special education court cases quizlet

Landmark Cases in Special Education Law

Landmark cases in special education law.

In the United States legal system, judicial decisions play an important role in determining what a particular law means. This type of law is known as “Case Law.” Case Law is developed when courts are asked to resolve disputes that are occurring between two or more parties, and the court must interpret what the law means in a given situation. Through this process, the meaning of phrases such as “Least Restrictive Environment” and “Meaningful Educational Benefit” evolve as various courts decide cases and set precedents. A precedent is a rule established in a previous court case that is either binding or persuasive depending on which court issued the decision. Below are some of the cases that are important to special education law and the precedents they have created.

U.S. Supreme Court Decisions

Cases decided by the United States Supreme Court are binding on courts all across the country. As a result, when the Supreme Court interprets a statute or makes a determination in a particular case, all lower courts must use that determination when deciding cases. In some instances, however, the Supreme Court leaves room in a decision that allows individual states to make their own determination – for example, in 2005 the Supreme Court decided that the party requesting a due process hearing under the IDEA has the burden of persuasion to establish his or her claims, but the Court expressly declined to determine whether states may legislate the burden of proof. In 2008, New Jersey enacted a law placing the burden of proof and production in all requests for a due process hearing, whether filed by the parent or the school district, on the school district.

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483 (1954) – In this landmark civil rights decision, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that a separate education for African-American children was not an equal education, concluding that “in the field of public education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place and that ‘separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.'” This decision provided parents of children with disabilities and disability rights activists the constitutional foundation to press for equal educational opportunities for all children, including those with developmental and other disabilities.
Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982) – This was the first special education case decided by the Supreme Court. In this case, the Court held that an IEP must be reasonably calculated for a child to receive educational benefit, but the school district is not required to provide every service necessary to maximize a child’s potential.
Irving Independent Sch. Dist. v. Amber Tatro, 468 U.S. 883 (1984) – The Court held that provision of clean intermittent catheterization was a “related service” under the IDEA and not a “medical service,” because the service was necessary for the student to attend school. The services requested did not fall within the medical exclusion because they need not be performed by a physician. The Court noted that “Congress sought primarily to make public education available to handicapped children and to make such access meaningful.”
Burlington Sch. Committee v. Mass. Bd. of Ed., 471 U. S. 359 (1985) – The Court established, for the first time, the right of parents to be reimbursed for their expenditures for private special education. This decision (together with the Court’s decision in Florence v. Carter) generally stands for the proposition that a school district may be required to reimburse parents for tuition and other expenses related to a private school placement when (1) the IEP and placement offered by the school district were inadequate or inappropriate (in other words, where the school district failed to offer FAPE) (2) the parents’ private placement was appropriate for their child’s needs, and (3) the balance of the equities favors reimbursement. The Court also explained that in an IDEA dispute, a court has broad authority to fashion appropriate relief considering equitable factors, which will effectuate the purposes underlying the Act, and that the IDEA provides “procedural safeguards to ensure the full participation of the parents and proper resolution of substantive disagreements.”
Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988) – The Court addressed the IDEA’s “stay put” provision, explaining that in enacting “stay put”, Congress intended “to strip schools of the unilateral authority they had traditionally employed to exclude disabled students … from school.” The Court also noted that the IEP is the “centerpiece of the [IDEA’s] education delivery system” and explained that “Congress repeatedly emphasized throughout the Act the importance and indeed the necessity of parental participation in both the development of the IEP and any subsequent assessments of its effectiveness.”
Florence County School District Four v. Shannon Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993) – The Court discussed the standards pursuant to which a parent may obtain reimbursement for a private educational placement. Importantly, the Court determined that reimbursement does not necessarily require that the private school meet the IDEA’s definition of free appropriate public education; the private school does not necessarily have to meet the state education standards.
Buckhannon v. West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598, 121 S.Ct. 1835 (2001) – The Court ruled that in order to obtain attorney fees as a “prevailing party,” the party must secure either a judgment on the merits or a court-ordered consent decree.
Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (2005) – The Court held that, absent a state statute to the contrary, the party seeking relief bears the burden of proof in an administrative due process proceeding.
Arlington v. Murphy, 548 U.S. 291 (2006) – The Court held that a provision of the IDEA authorizing “reasonable attorneys’ fees for prevailing parents does not authorize the recovery of fees for expert’s services.
Jacob Winkelman v. Parma City School District, 550 U.S. 516 (2007) – Here, the Court determined that parents may pursue claims under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) on their own behalf, as the rights conferred to parents under the Act exist independently from the rights of their child.

U.S. Court of Appeals Decisions

There are 13 appellate courts that sit below the U.S. Supreme Court, and they are the U.S. Courts of Appeals. A court of appeals hears challenges to District Court decisions from courts located within its circuit. The U.S. District Court of New Jersey sits within the Third Judicial Circuit. Decisions made in the Third Circuit are binding in all New Jersey courts. Decisions made in other Circuit Courts are influential when the same issue has not previously been addressed by the Third Circuit. Below are some of the important special education decisions that have been issued by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

Lester H. v. Gilhool, 916 F.2d 865 (3rd Cir. 1990) – The Third Circuit held that compensatory education is available to respond to situations where a school district flagrantly fails to comply with the requirements of IDEA.
Oberti v. Board of Educ., 995 F.2d 1204 (3rd Cir. 1993) – Children with disabilities are entitled to be educated in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) that is appropriate to meet their needs. In this case, the Court adopted a two part test to determine whether a child has been placed in the least restrictive environment. It must first be determined whether education in the regular classroom, with the use of supplementary aids and services, can be achieved satisfactorily. In making this determination, courts should consider several factors, including: (i) whether the school district has made reasonable efforts to accommodate the child in a regular classroom; (ii) the educational benefits available to the child in a regular class, with appropriate supplementary aids and services, as compared to the benefits provided in a special education class; and (iii) the possible negative effects of the inclusion of the child on the education of the other students in the class. If placement outside the regular classroom is necessary, then it must be determined whether the child is mainstreamed to the maximum extent appropriate, i.e., whether efforts have been made to include the child in school programs with non-disabled children whenever possible. Thus, disabled children should be mainstreamed to the maximum extent appropriate and their removal from the regular education environment should occur only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.
Polk v. Cent. Susquehanna Intermediate Unit 16, 853 F.2d 171 (3rd Cir. 1998) – The Third Circuit has held that the educational benefit to which each student is entitled must be more than “trivial,” it must be “meaningful.” The Third Circuit inferred that Congress must have envisioned that “significant learning” would occur. The Court recognized the difficulty of measuring this benefit and concluded that the question of whether the benefit is de minimis must be answered in relation to the child’s potential. Thus the standard was set, a FAPE requires “significant learning” and “meaningful benefit.”
Ridgewood Board of Educ. v. N.E., 172 F.3d 238 (3rd Cir. 1999) – In this case, the Third Circuit held that “the provision of merely “more than a trivial educational benefit” does not meet the [Polk] standard . . . . Rowley and Polk reject a bright-line rule on the amount of benefit required of an appropriate IEP in favor of an approach requiring a student-by-student analysis that carefully considers the student’s individual abilities.
T.R. v. Kingwood Township, 205 F.3d 572 (3rd Cir. 2000) – In this case, the Court clarified that the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) is the one that, to the greatest extent possible, satisfactorily educates the disabled child with non-disabled children, in the same school the child would attend if the child were not disabled. T.R. involved a preschool aged child who was offered placement in an in-district classroom where half the children were disabled and half were typically developing, which the Court held was a “hybrid” program and therefore not the LRE.
G.L. v. Ligonier Valley School District Authority, No. 14-1397 (3rd Cir. 2015) – This case clarified how to interpret IDEA’s two-year statute of limitations. The Court held that the IDEA’s statute of limitations creates a “discovery rule” approach, in which the statute begins to run on the date the parents knew or should have known of the FAPE violation, rather than an “occurrence rule” approach, wherein the statute of limitations period would begin to run on the actual date of the violation. Based on this clarification, parents would be required to file a request for due process within two years of the date they knew, or should have known, their child was denied a FAPE. If the parents of a student reasonably do not discover the denial of a FAPE to their child for many years, so long as the parents file within two years of discovering it, the parents have no limit on the number of years for which they can seek relief.

