Practice Guide for Lawyers – Cause of Action for Violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (the “Idea”)

Scope

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [(herein, the “IDEA” or the “Act”)], 20 U.S.C. §§1400–1491, is designed to ensure the provision of “a free appropriate public education” to children with disabilities. 20 U.S.C. §1400(d). To reach this goal, Congress provides federal funding to the states, on the condition the recipient states must implement specific policies and procedures set forth in the IDEA. 20 U.S.C.A. §1412(a).

The IDEA’s most detailed and stringent requirements pertain to children with disabilities who are between the ages of three and 21 years old. The provisions relating to these children are codified in the IDEA’s Subchapter II (also known as “IDEA Part B”), 20 U.S.C.A. §§1411-1419. The IDEA also, however, provides significant legislative support for assistance to infants and toddlers – – that is, children from birth until their third birthday – – in measures codified in the IDEA’s Subchapter III (also known as “IDEA Part C”), 20 U.S.C.A. §§1431-1444.

The general prerequisite to the receipt of federal funds is the provision of a “free appropriate public education” (“FAPE”) in the “least restrictive educational environment” (“LRE”) to all disabled children residing within the state. 20 U.S.C.A. §§1412(a)(1) & (a)(5). By “free appropriate public education,” Congress envisioned an education “that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet the . . . unique needs” of each child. 20 U.S.C.A. §1400(d)(1). By “least restrictive educational environment,” Congress sought to ensure that children with disabilities will be educated alongside non-disabled students “[t]o the maximum extent appropriate.” 20 U.S.C.A. §1412(a)(5)(A). Pursuant to the IDEA, the unique needs of each child are to be set forth in an individualized educational program (“IEP”), developed by a team of individuals including the child’s parents, the child’s regular and special education teachers, a qualified representative of the local educational agency (“LEA”), and, where appropriate, the child. 20 U.S.C.A. §1414(d). Ms. K v. Maine School Admin. Dist. No. 40, 2006 WL 3081555, *1 (D. Me. 2006).

The IEP is a written statement that is developed, periodically reviewed (at least annually) and revised by the IEP team in accordance with specific procedures set forth in the IDEA. 20 U.S.C.A. §§1414(d)(3) & (4). In the event parents are dissatisfied with an agency’s “identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such child”, 20 U.S.C.A. §1415(b)(6), the IDEA entitles them to present their complaints in an “impartial due process hearing,” conducted by an administrative law judge under the auspices of a state government agency. 20 U.S.C.A. §1415(f). In addition to providing parents the right to an administrative hearing, the IDEA also grants to any party “aggrieved by the findings and decision” of the hearing officer, the right to bring an IDEA “civil action” either in a state court or in the appropriate United States District Court. 20 U.S.C.A. §1415(i)(2). Ms. K v. Maine School Admin. Dist. No. 40, 2006 WL 3081555, *1 (D. Me. 2006).

Of note, in one of its most recent rulings on the IDEA, the United States Supreme Court held: “To meet its substantive obligation under the IDEA, a school district must offer an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas County School Dist. RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 988, 999, 197 L. Ed. 2d 335 (2017). Roger’s detailed practice guide on the handling of legal disputes under the IDEA was first published in 2019, in book form and online, by Thomson Reuters (West Publishing Co.), in the company’s Causes of Action (2d) series, and is regularly updated online. It presents a comprehensive review of the provisions of the IDEA, with analysis and discussion, including concerning the decision of the Court in Endrew F., intended to assist attorneys and their clients in construing and applying the requirements for the bringing of a cause of action for violation of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C.A. §§1400 et seq. For purposes of citation in law-related materials, the practice guide is cited as:

Cause of Action for Violation of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C.A. §§ 1400 et seq. (the “IDEA”), 89 Causes of Action 2d 341 (originally published 2019).

