Summer Conflict

The Third Circuit has held that an IEP enacted before summer vaction, but not implemented does not establish the "stay put" placement when a placement dispute arises over the summer. The decision in LY v. Bayonne Board of Education can be found here.

Negative Multiplier

A parent and student prevailed, in part, in an action against a school district in which they claimed that the student had been denied FAPE. The District Court awarded the plaintiffs $104,349.45 in attorneys' fees. The School District appealed the award of attorneys' fees, asserting that the amount sought, $113,267.16, should be reduced by 75% because the plaintiffs had only prevailed on one of four claims. The Third Circuit rejected the School District's position, stating that while an attorneys' fee award can be reduced when the plaintiffs have only acheived partial success, there is no precise rule for making such a determination. In this case, the District Court had found that the plaintiffs had acheived substantial success in the litigation. The Third Circuit affirmed the fee award of the District Court.

The decision in Damien J. v. School District of Philidelphia can be found here.

Statute of limitations. The Third Circuit has held that the two-year statute of limitations for an IDEA claim also applies to a claim brought under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act rather than applying an analogous state statute of limiations. The Court's decision was based on its conclusion that IDEA and section 504 do similar statutory work. The Court noted that this was an issue of first impression.

The decision in P.P. v. West Chester Area School District can be found here.

Location, Location, Location

The Second Circuit, in T.Y. v. New York City Department of Education, has held that the failure of an IEP to name a specific school as the placement for a child does not render the IEP procedurally deficient. While the statute, 29 U.S.C. 1414(d)(1)(A) requires that an IEP provide a location, the Court noted that the United States Department of Education had concluded that "[t]he location of services in the context of an IEP generally refers t the type of environment that is the appropriate place for provision of the service. For example, is the related service to be provided in the child's regular classroom or resource room?" It held that this conclusion comported with the Senant's commentary, which stats that "[t]he location where special education and related services will be provided to a child influences decisions about the nature and amount of these services and when they should be provided to a child. For example, the appropriate place for the related service may be the regular classroom, os tha thte child does not have to choose between a needed service and the regular educational program. For this reason, in the bill the committee has added location to the porivision in the IEP that includes 'the prjected date for the beginning of services and modifications, and the anticipated frequency, location and duration of those services.

The Court also noted that improper omissions from the IEP, which are corrected in the administrative process does not render an IEP, as a whole, substantively deficient.

The decision can be found here.

Milwaukee Appeals!

Milwaukee is appealing from an order requiring it to come up with a plan for compensating students who had been denied FAPE during the years 2000-2003. The City claims that the order is overly broad.

For more information, read the article located here.

What's the deal?

What is the deal with the Charlotte-Mecklenberg school?

Reimbursement

IDEA authorizes reimbursement for private special-education services when a public school fails to provide FAPE and the private school placement is appropriate. regardless of whether the child previously received services through the public school.

It's true. The Supreme Court said so. Right here.