Contact New Jersey Special Education Attorney Lori E. Arons, Esq. Today to Discuss Your Case

The laws related to special education and educational rights in the United States are extremely complicated and lawyers who have been practicing for years may have little or no experience with this area of law. For this reason, it is critical for parents of children with special needs to retain a lawyer who understands the unique issues that arise in this area of law and are familiar with the various state and federal laws, regulations, and court decisions that can have an impact on the way a case will be resolved.

Lori E. Arons, Esq. is a skilled NJ special education lawyer who has been through the IEP process with her own children, and is personally invested in ensuring that kids with special needs get the education to which they are legally entitled. To schedule a consultation with Lori, call our office today or send us an email through our online contact form.

FOR AN EXPERIENCED ATTORNEY, CONTACT LORI ARONS TODAY

Attorney Profile
Testimonials
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act
Landmark Cases In Special Education Law
Due Process
Resources & Faq
(201) 388-9533

Significant Special Education Cases

M.a. v. newark public schools.

In 2001, ELC with co-counsel Gibbons Del Deo, filed a class action lawsuit against Newark Public Schools and the New Jersey Department of Education, alleging that Newark and the State failed to identify, locate, refer and evaluate students with disabilities for special education services, failed to provide these students with appropriate special education services, and failed to provide “compensatory education” for the deprived services. The complaint also charged the State with failure to monitor school districts and failure to provide appropriate relief in response to special education complaint investigation requests. [Docket No. 01-cv-3389 (US District Court for the District of NJ) Docket No. 02-1799 (US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit)]

Status: Plaintiffs obtained a preliminary injunction on behalf of two of the named plaintiffs, and withstood extensive motions to dismiss from both sets of defendants. In a decision from the Third Circuit, the Court affirmed both the preliminary injunction and the denial of the motions to dismiss. After a prolonged and unsuccessful attempt to settle the matter, the district court certified the class in 2009 in response to the motion brought by ELC, Gibbons and newly-added co-counsel, Seton Hall Law School Center for Social Justice. The parties then conducted additional discovery and again commenced settlement discussions. The parties entered into a Settlement Agreement, which was endorsed by the Court in 2012. The Settlement Agreement calls for the provision of special education services on a timely basis, “compensatory education” for students who did not receive timely services, implementation of a comprehensive special education database, mandatory staff training, extensive reporting of compliance activities, guidelines for corrective action if warranted and independent monitoring of special education services. Newark has issued two Compliance Reports ( July 2012 and February 2013 ), and the State has instituted one Corrective Action Plan . ELC is monitoring NPS and State compliance with the Settlement Agreement and, together with Seton Hall, prepared parent training materials in English , Spanish , Portuguese and Creole , and is training parents across the district.

A.R. v. Freehold Regional High School Board of Education

ELC, with the support of several pro bono attorneys, filed a motion on behalf of a group of disability advocacy organizations to appear as amici curiae in this case regarding who should bear the burden of proof in a due process hearing when a school district seeks to change a child’s special education Individualized Education Program (IEP). The amicus brief argued that, pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court case of Schaffer v. Weast , the burden is on the district when it seeks to change the IEP, even where the parent files the hearing request to challenge the school district’s action. The brief additionally explained why placing the burden of proof on parents in such cases would be unfair, violate public policy and undermine the goals of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (United States District Court for the District of NJ Docket No. 06-cv-03849)

Status: Shortly after ELC filed the amicus brief, the school district settled the case with the student and the matter was dismissed. Subsequently, ELC successfully spearheaded an advocacy effort, with other New Jersey special education practitioners, that resulted in the passage of legislation imposing the burden of proof at special education hearings on school districts in all cases.

A.W. v. Jersey City Public Schools

ELC filed a federal lawsuit to challenge the failure of a school district, the state education department, and individual employees to identify and remediate A.W.’s dyslexia. The case reached the Third Circuit twice, with the Court holding in the first decision (2003), that the state defendants had waived sovereign immunity by accepting federal financial assistance and could therefore be sued under IDEA and Section 504 and, in the second decision (2007), that individual state defendants could not be held liable under Section 1983. A.W.’s claims against his school district and NJDOE were successfully resolved through settlement. [341 F.3d 234 (3d Cir. 2003), 486 F. 3d 791 (3d Cir. 2007)]

Baer v. Klagholz

In 2001, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on eight challenges to the State’s special education regulations brought by the Education Law Center and co-counsel. The Appellate Division ruling included the mandate that school districts provide parents with evaluation reports prior to eligibility determination meetings, that all students with disabilities receive assessments to determine appropriate post-secondary outcomes, that the pool of community rehabilitation programs for older students include those programs that serve students with the most severe disabilities, and that the scope of IDEA’s disciplinary rights and protections be broadened to comply with federal law. [Docket No. A-7451-97T3 (Superior Court of NJ, Appellate Division)]

Status: Plaintiffs were subsequently successful in a contested motion for prevailing party attorney’s fees.

