Lejeune v. Khepera Charter Sch.

• Decision Date: 29 August 2018
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-885,CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-4965, CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-886
• Citation: 327 F.Supp.3d 785
• Parties: LEJEUNE, G. Individually and on Behalf of T.T., Plaintiff, v. KHEPERA CHARTER SCHOOL, Pedro Rivera and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Education, Defendants. Joan P.B., Individually and on Behalf of M.F., Plaintiff, v. Khepera Charter School, Pedro Rivera in His Official Capacity as Secretary of Education for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Education, and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Education, Defendants. Jeremiah G. Individually and on Behalf of Z.B., Plaintiff, v. Khepera Charter School, Pedro Rivera in His Official Capacity as Secretary of Education for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Education and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Education, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

327 F.Supp.3d 785

LEJEUNE, G. Individually and on Behalf of T.T., Plaintiff,

v.KHEPERA CHARTER SCHOOL, Pedro Rivera and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Education, Defendants.

Joan P.B., Individually and on Behalf of M.F., Plaintiff,

v.Khepera Charter School, Pedro Rivera in His Official Capacity as Secretary of Education for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Education, and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Education, Defendants.

Jeremiah G. Individually and on Behalf of Z.B., Plaintiff,

v.Khepera Charter School, Pedro Rivera in His Official Capacity as Secretary of Education for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Education and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Education, Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-4965

CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-885

CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-886

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

Signed August 29, 2018

David J. Berney, Morgen N. Black-Smith, Kevin Golembiewski, Law Offices of David J. Berney, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff.

Maureen P. Fitzgerald, Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, King of Prussia, PA, Ana Paulina Gomez, Governor's Office of General Counsel, Mechanicsburg, PA, Kevin R. Bradford, Office of the Attorney General, Philadelphia, PA, Roberto Datorre, PA Dept. of Education Office of General Counsel, Harrisburg, PA, for Defendants.

OPINION

WENDY BEETLESTONE, District Judge.

The central questions in these matters, which are brought under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. § § 1400 et seq. , all concern which entity and in what manner IDEA obligations are fulfilled after a charter school experiences financial difficulties. Plaintiffs are three minor children and their parents who entered into agreements with Khepera Charter School ("Khepera") to resolve claims that Khepera did not provide them with an Free and Appropriate Public Education ("FAPE"). Khepera has since breached those agreements. Each Plaintiff seeks summary judgment against Khepera and the Pennsylvania Department of Education ("PDE"). In addition, PDE seeks summary judgment against each of the Plaintiffs.¹

I. Statutory Framework

In order to put the facts of these cases in context, a brief overview of the statutory framework is necessary. The IDEA guarantees students with disabilities a FAPE. See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1).² A FAPE requires access to services "designed to meet [the child's] unique needs and prepare them for employment and independent living." 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A). FAPE is defined as special education and related services that: "(A) have been provided at public expense ...; (B) meet the standards of the State educational agency; (C) include an appropriate preschool, elementary school, or secondary school education in the State involved; and (D) are provided in conformity with the individualized education program...." 20 U.S.C. § 1401(9). The central mechanism for providing a FAPE is the "Individualized Education Program" ("IEP"). 20 U.S.C. §§ 1412(a)(4), 1414(d). "The IEP is a written statement that sets forth the child's present performance level, goals and objectives, specific services that will enable the child to meet those goals, and evaluation criteria and procedures to determine whether the child has met the goals." Ass'n for Cmty. Living in Colo. v. Romer , 992 F.2d 1040, 1043 (10th Cir. 1993).

The IDEA divides responsibilities for ensuring access to FAPE between State Educational Agencies ("SEAs") and Local Educational Agencies ("LEAs"). See 20 U.S.C. § 1413. The SEA is responsible for general supervision of the implementation of the IDEA in the state, see id. § 1412(a)(11), while the LEA is responsible for directly providing educational programming. See 20 U.S.C. § 1414 ; see also Gadsby by Gadsby v. Grasmick , 109 F.3d 940, 953 (4th Cir. 1997) ("[T]he LEA is responsible for directly providing the services to disabled children" under the IDEA). Congress provides funds to each state that submits a plan with policies and procedures that ensure eligible students receive a FAPE. In turn, the state makes those funds available to LEAs that comply with the SEA's plans under the IDEA. See 20 U.S.C. § 1413. When an LEA is "unable to establish and maintain programs of free appropriate public education that meet the requirements of [the IDEA]," the SEA must "provide special education and related services directly to children with disabilities." 20 U.S.C. § 1413(g).³

