Dervishi v. Bd. of Educ.
| Decision Date | 30 March 2023 |
| Docket Number | 3:21-CV-1184 (SVN) |
| Parties | SHKELQESA DERVISHI, on her behalf and on the behalf of her autistic son T., Plaintiff, v. STAMFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
RULING AND ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff Shkelqesa Dervishi brings this pro se action on her own behalf and on behalf of her twenty-four-year-old son with autism, T.D., pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. Plaintiff contends that Defendant, the Stamford Board of Education, is required to reimburse her for the expenses she incurred between 2016 and 2020 to transport T.D. from their home in Stamford, Connecticut, to a private school specializing in educating children with autism located in New York City, which T.D. attended during that time. Plaintiff also contends that Defendant is required to reimburse her for expenses she incurred purchasing assistive technology recommended by T.D.'s school. The parties have filed crossmotions for summary judgment. For the reasons described below, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion and DENIES Plaintiff's motion.
The IDEA is an “ambitious federal effort to promote the education of” children with disabilities. Walczak v. Fla. Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 122 (2d Cir. 1998) (citing Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S 176, 179 (1982)). Specifically, the IDEA is designed to ensure that children with disabilities have access to a “free appropriate public education” that meets the “unique needs” of each child, and to ensure that the rights of children with disabilities and their parents are protected. 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d); M.H. v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., 685 F.3d 217, 223 (2d Cir. 2012). To that end, the IDEA offers federal funds to states that provide special education and related services to children with disabilities and comply with other statutory requirements. Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 580 U.S. 386, 390 (2017). The IDEA thus presents “a model of cooperative federalism,” because it gives the participating states “the primary responsibility for developing and executing educational programs” for disabled children, but imposes on those states “significant requirements to be followed in the discharge of that responsibility.” Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 52 (2005) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Most importantly, a local educational agency administers special education and related services to each child according to an “individualized education program” (“IEP”) developed annually by school officials and the child's parent. Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 846 F.3d 377, 379 (2d Cir. 2003) (citing 20 U.S.C. §§ 1412(a)(1)(A), 1401(8), 1414(d)).
If a parent and a school official disagree about the education of a child with disabilities, the parent may file a due process complaint with the state educational agency and request an “impartial due process hearing.” 20 U.S.C. §§ 1415(b)(6), 1415(c)(2)(A), 1415(f)(1)(A); Endrew F., 580 U.S. at 391-92. Connecticut, a participating state, has enacted legislation and regulations governing the process for an administrative hearing with the Department of Education. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-76h(a); Conn. Agencies Regs. § 10-76h-2. After resolution of the administrative process, the losing party can initiate an action in federal court. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(A); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-76h(d)(4).
The record reveals the following facts, which are undisputed except when noted.[1]Plaintiff's son, T.D., was born on January 14, 1999, and, at all relevant times he was eligible for special education and related services due to his autism. Pl.'s Local Rule (“L.R.”) 56(a)2 St., ECF No. 32, ¶¶ 2-3. Prior to 2016, T.D. was educated at home and did not attend school. Hearing Officer (“H.O.”) Decision, ECF No. 1-2, at 4; Def.'s L.R. 56(a)2 St., ECF No. 29-1, ¶ 1. On April 26, 2016, T.D.'s planning and placement team (“PPT”)[2] convened to discuss T.D.'s education for the 2016-17 school year. Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 St. ¶ 4. Defendant represents that, at this PPT meeting and at every PPT meeting that followed, Plaintiff was provided a copy of the “procedural safeguards,” which are, essentially, a list of the rights of parents provided for in the IDEA,[3] and informed Defendant that she did not need to review of them. Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 St. ¶¶ 6, 8, 15, 22, 24, 44, 47, 56.
Various individuals attended the April 26, 2016, meeting, including: Dr. Wayne Holland, Defendant's Director of Special Education; a special education teacher and psychologist employed by Defendant; a representative from the Connecticut Department of Children and Families (“DCF”); an attorney for Defendant; Plaintiff and her attorney; and several of T.D.'s treating medical providers, specifically, Rosalind Cormier, T.D.'s speech and language pathologist, Dr. Elizabeth Roberts, T.D.'s neuropsychologist, and Dr. John Samanich, T.D.'s psychiatrist. Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 St. ¶ 7; Def.'s L.R. 56(a)2 St. ¶ 3; Notice (“Not.”) of 4/26/2016 PPT Meeting (“Mtg.”), ECF No. 26-3 at 2; Report (“Rpt.”) of 4/26/2016 PPT Mtg., ECF No. 26-4 at 2.