Disability Rights New Jersey v. New Jersey Department of Education

In 2007, ELC, together with pro bono co-counsel, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey challenging the New Jersey Department of Education’s failure to educate children with disabilities in the least restrictive environment as mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. [Docket No. 07-cv-02978 (US District Court for the District of NJ) Docket No. 08-8059 (United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit)]

Status: In February 2014, the parties entered into a historic Settlement Agreement designed to improve New Jersey’s implementation of IDEA’s mandate that students with disabilities receive an appropriate education in the least restrictive environment. The Agreement’s requirements include: a needs assessment to be completed in the 75+ school districts with the worst track record in inclusion, heightened oversight of districts that segregate a disproportional number of students of color with disabilities, extensive training and technical assistance, specially designated state and local inclusion facilitators, parental input regarding district failures, and oversight by a stakeholder committee comprised of disability advocates.

P.N. v. Clementon Board of Education

ELC filed an amicus brief in this case in the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on its behalf and on behalf of numerous disability and education advocacy organizations. The Third Circuit ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, recognizing that “prevailing party” attorney’s fees are available to students with disabilities who resolve their educational disputes with districts via a stipulated settlement agreement entered into by an administrative law judge. Citing to ELC’s amicus brief, which detailed the important role the attorney’s fee provision plays for poor parents, the Third Circuit noted that it was “particularly troubl[ed]” by the District Court’s holding that reimbursement of a $425 psychologist fee was “de minimis” and did not support a prevailing party finding. ELC then represented the plaintiff in the United States Supreme Court, where it successfully urged the Court to deny the Defendant’s petition for a writ of certiorari [Docket No. 04-4705 (United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit) Docket No. 06-7 (US Supreme Court) Docket No. 02-1351 (District Court for the District of NJ)].

Status: Plaintiffs were subsequently successful in a contested motion for prevailing party attorney’s fees before the District Court.

SPAN v. Hendricks

ELC represented SPAN in challenging the State’s failure to complete an independent study of the census-based funding methodology for special education by June 2010, as required by the School Funding Reform Act. While the litigation was pending, the State released its independent study of the special education census funding method in the State school aid formula. (Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, Docket No. A-000852-10)

Mar. 18-19 - VA via ZOOM

-->

&

-->

Directories





Glossaries

Special Education Caselaw U.S. Supreme Court l Courts of Appeals l District Courts Noteworthy Cases l Special Education Year in Review Books & Video Training

The Special Education Caselaw section of the Wrightslaw Special Education Law Library is organized as follows.

Decisions from the U. S. Supreme Court are listed first, beginning with Board of Ed. v. Amy Rowley (1982). Decisions from U. S. Courts of Appeals are next, followed by noteworthy decisions from U. S. Districts Courts and administrative decisions.

The Caselaw Library includes a sample of decisions on special education legal issues and does not include every important decision since the law was enacted. If you are looking for Complaints filed in federal court, please check the Federal Court Complaints page. If you are looking for articles about legal issues, please check the Articles and Analyses page .

For additional information about cases and legal research, please check the Directory of Legal and Advocacy Resources . For articles about special education law and advocacy topics, frequently asked questions, and newsletter archives, please go to the Advocacy Library.

New in 2021

Rogich v. Clark County School District, (Nevada, 2021). Methodology and procedural safeguards case. School district failed to provide an IEP that identified an Orton-Gillingham based methodology or structured literacy format that teachers would have to use to meet the needs of a child with dyslexia; school district refused to accept the parents' offer to pay to train teachers in an effective structured literacy method; IEP teams failed to adequately review evaluations provided by parents and failed to "meaningfully consider parents' concerns for enhancing their child's education." Judge held that telling parents "Trust us to provide what she needs" is "not sufficient."

S.S. v. Cobb Co. Sch. Dist. (N.D. GA 2021) - When "a due process complaint is dismissed without an evidentiary hearing and the reviewing court lacks findings and conclusions on the merits of the plaintiff's claims . . . remand is the most appropriate remedy." Case remanded for due process hearing.

S.C. v. Lincoln Co. Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2021) - Administrative law judge held that school district failed to provide child with Prader-Willi Syndrome with a FAPE because child required "total food security" in a schoolwide environment to obtain a meaningful educational benefit; ordered placement at an educational center where these needs could be met. District Court denied parent's request for "stay put". Ninth Circuit reversed denial, remanded for entry of stay-put order at the educational center at school district's expense.

*** M.C. v. Antelope Valley Union School District . First decision from a Court of Appeals after the Supreme Court issued their decision in Endrew F. M.C. v. Antelope Valley will be a Wrightslaw 2017 Case of the Year.

In Phyllene W. v. Huntsville City (AL) Bd. of Ed. (11th Cir. 2015) the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the decision of a Hearing Officer and of a U. S. District Court and ruled in favor of the parent and child. The Court explained that: "[T]he Board violated . . . IDEA by failing to evaluate M.W. when faced with evidence that she suffered from a suspected hearing impairment. As a result of its failure to obtain necessary medical information regarding M.W.'s hearing, the Board further failed to provide her with a FAPE. The lack of medical information rendered the accomplishment of the IDEA's goals impossible because no meaningful IEP was developed, and the IEPs put into place lacked necessary elements with respect to the services that M.W. should have been provided. In short, the Board's failure to evaluate M.W. with respect to her hearing loss deprived M.W. of the opportunity to benefit educationally from an appropriate IEP." Doug C. v. Hawaii (9th Cir. 2013) - Important decision about parental participation at IEP meetings. "All special education staff who conduct IEP meetings should be familiar with this landmark ruling about IEP meetings and parental participation" (Pete Wright) Read Pete's analysis of case. Pete's YouTube discussion is here. The original decision is here.

F. H. v. Memphis City Schools (6th Cir. 2014) - Parent filed suit against school after child was verbally, physically, and sexually abused by his aides at school. School entered into Settlement Agreement with the parent, then refused to honor the Agreement. Court found that Sec. 1983 claims do not require exhaustion under IDEA and that settlement agreement is enforceable in courts.

A.C. v. Shelby County (6th Cir. 2013) - Pro-child 504 retaliation decision in which a principal filed false child abuse allegations against child's parents. For a case of this nature to proceed, there must be a finding that the school district retaliated against the parents for asserting their rights under Section 504. The Sixth Circuit's 29 page opinion does an exceptional job of explaining the basis and criteria needed for a successful Section 504 suit to proceed against a school district. Original decision as issued by the Court is located here. The Wrightslaw reformatted version with highlights is located here.

Special Education Legal Developments and Cases ("Year in Review") Books

The Year in Review books include all special education decisions in IDEA and Section 504 cases issued by the U.S. Courts of Appeal for that year, and include cases about discrimination in daycare centers, private schools, medical licensing board exams, and higher education; damages; higher standards for IEPs and Least Restrictive Environment. The Table of Decisions includes the date, court, synopsis of legal issues, outcome, and prevailing party in the cases. The entry for each case includes the factual background, legal issue(s), and holding of the case.

All Year in Review books are available as immediate PDF downloads from the Wrightslaw Store and as Print books from Amazon.

