Capacity ex rel. Giovanni M. v. Brentwood Union Free Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 28 September 2015 |
| Docket Number | 11 CV 3634 (PKC) (SIL),12 CV 2603 (PKC) (SIL) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
| Parties | JOHN M., Individually and in his capacity as Parent of Giovanni M., a Disabled Student, MICHELE M., Individually, and in her capacity as Parent of Giovanni M., a Disabled Student, and GIOVANNI M., Plaintiffs, v. BRENTWOOD UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant. |
These actions arise from the efforts of Plaintiffs John M. and Michele M. to obtain reimbursement from Defendant Brentwood Union School Free District (the "District") under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq., for tuition at a private school where Plaintiffs enrolled their child, Giovanni M. ("G.M." andcollectively with parents, "Plaintiffs") for two years, between Fall 2009 and Spring 2011. In two separate decisions, a State Review Officer ("SRO") denied reimbursement for both years after concluding that parents failed to prove that their private school was appropriate. Plaintiffs commenced these federal actions to overturn this aspect of the SRO's decisions,1 seek attorneys' fees, and assert discrimination claims pursuant to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act ("Rehabilitation Act"), 29 U.S.C. § 794, and the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101.2 (11 CV 3634 Dkt. 1; 12 CV 2603 Dkt. 1.) The District now moves for summary judgment on all of Plaintiffs' claims in both actions. (11 CV 3634 Dkt. 43; 12 CV 2603 Dkt. 30.) Plaintiffs cross-move for partial summary judgment, seeking a finding that the SRO erroneously imposed a heightened standard in denying them the requested tuition reimbursement. (11 CV 3634 Dkt. 54; 12 CV 2603 Dkt. 39.) For the reasons set forth below, the District's motions are granted, and Plaintiffs' motions are denied.
Under the IDEA, New York State is required to provide disabled children with a free and appropriate public education ("FAPE"). M. W. ex rel. S. W. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 725 F.3d 131, 135 (2d Cir. 2013). A FAPE "must include 'special education and related services' tailored to meet the unique needs of a particular child, and be 'reasonably calculated to enablethe child to receive educational benefits.'" Walczak v. Fla. Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 122 (2d Cir. 1998) (quoting Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 207 (1982)) (internal citation omitted); Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 107 (2d Cir. 2007). "To ensure that qualifying children receive a FAPE, a school district must create an individualized education program ("IEP") for each [disabled] child." R.E. ex rel. J.E v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 694 F.3d 167, 175 (2d Cir. 2012). An IEP is a written statement that "describes the specially designed instruction and services that will enable the child to meet stated educational objectives and is reasonably calculated to give educational benefits to the child." M.W., 725 F.3d at 135 (citing R.E., 694 F.3d at 175) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d). In New York, local Committees on Special Education ("CSEs")3 are responsible for determining whether a child is entitled to educational services under the IDEA and, if so, developing an appropriate IEP. N.Y. Educ. Law § 4402(1)(b)(1); M.W., 725 F.3d at 135; R.E., 694 F.3d at 175.
Parents who believe that the State has failed to provide their child with a FAPE as required under the IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)(A), may unilaterally place the child in a private school or program at the parents' own expense and later seek tuition reimbursement. M.H. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 685 F.3d 217, 246 (2d Cir. 2012); Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ. of Hyde Park, 459 F.3d 356, 363 (2d Cir. 2006); see also 20 U.S.C. §1400(d)(1)(A). In New York, a parent may initiate the tuition reimbursement process by filing a due process complaint with the New York State Department of Education ("DOE"). M.W., 725 F.3d at 135. The due process complaint commences administrative proceedings that initially involve a hearing before an Impartial Hearing Officer ("IHO"), who is appointed by the local board of education. Id. (citing 20 U.S.C. §§ 1415(b)(6), (f); N.Y. Educ. Law § 4404(1)). The IHO applies the three-pronged Burlington/Carter test, under which: "(1) the [District] must establish that the student's IEP actually provided a FAPE; should the [District] fail to meet that burden, the parents are entitled to reimbursement if (2) they establish that their unilateral placement was appropriate and (3) the equities favor them." M.W., 725 F.3d at 135 (citing R.E., 694 F.3d at 184-85).4 "An IHO's decision may, in turn, be appealed to a [SRO], who is an officer of the [DOE]." M.H., 685 F.3d at 225. Any party aggrieved by the SRO's final administrative decision has the right to seek review of the decision by bringing a civil action in federal court. See M.W., 725 F.3d at 135-36; 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(A).
