opinion further noted: “In deciding whether the ‘gravamen’ of a plaintiff’s complaint is the denial of a FAPE courts should also look at the history of the entire dispute. If a plaintiff has at some point begun administrative proceedings under the IDEA ‘before switching midstream,’ that ‘initial choice’ ‘may suggest that she is indeed seeking relief for the denial of a FAPE.’ “

For more information about this case, please click here to see the ScotusBlog post.

Originally published on 2/23/217 on www.apsrc.net, Legal Briefs, accessed on 10/27/17

Endrew v. Douglas County School District

Today,the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to a case concerning the provision of educational services to a student with special needs. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) provides federal funds to States that guarantee a “free appropriate public education” (FAPE) to every eligible child with a disability. The question presented in Endrew v. Douglas County School District is, “What is the level of educational benefit that school districts must confer on children with disabilities to provide them with the free appropriate public education guaranteed by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act?”

Endrew F. is a 15 year old student from Colorado who is autistic and has been diagnosed with attention deficit disorder. Endrew’s parents struggled to agree with his public school on an appropriate plan for him and later moved Endrew to a private school. Endrew’s parents argued that the public school owed them the cost of Endrew’s private school tuition because it failed to provide FAPE to Endrew. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit found that the law only required a de minimis educational benefit, which is to say, a benefit just above the minimum. Endrew’s parents requested certiorari and it was granted.

Before the IDEA was passed in 1975, parents of students with disabilities faced uncertainty about what level of education, if any, might be available to their child in their local public school. Congress aimed to relieve parents of the burden of fighting for their child to receive a basic public education. Because education is a state prerogative governed by local policies and state laws and regulations, Congress offered federal funding as an incentive for states to adopt the mandates of the IDEA. It is this federal funding which is at stake when a school fails to provide FAPE to a student with disabilities.

Although the Court previously partially defined what an “appropriate” education is in the case of Board of Education v. Rowley in 1982, the Court has not revisited the issue and has not provided a full definition. In Rowley, the Court determined that Individualized Education Plans must be “reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits,” but did not elaborate on what “meaningful” might entail.

The Supreme Court has requested input from the United States Department of Education, which responded in an Amicus Brief filed in August. The Department of Education rejects the de minimis standard adopted by the Tenth Circuit. Its brief requests that the variety of standards held across the nation be settled into a single uniform standard: an educational benefit must be “meaningful” and “meaningful” requires a plan with measurable annual goals and the provision of services aimed at helping the child meet those goals.

APSRC’s legal team is following this case and will report as developments occur.

Originally posted to www.apsrc.net Legal Briefs on 9/29/2016, accessed 10/27/17.