Decisions from U.S. Supreme Court (issued prior to our "Year in Review" series which began in 2015)

Brown v. Bd of Education , 347 U. S. 483 (1954) . In this landmark decision, the Supreme Court found that segregated public schools are inherently unequal; decision is relevant to children in segregated special education placements.

Davis v. Monroe Bd. of Education (1999) . U. S. Supreme Court decision in sexual harrassment case.

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, et.al (2002) . The Supreme Court ruled that the Cleveland voucher program for students who attend failing schools is constitutional and does not violate the Establishment Clause. Schaffer v. Weast , 546 U. S. _(2005) Supreme Court held that the burden of proof in a due process hearing that challenges an IEP is placed upon the party seeking relief. Read How Will the Decision in Schaffer v. Weast Affect You? by Peter Wright, Esq.

Bd of Ed of City of New York v. Tom F (2007) . The question before the Court was whether parents of a child who has never received special education from the public school district can obtain reimbursement for a unilateral private placement. The U. S. Supreme Court issued a split decision (4-4) in the case . Justice Kennedy recused himself. The favorable decision stands for families who live in the Second Circuit - Connecticut, New York, and Vermont. Read about the key events in A Short History of New York Bd of Education v. Tom F., on Behalf of Gilbert F . Fitzgerald v. Barnstable , 555 U.S. 246 (2009). In a unanimous decision, the Court reinstated the lawsuit filed by the parents under Title IX, which bars gender discrimination at schools that receive federal funds, and under Section 1983, a broader civil rights law. Forest Grove School District v. T.A . (2009) In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that IDEA allows reimbursement for private special education services, even when the child did not previously receive special education services from the public school. Read decision. / Read analysis. Safford v. Redding , 557 U.S.__ (2009). Court held that school officials violated a thirteen year old girl's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure when they strip searched her after receiving a "tip"that the girl possessed ibuprofen. Virginia Office of Protection & Advocacy v. Stewart (2011) Supreme Court held that the Virginia Office for Protection & Advocacy (VOPA) can sue the state and pursue other legal remedies necessary to fulfill their duty to advocate for people with disabilities. J. D. B. v. North Carolina (2011) - Where police interrogated a 13 year old middle school student at school but did not give a Miranda warning, Supreme Court holds that a child's age is relevant to the Miranda custody analysis. Reversed and remanded. To Top

Decisions from U. S. Courts of Appeals (issued prior to our "Year in Review" series which began in 2015)

A.K., a minor by his Parents and Next Friends J.K. and E.S., v. Alexandria City School Bd . (4th Cir. 2007) - Decision affirmed policies served by the requirement of a formal written offer that creates "a clear record of the educational placement and other services offered to the parents." The school district's "offer of an unspecified 'private day school' was essentially no offer at all.

Amanda C. v. Clark Co Sch. Dist. & Nevada Dept. of Ed , (9th Cir. 2001) This strongly written decision cites research about ABA/Lovaas treatment; describes purposes of the IDEA; IEPs and proceduralsafeguards. District's failure to provide parents with evaluations adversely affected parents' ability to make decisions and damaged child; district failed to provide FAPE; standard of review in two-tier system; credibility of witnesses.

Cedar Rapids v. Garret (8th Cir. 1998) This case on behalf of a child who needed related services to attend school was later heard by the U. S. Supreme Court; download decision by the Supreme Court .

Collingsru v. Palmyra Bd. of Education (3rd Cir. 1998) Can a non-attorney parent represent his or her child in court? Why? Why not?

Connecticut Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities v. Hartford Bd of Educ, Hartford Public Schools and Robert Henry, Sup. of Schools (2nd Cir 2006) The Court held that the P & A has a statutory responsibility to investigate suspected cases of abuse and neglect of individuals with disabilities or mental illness and found probable cause that "multiple individuals have been subjected to abuse or neglect" at Hartford Transitional Academy. Covington v. Knox Co (TN) (6th Cir. 2000) Decision in "time-out Room" abuse case; creates exceptions to exhaustion requirement in damages cases. In html

Disability Rights Wisconsin, Inc., v. v. Wisconsin Dept. of Public Instruction & Elizabeth Burmaster, Superintendent of Public Instruction (7th Cir. 2006) The decision includes a detailed description of the responsibilities of P & As to protect individuals with disabilities, limitations on confidentiality under the Family Educational Rights to Privacy Act, and other issues.

Zachary Deal v. Hamilton County TN Board of Ed (6th Cir. 2004) Wide-ranging decision about standard of review, additional evidence, judicial notice, procedural & substantive IDEA violations, FAPE, educational benefit, predetermination of placement, failure to include regular ed teacher, reimbursement.

Fales v. Garst (8th Cir. 2001) Three special ed teachers filed suit against principal who tried to block them from advocating for students; free speech v. employers rights. In pdf In Word Complaint in Fales v. Garst Lisa Ryan Fitzgerald, etc., et. al. v. Barnstable School Committtee, et. al. , 504 F. 3d 165. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that plaintiffs were precluded from using section 1983 to redress deprivations of Title IX, a federal statutory right, and a federal constitutional right under the Equal Protection Clause under applicable Supreme Court doctrine. In January 2009, the Supreme Court reversed. Florence County School Dist. IV v. Shannon Carter (4th Cir. 1991) After Florence County lost in District Court , they appealed to the Fourth Circuit. While arguing that four months a year of progress in reading was appropriate, the district also argued that because Trident Academy was not on the State's "approved" list, Shannon's parents should not be reimbursed for the placement. Court discussed"least restrictive environment" and a contrary Second Circuit case. This ruling for Shannon created a "split" among circuits that opened the door to an appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court in Florence County School District Four v. Shannon Carter . Forest Grove Sch. Dist v. T.A . (9th Cir. 2008) - In a 2-1 decision, the Court of Appeals ruled that parents who unilaterally enroll their disabled child to a private school may be entitled to tuition reimbursement from the school district although the child never received special education from the district. On 1/16/09, The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. (see 2011 District Court decision in Forest Grove v. T.A. )

Forest Grove v. T.A .-II . On remand from the Supreme Court, the U.S. District Court holds that boy had drug and behavior problems; that parental placement in a private school was for non-disability reasons so parents not entitled to reimbursement for his tuition. In a split decision, the 9th Circuit upheld the District Court's ruling. Read new decision in Forest Grove v. T.A.-2 (4/27/11)

G. v. Fort Bragg Dependent Schools (4th Cir. 2003). ABA/Lovaas case; rights of children who attend Dept of Defense schools; FAPE & educational benefit; methodology; reimbursement for home-based Lovaas program; procedural safeguards and notice by parents; compensatory education for failure to provide FAPE; prevailing party status & attorneys fees.