The IDEA also provides procedural mechanisms to solve inevitable disputes that arise among SEAs, LEAs, and parents. States must adopt procedures affording "[a]n opportunity for any party to present a complaint ... with respect to any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such child." 20 U.S.C. §§ 1415(a), (b)(6)(A). A parent can challenge the education or IEP provided by the LEA in which their child is enrolled, by filing a complaint and challenging the IEP through a due process hearing before an impartial hearing officer. See 20 U.S.C. §§ 1415(f)(1)(A), 1415(g). In Pennsylvania, the Commonwealth's Office of Dispute Resolution ("ODR") is responsible for conducting IDEA due process hearings. See 22 Pa. Code § 14.162 ; see also Office for Dispute Resolution , Pa. Special Educ. Dispute Resolution Manual [ODR Manual] § 805 (2017). An aggrieved parent may appeal the hearing officer's decision by bringing a civil action in federal court. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(A).

Despite the appellate procedures, the IDEA encourages parents to resolve disputes without resort to contested hearings. For example, the IDEA provides for mandatory early resolution sessions and optional mediation sessions. See 20 U.S.C. §§ 1415(f)(1)(B), (e). "In the case that a resolution is reached to resolve the complaint [in the early resolution session] the parties shall execute a legally binding agreement that is ... enforceable in ... a district court of the United States." Id. § 1415(e)(F)(iii). Parents are free to enter settlement agreements outside the context of the mediation or resolution sessions. However, unlike settlement agreements reached through resolution or mediation, the IDEA does not provide district courts with subject matter jurisdiction to hear suits to directly enforce private contracts entered into outside the statutory framework provided by the IDEA.

II. FACTS

With this structure in mind, the Court turns to the specific facts of these three cases:

A. Facts Specific to T.T.

T.T. was enrolled at Khepera from 2008 until the 2014-2015 school year. T.T. has been identified as a student with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, and a Specific Learning Disability. As a result of these disabilities, T.T. is eligible for and in need of special education and related services pursuant to the IDEA.

On November 21, 2014, Plaintiff, T.T.'s guardian, filed a due process complaint against Khepera alleging that the school denied T.T. a FAPE. On March 21, 2015, the due process hearing officer who presided over that Complaint ordered Khepera to provide compensatory education to T.T. Three months after the hearing officer's decision, Khepera and Plaintiff entered into an agreement implementing the hearing officer's order ("T.T. Implementation Agreement"). The parties did not reach the T.T. Implementation Agreement in the context of a statutory mediation or resolution session, and could not have done so given that the IDEA provides that mediation and resolutions sessions occur prior to a due process hearing. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e). It included a schedule for periodic payments toward a $160,000 special needs trust. The T.T. Implementation Agreement further provided that in the event that Khepera breached the agreement, Khepera would be responsible for Plaintiff's reasonable attorney's fees.

On August 25, 2015, Plaintiff filed a second due process complaint against Khepera seeking additional compensatory education funds as well as tuition payments for T.T. to attend the Y.A.L.E. School ("YALE"), a private school for students with disabilities. On October 12, 2015, Khepera entered into a Resolution Agreement to resolve the educational claims between the parties raised in the August 25, 2015 complaint ("T.T. Resolution Agreement."). The agreement states that is was "reached pursuant to the resolution process under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(1)(B). Pursuant to the T.T. Resolution Agreement, Khepera agreed to pay: (1) an additional $9,240 into a third-party education trust established for T.T.; (2) YALE tuition payments for the 2015-2016 school year; (3) $10,560.96 as reimbursement for tuition to the education trust that had already been paid to YALE; and (4) Plaintiff's attorney's fees in the amount of $14,000. As relevant here, Khepera has not paid $44,450 of the $160,000 due to T.T.'s trust under the T.T. Implementation Agreement. Khepera has also failed to pay YALE's tuition payments for the 2015-2016 school year under the T.T. Resolution Agreement.

B. Facts Specific to M.F.

M.F. was enrolled at Khepera from the beginning of the 2008-2009 school year through February 2016. M.F. is currently enrolled at the School District of Philadelphia. As a result of M.F.'s Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

, M.F. is eligible for and in need of special education and related services pursuant to the IDEA.

On or about October 25, 2016, M.F. filed a due process complaint against Khepera alleging that Khepera denied M.F. FAPE. On or about January 11, 2017, prior to any due process hearing, M.F.'s guardian and Khepera entered into a settlement agreement (hereinafter "M.F. Agreement") to resolve M.F.'s complaint. The M.F. Agreement was reached in the context of a resolution session as provided for under the IDEA. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(1)(B). The Agreement states that the parties "agree that this Agreement is a Written Agreement reached pursuant to the Resolution...