At the meeting, the team of school officials recommended placing T.D. at Westchester School for Special Children (“WSSC”), but Plaintiff disagreed with that recommendation. Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 St. ¶ 9; Rpt. of 4/26/2016 PPT Mtg. at 3. Plaintiff reported that T.D. had been accepted to the Keswell School (“Keswell”), located in New York City. Def.'s L.R. 56(a)2 St. ¶ 2. Dr. Roberts presented information regarding her evaluation and treatment of T.D., and, based on her familiarity with Keswell and the particular features it offered, recommended placing T.D. there. Id. ¶ 4-5; Tr. of 4/26/2016 PPT Mtg., ECF No. 31 at 21, at 47:21-48:3. Dr. Samanich and Cormier also recommended placing T.D. at Keswell. Def.'s L.R. 56(a)2 St. ¶ 6.
Following this meeting, school officials visited Keswell, and Plaintiff and Dr. Roberts visited WSSC. Id. ¶¶ 9-10. The next PPT meeting took place on June 6, 2016, and the attendees discussed Plaintiff's request to have T.D. placed at Keswell. Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 St. ¶¶ 11-12, 16. The school officials who visited Keswell reported “programmatic issues,” as well as concerns with the two-hour driving distance between Stamford and Keswell and T.D.'s inability to tolerate such a long commute. Rpt. of 6/6/2016 PPT Mtg., ECF No. 26-6 at 3. Although T.D.'s treating medical providers did not attend this PPT meeting, letters from Cormier and Dr. Samanich were read into the record, memorializing their opinions that WSSC was not appropriate for T.D. and that he should be placed at Keswell. Id. In light of the school team's concerns with Keswell, and their belief that WSSC would provide T.D. with free appropriate public education, the school team continued to recommend that T.D. be placed at WSSC. Id.; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 St. ¶ 19.
The next PPT meeting took place on August 31, 2016, at which Plaintiff again requested to have T.D. placed at Keswell. Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2. St. ¶¶ 21, 25. The school team continued to believe that WSSC would provide T.D. with free and appropriate education, but, “as an accommodation” to Plaintiff and out of concern that T.D. had not been in school for a long time, the school team agreed to pay the tuition for T.D. to attend Keswell. Tr. of 8/31/2016 PPT Mtg., ECF No. 26-11, at 90:2-13; Rpt. of 8/31/2016 PPT Mtg., ECF No. 26-10 at 3. The school team was not willing to agree to pay for the transportation expenses associated with T.D. attending Keswell, however, citing the long commuting distance. Rpt. of 8/31/2016 PPT Mtg. at 3; Tr. of 8/31/2016 PPT Mtg. at 90:11-13, 90:24-91:2, 92:17-22, 94:20-95:12. Plaintiff agreed to transport T.D. to Keswell until the dispute could be addressed at the next PPT meeting. 8/31/2016 PPT Mtg. Tr. at 94:25-95:2, 114:14-18. T.D. began attending Keswell the next day. See Tr. of 4/27/2021 H.O. Hearing, ECF No. 26-33, at 147:9-11.
Another PPT meeting was held on November 3, 2016, and the transportation issue was discussed. Def.'s L.R. 56(a)2 St. ¶ 17; Tr. of 11/3/2016 PPT Mtg., ECF No. 31 at 38, at 1. Plaintiff requested that Defendant reconsider its refusal to pay for transportation and begin to provide a special bus and aide to ensure T.D.'s safe transportation to Keswell. Tr. of 11/3/2016 PPT Mtg. at 3-6. She represented that it was not safe for her to transport T.D. because he was able to unlock and open the car door, and Dr. Samanich recommended that Defendant pay for a special bus and aide to ensure T.D.'s safe transportation to Keswell. Def.'s L.R. 56(a)2 St. ¶ 17; Tr. of 11/3/2016 PPT Mtg. at 26:10-20. The school team continued to refuse to pay for transportation and represented that, although they accommodated Plaintiff's request that T.D. be placed at Keswell, it was not their recommended placement partially due to transportation issues. Tr. of 11/3/2016 PPT Mtg. at 26:21-24, 31:7-9, 34:16-20.
The next PPT meeting was held on July 26, 2017, for the purpose of conducting an annual review of T.D.'s education.[4] Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 St. ¶¶ 43 45. Plaintiff again requested that Defendant pay for T.D.'s transportation to Keswell, and Defendant again refused. Id. ¶ 50; Rpt. of 7/26/2017 PPT Mtg., ECF No. 26-15 at 4. The next PPT meeting for T.D.'s annual review was held on July 11, 2018. Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 St. ¶¶ 53-54. The school team recommended placing T.D. at the Connecticut Center for Child Development (“CCCD”) or Giant Steps School, but Plaintiff rejected those placements and again requested placing T.D. at Keswell based on the continued...
To continue reading
Request your trial