G. v. Cumberland Valle y (3rd Cir. 1999) Tuition reimbursement for 2 children with dyslexia, LRE and "vigorous advocacy" by parents. C.B. v. Garden Grove Unified Sch. Dist . (9th Cir 2011) - California school failed to provide FAPE. Child's guardian withdrew child from public school and placed child in Reading & Language Center, a non-public program. ALJ found that child received "significant educational benefits," but only ordered reimbursement for half of tuition because private program did not meet all child's needs. District Court reversed ALJ, awarded full reimbursement. School appealed. 9th Cir. upheld Dist. Ct decision. HH v. Moffett & Chesterfield School Bd (4th 2009) - Special ed teacher and a assistant restrained child in her wheelchair for hours during the school day while they ignored her, verbally abused her, and schemed to deprive her of educational services. In an unpublished decision, the Court held that their conduct "violated H.H.’s clearly established right to freedom from undue restraint under the Fourteenth Amendment, and Appellants are therefore not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law." Hartmann v. Loudoun County (4th Cir. 1997) inclusion and LRE for child with autism. Joseph James v. Upper Arlington Sch. District (6th Cir. 2000) Decision about tuition reimbursement for child with dyslexia, statute of limitations, procedural safeguards. pdf html

KM v. Tustin Unified School District (9th Cir. 2013) - Court of Appeals issued decision about the relationship between IDEA, Section 504 and ADA AA. The Court relied on a brief filed by the U.S. Department of Justice, located here.

Knable v. Bexley City Sch. District (6th Cir. 2001) Case about child with behavior disorder; includes discussion of IEPs, draft IEPs, IEP requirements, tuition reimbursement, placement, burden of proof, more.

L.B. and J.B. ex rel. K.B. v. Nebo UT School District (10th Cir. 2004) Parents of child with autism reimbursed for ABA therapy and private preschool which was LRE; impartiality of hearing officer.

ISD No. 284 Wayzata Schools v. A.C . (8th Cir. 2001) Decision about need to pay costs of residential program for child with emotional and behavioral problems; overturns ruling in federal district court that residential placement was not "educationally necessary." Mackey v. Arlington Central School District, State Education Dept (2nd Cir. 2004) In "stay-put" / pendency case, Court finds that parents are entitled to reimbursement for private school tuition because earlier denial was a result of delays and an untimely decision by the state review officer. Maroni v. Pemi-Baker Regional School District (1st Cir. 2003) Decision breaks new ground, Court rules that parents can pursue IDEA claims in federal court without an attorney. M.L. v. Federal Way School District (WA) (9th Cir. 2004) Court found that the failure to include a regular education teacher on the IEP team was a serious procedural error that led to a loss of educational opportunity and a denial of FAPE.

Polera v. Bd Ed. Newburgh City Sch. Dist . (2nd Cir. 2002) In damages case under Section 504 and ADA, court rules that disabled child must first exhaust administrative remedies under IDEA. Decision includes extensive discussion of relief under statutes, compensatory and punitive damages, exhaustion requirement, and futility exception. Porter v. Bd of Trustees of Manhattan Beach USD (9th Cir. 2002)- Parents of child for whom special education program was ordered by hearing officer were not required to seek new hearing nor comply with state’s complaint procedure before suing for failure to fully implement the program; that Eleventh Amendment immunity does not bar a federal court from granting prospective injunctive relief.

R.E., M.E., et al v. NYC Dept of Education (2nd Cir. 2012) - 2nd Circuit adopts the “snap-shot” rule to judge the adequacy of an IEP written in Burlington/Carter reimbursement cases; held that retrospective testimony about additional services that the also district "would have provided," but which were not offered in the IEP, cannot be used to rehabilitate an IEP or prove its adequacy. School Bd of Henrico County VA v. Z.P (4th Cir. 2005) Parents of child with autism rejected traditional public school preschool program and requested tuition reimbursement for private program that utilized one-on-one ABA therapy. Other issues included deference to hearing officer as fact finder and deference to professional educators.

Sellers v. Manassas , (4th Cir. 1998) Court finds that damages are not available under IDEA and Section 504. Settlegoode v. Portland Public Schools , (9th Cir 2004) Court upheld jury verdict, reinstated 1 million dollar award to special ed teacher who was retaliated against and fired for advocating for her students; decision clarifies freedom of speech for teachers. Decision in pdf T. R. v. Kingwood Township (NJ) (3rd Cir. 2000) Court clarifies FAPE and "meaningful benefit," requirement about continuum of placements; requirement to provide a free appropriate education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment. W.B. v. Matula (3rd Cir. 1995) Court found that damages available under Section 504, IDEA, and Section 1983 when district refused to evaluate, classify and provide appropriate services to disabled child; decision also addressed exhaustion, qualified immunity, due process; decision superceded by a later decision that damages not available under IDEA.

Walczak v. Florida Union Free School District (2nd Cir. 1998) Case about tuition reimbursement, maximizing v. appropriate; parents are not entitled to what is "best" for their children. Weast v. Schaffer (4th Cir. 2004) Decision focuses on parental knowledge and burden of proof; appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court. U. S. Supreme Court granted cert on 2/22/05 .

Charter School in Contempt, Must Pay $176,722 - On November 4, 2013, pursuant to the "stay-put / pendency" statute (20 USC 1415(f)), the U.S. District Court of Arizona held the "tuition-free, public charter" Flagstaff Arts and Leadership Academy in contempt of Court and ordered them to pay $176,722.00 for the child's private placement by November 15, 2013 or face further sanctions. (Click here for ruling of Contempt and Order to pay.) While the child was enrolled in the charter school, the parents contested the IEP, removed the child to a private placement, and requested a due process hearing. The Administrative Law Judge ruled in their favor, (click here for decision). The school appealed and the parent's attorney, Hope Kirsch filed a Counterclaim. (Click here for Counterclaim) . The Charter School asserted that they could not afford to pay. The Court noted that their problem is "an allocation of resources problem, not an absence of resources."

PV v. Philadelphia - The US District Court Judge approved the case as a class action suit;held that changing placements of children with autism without convening IEP meetings, excluding parents participation, providing minimal notice about new placements, and educational placement decisions made by division directors were violations of the IDEA. Burriola v. Greater Toledo YMCA (W.D. OH 2001) In ADA case, federal Judge issued injunction, orders day care center to readmit child with autism; staff must be trained; discussion of reasonable accommodations, exhaustion, training. In pdf In html Analysis of Burriola case by Tom Zraik, attorney for child. Shannon Carter v. Florence County Sch. Dist. IV . (SC 1990) - Tuition reimbursement case that was appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court; decision focuses on an appropriate program and IEP for Shannon, a child with dyslexia.