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

• § 1. Scope
• § 2. History
• § 3. Related and alternative causes of action

II. SUBSTANTIVE LAW OVERVIEW

• A. Substantive and Procedural Requirements
  • § 4. Early intervention services under IDEA Part C- – generally
  • § 5. Early intervention services under IDEA Part C- – requirements
  • § 6. IDEA Part C- – comparison with IDEA Part B
  • § 7. IDEA Part B- – generally
  • § 8. IDEA Part B – – identification, evaluation and placement
  • § 9. IDEA Part B- – child with a disability
  • § 10. IDEA Part B- – age three to 21
  • § 11. IDEA Part B- – district of jurisdiction or obligation
  • § 12. IDEA Part B procedures- – evaluation
  • § 13. IDEA Part B procedures- – IEP meeting
  • § 14. IDEA Part B procedures- – IEP document
  • § 15. IDEA Part B- – free appropriate public education (FAPE)
  • § 16. IDEA Part B- – FAPE- – clarification in Endrew F.- – facts and procedural history
  • § 17. IDEA Part B- – FAPE- – Endrew F.- – matters decided
  • § 18. IDEA Part C- – FAPE- – Endrew F.- – analysis
  • § 19. IDEA Part B- – FAPE- – least restrictive environment (LRE)
  • § 20. IDEA Part B- – FAPE- – continuum of placement alternatives
  • § 21. IDEA Part B- – FAPE- – extended school year (ESY)
  • § 22. IDEA Part B- – FAPE- – transition services
  • § 23. IDEA Part B- – procedural safeguards- – overview
  • § 24. IDEA Part B- – procedural safeguards- – notice
  • § 25. IDEA Part B- – procedural safeguards- – parental participation
  • § 26. IDEA Part B- – procedural safeguards- – complaint, alternative dispute resolution, administrative hearing, and judicial review
  • § 27. Procedural safeguards- – Status quo (“stay put”) maintained during proceedings
  • § 28. Procedural safeguards- – “stay put”- – definition of “then-current” as to placement
  • § 29. Procedural safeguards- – “stay put”- – violation of status quo
  • § 30. Procedural safeguards- – discipline and placement in alternative educational settings
  • § 31. Procedural safeguards- – discipline and placement in alternative educational settings- – expedited due process hearing
  • § 32. Appealability of stay-put decisions
• B. Prima Facie Case
  • § 33. Elements, generally
  • § 34. Child with a disability
  • § 34. C.F.R. §300.309(a)(1)
  • § 35. Age
  • § 36. District of jurisdiction or obligation
  • § 37. Violation of substantive requirements- – denial of FAPE- – IEP not reasonably calculated
  • § 38. Violation of substantive requirements- – denial of FAPE- – placement not in least restrictive environment (LRE)
  • § 40. Violation of substantive requirements- – denial of FAPE- – transition
  • § 41. Violation of procedural requirements
  • § 42. Violation of procedural requirements- – parental participation
  • § 43. Violation of procedural requirements- – evaluations- – evaluation not appropriate- – independent evaluation at public expense required
  • § 44. Violation of IDEA-based settlement agreement
• C. Defenses
  • § 45. Defenses, generally
  • § 46. Not a “child with a disability”
  • § 47. Not district of jurisdiction or obligation
  • § 48. Free appropriate public education provided
  • § 49. No violation of procedural requirements
  • § 50. Procedural violation did not result in deprivation of FAPE
  • § 51. Evaluation appropriate- – independent evaluation services or reimbursement not required
  • § 52. Enforcement of IDEA settlement- – defenses
  • § 53. Other defenses- – Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity
  • § 54. Other defenses- – qualified immunity
  • § 55. Limitations period- – administrative due process complaint
  • § 56. Limitations periods- – administrative due process complaint- – exceptions to timeline
  • § 57. Limitations period- – administrative due process complaint- – accrual of claim
  • § 58. Limitations period- – civil action
  • § 59. Limitations period- – tolling agreements
  • § 60. Other defenses- – claim preclusion- – generally
  • § 61. Other defenses- – claim preclusion- – res judicata
  • § 62. Other defenses- – claim preclusion- – collateral estoppel
  • § 63. Other defenses- – failure to exhaust administrative remedy
• D. Parties
  • § 64. Persons who may recover
  • § 65. Parties who may have liability

III. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

• A. Procedural Matters
  • § 66. Jurisdiction- – grant of jurisdiction in state and federal courts
  • § 67. Standing
  • § 68. Exhaustion of state hearing and review procedures- – generally
  • § 69. Exhaustion of state hearing and review procedures- – exhaustion required
  • § 70. Exhaustion of state hearing and review procedures- – exhaustion not required
  • § 71. Venue
  • § 72. Other threshold matters of procedure: ripeness, mootness
  • § 73. Discovery
  • § 74. Standards of judicial review- – federal district and appellate courts
• B. Proof
  • § 75. Burden of proof
  • § 76. Plaintiff’s proof
  • § 77. Additional evidence
  • § 78. Additional evidence- – admissible
  • § 79. Additional evidence- – inadmissible

IV. REMEDIES

• § 80. Remedies, generally- – “appropriate” relief
• § 81. Remand
• § 82. Injunctive relief
• § 83. Injunctive relief- – likelihood of success on the merits
• § 84. Injunctive relief- – irreparable harm
• § 85. Injunctive relief- – balancing the equities
• § 86. Injunctive relief- – weighing the public interest
• § 87. Reimbursement of tuition and related educational expenses
• § 88. Compensatory education
• § 89. Monetary damages- – usually beyond scope of IDEA relief
• § 90. Punitive damages- – usually beyond scope of IDEA relief
• § 91. Attorney’s fees and costs
• § 92. Attorney’s fees and costs- – method of calculating award
• § 93. Attorney’s fees and costs- – request for award granted
• § 94. Attorney’s fees and costs- – request for award denied
• § 95. Expert witness fees- – usually beyond scope of IDEA relief

V. PRACTICE CHECKLISTS

• § 96. Information to obtain from clients- – parents and student
• § 97. Analysis of formal eligibility evaluation- – technical requirements
• § 98. Information to obtain from clients- – public agency
• § 99. Discovery checklists

VI. APPENDIX

• § 100. Sample opinion
• § 101. Federal statutes
• § 102. Sample federal district court complaint
• § 103. Additional guidance- – official sources (US Dep’t of Education)
• § 104. Survey of types and extent of relief awarded