G.M. attended District schools from kindergarten through the fall of his tenth-grade year in a general education setting. (11 CV 3634 Dkt. 45 ("Def. St.") ¶ 3.)5 In the fall of 2008, while G.M. was attending the tenth grade, his mother advised District school staff that G.M. was being bullied by other students, and that some of the harassment G.M. experienced related to his race. (Def. St. ¶ 5; 10-129 Tr. 343-45, 396-405.) The District school psychologist and other District school staff members subsequently met with G.M. three or four times to engage him in various activities at school. (10-129 Tr. 61, 68.)
In November 2008, the District school psychologist and District social worker met with G.M. to discuss behavioral concerns from his teachers. (Id. Tr. 70.) At that meeting, G.M. reported an incident on or about November 5, 2008 in which he was racially harassed by a groupof students in a school hallway. (Id. Tr. 72-73, 347-48, Ex. 3.) District school officials arranged a meeting with G.M.'s mother, and recommended that G.M. be removed from school immediately for his safety and that he undergo a psychiatric evaluation. The school officials indicated that G.M. would be permitted to return to school after a psychiatrist determined that it was safe for him to do so. (11 CV 3634 Dkt. 59 ("Pl. St.") ¶ 1; Def. St. ¶ 8; 10-129 Tr. 76, 354-57, Exs. 1, 3.) Following G.M.'s removal from school in mid-November 2008, the District provided G.M. home instruction for November and December 2008. (Pl. St. ¶ 2; Def. St. ¶ 13; 10-129 Tr. 371, Ex. 1.)
On November 18, 2008, G.M. was evaluated by a private psychiatrist, who diagnosed a paranoid episode and major depressive episode, and recommended psychiatric medication and talk therapy. (Pl. St. ¶ 3; Def. St. ¶ 9; 10-129 Ex. 6.) The psychiatrist opined that "[u]ntil improved, [G.M.] cannot return to school and would benefit from home-tutoring for his own safety as well as his co-students to improve his mental health." (10-129 Ex. 6.) The District also arranged a second evaluation with another psychiatrist on November 26, 2008. (Id. Ex. 7.) That psychiatrist diagnosed G.M. as suffering from anxiety, depressive symptoms and behavioral problems related to chronic stressors such as bullying and mocking by his peers. (Pl. St. ¶ 4.) The psychiatrist recommended psychiatric counseling and antidepressant/antianxiety medication. (Def. St. ¶¶ 11-12; 10-129 Ex. 7.)
In late November 2008, G.M. began therapy with a private therapist who is a licensed social worker. (10-129 Exs. H, J.) The therapist rendered an initial diagnosis of adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression as a result of harassment and isolation from peers at school. (Pl. St. ¶ 5; Def. St. ¶ 10; 10-129 Tr. 600-03, Ex. H.) The private therapist continued to treatG.M., seeing or speaking with G.M. on approximately 49 occasions between late November 2008 and November 2010. (10-129 Ex. H.)
In January 2009, the District advised G.M.'s mother that it wished to return G.M. to the general education setting at the same District high school from which he had been removed in November 2008. (Pl. St. ¶ 6; Def. St. ¶ 14; 10-129 Tr. 370-71.) On or about January 23, 2009, District school officials held a meeting with G.M.'s parents, at which the parents expressed concern regarding returning G.M. to the District school, and indicated that they wished to discuss an alternate placement. (Pl. St. ¶ 7; 10-129 Tr. 374-76.) Ultimately, G.M.'s parents refused to return G.M. to the District school, and the District refused to place him in another school. (Def. St. ¶ 15; see Pl. St. ¶¶ 8, 11.)
The District continued to provide home tutoring for G.M. for the balance of the 2008-09 school year. (Def. St. ¶ 16; 10-129 Ex. 11.) Plaintiffs report several problems with regard to G.M.'s home tutoring, including missed sessions with his science teacher, problems understanding his math teacher due to an accent and speech impediment, and the absence of alternative programs for physical education and computer graphics. (10-129 Tr. 377-80, Ex. 11.) G.M. failed his geometry exam, and received a failing mark in physical education at the end of the 2008-09 school year. (Id. Tr. 378, Exs. 10-11, C.)
In June 2009, G.M.'s parents unilaterally enrolled him at St. John the Baptist ("St. John's"), a private parochial school, where G.M. continued his education for the 2009-10 and 2010-11 school years, and from which G.M. graduated in 2011. (Pl. St. ¶ 11; Def. St. ¶ 17; 10-129 Tr. 389, Exs. E, G.) G.M. was not classified as a special education student during his two years at St. John's, but was educated in the general student population. (Def. St. ¶¶ 20, 31.) G.M. met with various St. John's staff throughout his time at St. John's, including approximatelyten conversations with his guidance counselor in 2010-11.6 (Pl. St. ¶¶ 17, 19.)
On or about January 25, 2010, G.M.'s...
To continue reading
Request your trial