Community Consolidated Sch. Dist. #93 v. John F. (IL) (N.D. IL 2000) Important discipline case; procedural violations, prior written notice requirements, manifestation determination review, suspensions for more than 10 days, expedited hearings, special education and related services under IDEA, "passing grades" and FAPE, homebound instruction violates LRE, more. In Word In pdf Jarron Draper v. Atlanta Public School District [Draper II] (N.D. GA 2008) Court denies motion by Atlanta Public Schools (“APS”) to dismiss Jarron’s civil rights claims that APS discriminated against him, harassed him, and retaliated against him and his family; requesting damages under Section 504. (PDF) Jarron Draper v. Atlanta Independent School System [Draper I] (N.D. GA 2007) - School district misdiagnosed a dyslexic boy as mentally retarded, placed him in self-contained program for years where he did not learn to read. School district failed to complete three-year reevaluation, as required by law. The Court ordered the school system to provide J.D. with compensatory education at private special education school for four years or until he graduates with a regular high school diploma.

Evans v. Rhinebeck Central Sch Dist , (S.D. NY 1996) Excellent case about tuition reimbursement, procedural and substantive issues, FAPE, dyslexia, objective measurement of progress.

Gerstmyer v. Howard Co. Schools (MD 1994) Tuition reimbursement for private non-special ed school; inappropropriate IEP goals and objectives for child with dyslexia. Parent's counsel, Wayne Steedman charted new territory with this case. Goleta Union Elementary Sch. Dist v. Andrew Ordway (C.D. Cal. 2002). Judge rules that school administrator was personally liable for damages under the Civil Rights Act for violating a mother's right to get a "free appropriate public education" for her special-needs son, as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Dec 2002). (in pdf) Henrico County School Board v. R. T. (E.D. VA 2006). Tuition reimbursement case for young child with autism; comparison of TEACCH and ABA; FAPE and least restrictive environment; deference to decision of hearing officer; witness credibility; impact of low expectations and "an insufficient focus on applying replicable research on proven methods of teaching and learning"

Jacob Winkelman v. Parma City School District (N.D. OH 2005) . Challenging the decision of the State Board of Education that the District's proposed program was the LRE and provided FAPE under IDEA, the Winkelmans requested, as pro se litigants, that the district court reverse the administrative decisions and reimburse them for the cost of all education related services and placements. The court denied the Winkelmans' motion and granted the District's motion. JP v. School Board of Hanover County VA (E.D. VA 2008). Tuition reimbursement case for child with autism. In JP-1 (2006), the District Court judge found the hearing officer's decision regarding witness testimony inadequate, charted out child's test scores and determined that school district did not provide FAPE. In February 2008, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded the case back to the District Court to determine if the 2005 IEP provided FAPE.) UPDATE : In December 2008, the Court issued a new decision in JP v. School Board of Hanover County VA (E.D. VA 2008) and found that the "State Hearing Officer's decision was not consistent with the record, that HCPS did not provide JP with a FAPE during the 2005-2006 school year because it did not proffer an IEP that was reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit. The Court held that private placement at Dominion School was appropriate and JP's parents are entitled to tuition reimbursement. J.L. and M.L., and their minor daughter, K.L. v. Mercer Island (WA) School District - In finding that the standards for a free appropriate public education described by the Supreme Court decision in Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley are no longer relevant, the Court cited changes in recent IDEA reauthorizations that are so significant "that any citation to pre-1997 case law on special education is suspect." Update: On 01/13/10, this decision was reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judith Scruggs, Administratix of Estate of Daniel Scruggs v. Meriden Bd of Ed., E. Ruocco, M. B. Iacobelli, and Donna Mule (U. S. District Court, Connecticut, 2005). Suit for actual and punitive damages against school board, superintendent, vice principal and guidance counselor under IDEA, ADA, 504, 42 USC 1983, 1985 and 1986. Child bullied, harrassed in school for years while school personnel looked on, did nothing. Child committed suicide. Includes a discussion of why parent did not have to exhaust admininistrative remedies under IDEA. Stefan Jaynes v. Newport News Public Schools (E.D. VA 2000) Parents reimbursed for ABA Lovaas program for child with autism, procedural safeguards, notice, statute of limitations. Appealed to Fourth Circuit (2000). In pdf In Word

Tereance D. and Wanda D. v. Sch. Dist. Philadelphia (E.D. PA 2008) - District failed to provide FAPE for many years; performed inadequate evaluations; misdiagnosed child as mentally retarded and emotionally disturbed; misled the parent about her son's rights to autism services and ESY services, more.

Bd. of Ed of Kanawha WV v. Michael M . (W VA 2000), IEPs, "appropriate", burden of proof, autism, reimbursement for ABA program. Excellent discussion of an "appropriate" program; recommended reading for attorneys who represent children with disabilities and their witnesses. Order re: home-based Lovaas /ABA program .

Daniel Lawyer v. Chesterfield Sch. Bd (E.D. VA 1993) This decision includes good discussion about factors to consider in extended school year (ESY), including regression and recoupment, autism and neurological windows of opportunity.

Mr. X v. NY (S.D. NY 1997) Excellent case includes comprehensive discussion of autism, Lovaas, ABA therapy and TEACCH.

Reusch v. Fountain (MD) One of the earliest and leading cases about extended school year (ESY). Linda Sturm v. Rocky Hill Bd of Ed (CT 2005) Special ed teacher can sue school district for retaliation because Section 504 includes anti-retaliation provisions and courts have extended protection against retaliation for those who advocate for the disabled.

T. H. v. Palatine , (N.D. IL 1999) Comprehensive decision in ABA-Lovaas case. Includes thorough discussion of the IEP process, the need to individualize the IEP, methodology and placement issues. (This decision is in pdf format) To Top

Other Noteworthy Decisions + Documents

Offfice of Civil Rights, Restraint/Seclusion - Prince William County, VA

On July 23, 2014, OCR found that the school district violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by "failing to re-evaluate students to determine if they needed additional or different related aids and services given the frequent use of restraint, seclusion, and . . . removing students from their classrooms to an isolated area." Click here to read the letter.

U.S. Dept of Justice v. Day Care Center

On November 27, 2013, the USDOJ and Camelot Day Care Center in Edmond, OK entered into a Settlement Agreement. The child, with Down Syndrome and toileting issues, was denied participation in field trips. In addition to paying $3,000 to the parents, the child will have a full year, tuition free, at Camelot. Click here to read the Settlement Agreement.

The parents' " Letter to the Stranger " and James Brody's description of the due process hearing are among dozens of articles in The Advocacy Libraries .

Zachary Deal v. Hamilton Dept of Educ (TN Due Process Decision 2001) The administrative law judge issues 45 page decision after a 27-day due process hearing ; finds procedural safeguards and LRE violations; substantive violations; discusses credibility problems with school witnesses re: closed minds, evasiveness.

U.S. Supreme Court cases are supreme. Cases from U. S. Courts of Appeals are the next highest level of judicial decisions. Rulings from a U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals have binding authority over the Courts in the states of that Circuit.

It is important to stay on top of the rulings of the U. S. Courts of Appeals. States may not be bound by a ruling from a different circuit but may rely upon a decision as "persuasive authority ." When the Circuits have " split" rulings on the same issue, i.e., different legal outcomes from similar issues of fact and or law, these cases have a higher probability of being accepted for review by the U. S. Supreme Court. This is what happened in Shannon Carter's case.

Parents, as you read these cases, do not focus on your child's disability and how the facts in the case are different from your child. Substitute your child's disability with the one discussed in the case. While the facts may change, so often the legal principles are the same, without regard to the particular disability. Do not have tunnel vision as you read. Consciously think about how the ruling in this case relates to your child. To Top Last Revised: 10/18/2021

-->

Specifically, the Ninth Circuit, the federal court of appeals with jurisdiction over California, has in previous cases held that the administrative complaint procedures under IDEA must be exhausted before a claimant may file suit for damages under the ADA or other federal law, where the damages sought were intended to address an LEA’s failure to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to the claimant. (See, Paul G. v. Monterey Peninsula Unified School District (9th Cir. 2019) 933 F.3d 1096 and D.D. v. Los Angeles Unified School District (9th Cir. 2021) 18 F.4th 1043.) The holding in Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools represents a change to the legal landscape in California because it overturns that Ninth Circuit precedent. This article seeks to address some of the legal and practical issues triggered by the decision. The opinion The plaintiff, Perez, alleged that the district failed to provide him with appropriate special education services. After settling his IDEA claim, Perez then sued the district for damages under ADA. The district filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that Perez had not exhausted his administrative procedures under IDEA (i.e., by filing a due process complaint that included this issue) prior to bringing his suit. The lower courts agreed with the district and dismissed Perez’s claims, and the Supreme Court took the case to settle the split in the circuit courts.

wood blocks with the letters A, D, A stacked on each other

Supreme Court Sets New Standard for Special Ed, Unanimously Rejects Minimal School Progress

Sharpen Up!

74 Million Reasons to Give

Support The 74’s year-end campaign with a tax-exempt donation and invest in our future.

Most Popular

Researchers: higher special education funding not tied to better outcomes, ai ‘companions’ are patient, funny, upbeat — and probably rewiring kids’ brains, investigation: nearly 1,000 native children died in federal boarding schools, so your school wants to ban cellphones. now what, black and hispanic voters say democrats aren’t focused enough on k-12 education.

Great ruling by a unanimous Supreme Court on the right to all children–including those with a disability–to a proper education! #Endrew pic.twitter.com/eb8toVu7wi — Tom Jawetz (@TomJawetz) March 22, 2017

William Trachman, lead counsel for the Douglas County School District, said the school system believes it is already meeting the higher standard set by the Supreme Court.

“Notably, the Court did not hold that Douglas County School District failed to meet the new standard, or say that DCSD can’t proceed to prove that it met that standard in the Endrew F. matter,” Trachman said in a statement. “Indeed, in this case, the Douglas County School District offered an appropriate Individualized Education Plan and we look forward to proving to the lower courts that the IEP meets the new, higher standard.”

During oral arguments in January, the school district’s lawyer, Neal Katyal, maintained that a new standard wasn’t needed, primarily because the current one, derived from a 1982 Supreme Court case, had “some bite.” He said procedural processes and reviews laid out in IDEA were sufficient to further guarantee an appropriate education for students.

Setting a new standard would lead to a “huge morass” of lawsuits filled with controversial educational issues that generalist federal justices aren’t equipped to handle, he said. If the standard should be changed, Congress should do so, not the courts, he added.

The last time the high court addressed the issue, in a 1982 case known as Rowley , the Supreme Court determined public schools must provide disabled students with “some educational benefit” but are not required to maximize a child’s potential. Justices also declined in that case to establish a single test to determine if the level of education being provided is sufficient under the law.

Though the Rowley case was used as precedent in the lower court’s decision in Endrew , the special education landscape has changed substantially in the past few decades, said Thomas Hehir, a professor of practice at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, who served as director of the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs from 1993 to 1999 under President Bill Clinton. In 1997, for example, Congress amended IDEA to include a dispute resolution process between parents and districts. Lawmakers amended IDEA again in 2004.

“The circuit court acted as if the law hadn’t changed, and the law has changed, and the Supreme Court obviously recognized that,” Hehir said. “The other thing that has changed is, we simply know a lot more about how to effectively educate kids with disabilities.”

Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

Carolyn Phenicie is a senior writer at The 74 based in Washington, D.C., covering federal policy, Congress, and the Education Department.

Mark Keierleber is an investigative reporter at The 74.

We want our stories to be shared as widely as possible — for free.

Please view The 74's republishing terms.

By Carolyn Phenicie & Mark Keierleber

This story first appeared at The 74 , a nonprofit news site covering education. Sign up for free newsletters from The 74 to get more like this in your inbox.

On The 74 Today

Case: Discrimination/Race Discrimination (E.D. Pa.)

A Pennsylvania federal district court granted summary judgment to the School District of Philadelphia on the race and pregnancy discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of a Black female special education teacher who alleged that she was denied new employment due to a disciplinary warning in her personnel file, and that the warning was given due to her race and pregnancy, finding that she failed to show that the warning was actually placed in her file.

Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:

Learn about bloomberg law.

AI-powered legal analytics, workflow tools and premium legal & business news.

Already a subscriber?

Work & Careers
Life & Arts

How are judges dealing with England’s rioters?

To read this article for free, register now.

Once registered, you can: • Read free articles • Get our Editor's Digest and other newsletters • Follow topics and set up personalised events • Access Alphaville: our popular markets and finance blog

Explore more offers.

Then $75 per month. Complete digital access to quality FT journalism. Cancel anytime during your trial.

FT Digital Edition

Today's FT newspaper for easy reading on any device. This does not include ft.com or FT App access.

Global news & analysis
Expert opinion

Standard Digital

Essential digital access to quality FT journalism on any device. Pay a year upfront and save 20%.

FT App on Android & iOS
FT Edit app
FirstFT: the day's biggest stories
20+ curated newsletters
Follow topics & set alerts with myFT
FT Videos & Podcasts

Terms & Conditions apply

Explore our full range of subscriptions.

Why the ft.

See why over a million readers pay to read the Financial Times.

COMMENTS

Special Education Court Cases Flashcards
Brown v. Board of Education (1954) Segregation of students by race was ruled unconstitutional; children deprived of equal education opportunity. Ended "separate but equal" schools for white and black pupils. Used as a precedent for arguing that children with disabilities cannot be excluded from a public education. Diana v.
Special Education Court Cases Flashcards
Cases to know during Praxis 5403 Learn with flashcards, games, and more — for free. Scheduled maintenance: July 30, 2024 from 09:00 PM to 11:00 PM hello quizlet
special education court cases Flashcards
First decision in a special education case by the U. S. Supreme Court. The case defined free appropriate public education [FAPE] Irving Independent Sch. Dist. v. Amber Tatro, 468 U.S. 883 (1984) The Supreme Court found that a medical treatment, such as clean intermittent catheterization, is a related service and the school is required to ...
Landmark Cases in Special Education Law
Burlington Sch. Committee v. Mass. Bd. of Ed., 471 U. S. 359 (1985) - The Court established, for the first time, the right of parents to be reimbursed for their expenditures for private special education. This decision (together with the Court's decision in Florence v. Carter) generally stands for the proposition that a school district may ...
Significant Special Education Cases
A.W. v. Jersey City Public Schools. ELC filed a federal lawsuit to challenge the failure of a school district, the state education department, and individual employees to identify and remediate A.W.'s dyslexia. The case reached the Third Circuit twice, with the Court holding in the first decision (2003), that the state defendants had waived ...
Brown v. Board of Education and the Development of Special Education
Board of Education of Topeka. In this case, perhaps the most important ruling of the 20th century, the Supreme Court ruled that the racial segregation of Black children in public schools was unconstitutional. In addition, the ruling in Brown v. Board had a profound effect on the education of children with disabilities. The purpose of this ...
Professional, Ethical and Legal Practices For Special Ed (D002)
Lecture notes 100% (9) 4. Cases Graphic Organizer (002) Lecture notes 100% (6) 2. Professional, Ethical, and Legal Practices for Special Education Companion Laws Worksheet. Lecture notes 100% (11) 10. D002 Pre-Assessment Flashcards Quizlet.
Special Education Caselaw
Print this page. Special Education Caselaw. U.S. Supreme Court l Courts of Appeals l District Courts Noteworthy Cases l Special Education Year in Review Books & Video Training. The Special Education Caselaw section of the Wrightslaw Special Education Law Library is organized as follows.. Decisions from the U. S. Supreme Court are listed first, beginning with Board of Ed. v. Amy Rowley (1982).
Special Education Court Cases Flashcards
Hansen (1967) First case raising questions about placement in special education. Court ruled tha using test scores to group students into "tracks" was unconstitutional. Diana v. State Board Of Education (1970) Ruled that tests should be given in native language. Board of Education v.
Iep information
special education court cases Flashcards and Study … https://quizlet.com/subject/special-education-court-cases Learn special education court cases with free ...
Questions and Answers (Q&A) on U. S. Supreme Court Case ...
View PDF On March 22, 2017 the U.S. Supreme Court (sometimes referred to as Court) issued a unanimous opinion in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District Re-1, 137 S. Ct. 988. In that case, the Court interpreted the scope of the free appropriate public education (FAPE) requirements in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act...
Supreme Court rules in favor of plaintiff in lawsuit over special
The U.S. Supreme Court on March 21, 2023, issued a unanimous opinion holding that special education students who file suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) seeking monetary compensation do not first have to exhaust administrative procedures under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA). ( Perez v.
Supreme Court Sets New Standard for Special Ed, Unanimously ...
By Carolyn Phenicie & Mark Keierleber. March 22, 2017. Washington, D.C. A united Supreme Court Wednesday set a new, more rigorous standard for special education services in the United States. The unanimous decision in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District will require school districts to offer individualized education programs ...
Special Education Court Cases Flashcards
Mills v Board of Education (1972) 7 students with learning and behavior problems had been excluded from school, district said they did not have the money. Court ruled that money problems couldnt have a greater impact on students with disabilties than students w/o. PARC v Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1972. argued that intellectual disabilities ...
Special Education Court Cases Flashcards
Special Education Court Cases. Brown v. Topeka Board of Education (1954) Established the right to an equal educational opportunity based upon the Fourteenth Amendment, which provided that people could not be denied "equal protection of the laws" or deprived of "life, liberty, or property" without due process.
Case: Discrimination/Race Discrimination (E.D. Pa.)
A Pennsylvania federal district court granted summary judgment to the School District of Philadelphia on race and pregnancy discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of a pregnant Black female special education teacher who alleged that she was denied new employment. Leite v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., 2024 BL 262978, E.D. Pa., 22-306, 7/30/24
Special Education Court Cases Flashcards
Special Education Court Cases study guide by ALR338 includes 9 questions covering vocabulary, terms and more. Quizlet flashcards, activities and games help you improve your grades.
How are judges dealing with England's rioters?
A grandfather armed with a wooden cosh and a teenager who joined a crowd that attacked police while out celebrating his 18th birthday are among those jailed this week for taking part in the wave ...
POS 210 Mod 5 Quiz Flashcards
Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like What was the Supreme Court's justification in Brown v. Board of Education?, In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), the Supreme Court determined that _____ were unconstitutional., The provision of the Fourteenth Amendment that prohibits any state from denying any person within its jurisdiction "the equal ...
Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clare County
The Transportation Agency, Santa Clara, California promoted Diane Joyce to road dispatcher over Paul Johnson. Both candidates were qualified for the job. As an affirmative action employer, the Agency took into account the sex of the applicants in making the promotion decision. The Court affirmed the promotion procedures of the Agency.
PlS 100 Chapter 13 Flashcards
Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like A judge that makes a legal decision on a case today may look at past case law and follow the concept of, Justices are guided by the concept of _____in making legal decisions., The main difference between the federal appellate court and federal district court is that and more.
Chapter 13 Flashcards
Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like A case involving a breach of justice by a member of the military would be heard by a/an _____. Select one: a. trial court b. military court c. district court d. appellate court, From the millions of cases filed each year, around _____ appeals reach the Supreme Court and only about 80 are accepted and heard. Select one: a. 8,000 X ...
Chapter 13: The Judicial Branch Flashcards
Each party tries to stop the others appointees and nominees. Circuit Courts (Federal appellate courts) (13 fed appellate courts) better knows as Circuit Courts. If a party loses in district it can appeal to this next level. 3 circuit court judges hear each case to determine if there was a correct ruling.
Chapter 13 Flashcards
review the trial record of cases decided in district court. There are _________federal appellate courts. 13. The main difference between the federal appellate court and federal district court is that. c. federal appellate courts do not use juries or cross-examination. Circuit courts review cases decided in. District courts.
MGT301
Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like Which of the following must be agreed to by the contractors performing a contract under Section 202 of Executive Order 11246. (Check all that apply.) a. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that the applicant or employee is employed without regard to race. b. The contractor having a contract containing the ...