-
Bd.
of Educ. v.
Tom F. (October 10, 2007)
U.S. Supreme Court
Education: the Supreme Court affirmed, without opinion,
a Second Circuit court of appeals decision upholding the proposition
that parents need not "try out" a school district's placement
for an identified child if the placement is not appropriate
for the child.
-
E.K.
v. Stamford Bd. Of Educ. (June 15, 2006)
United States District Court, D. Conn.
Education: In March 2005, a secondary school Planning
and Placement Team ("PPT") exited the plaintiff (E.K.), a student
in Stamford, Connecticut, from special education upon agreeing
he met the goals of his Individualized Education Plan ("IEP").
The plaintiff remained in regular education and neither his
parents nor he ever raised concerns regarding his need for special
education.
-
Winkelman
v. Parma City School Dist.
(May 21, 2007)
U.S. Supreme Court
Education: In a surprising reversal of a 6th Circuit
decision, the United States' Supreme Court held that parents
may bring a pro se court action regarding any procedural or
substantive claim arising under the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA.) The Court rejected the view of some circuit
courts that, under the statute, parents are merely "guardians"
of their children's right to an appropriate education, rather
than "real parties in interest".
-
M.K.
ex rel. Mrs. K v. Sergi. (Mar. 30, 2007)
United States District
Court, D. Conn.
Education: In a procedurally complicated case the parents
of a psychiatrically disabled teenager, and the prevailing party
in a due process hearing, sued, among other defendants, the
former Commissioner of the State Department of Education (SDOE)
for violations of IDEA.
-
.
(Mar. 30, 2007)
United States District
Court, D. Conn.
Education: This special education decision serves as
a warning to school districts regarding the consequences of
failing to include parents in the IEP process. In this case,
the parents sought reimbursement for private school placement
on the ground that the school district denied their daughter
an appropriate education and denied the parents the right to
participate meaningfully in the IEP process.
-
(September 30, 2006)
U.S. District Court
Education: In an interesting federal special education
decision, the United States District Court, District of Connecticut,
awarded plaintiff over $93,000 in attorney's fees for a successful
administrative hearing decision garnered through a Due Process
procedure.
-
Conn.
Office of Prot. and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities v.
Hartford Bd. Of Educ.
(September 15, 2006)
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals
Education: The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed
the District Court's judgment which entered a permanent injunction
against the Hartford Board of Education in the case of Protection
& Advocacy v. Hartford Bd. of Educ. This is the case where
the state office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons with
Disabilities (P&A) brought suit against the Hartford Board of
Educ. ("HBOE") requesting access to the HBOE's controversial
Hartford Transitional Learning Academy ("HTLA") to (1) observe
programs and speak with students and (2) give P&A a directory
of HTLA students and contact information for their parents/guardians
to investigate allegations of abuse and neglect at the school.
-
(June 26, 2006)
U.S. Supreme Court
Education: The omnipresent and always controversial issue
of attorneys' fees in special education found a path all the
way to the Supreme Court this past term. In Arlington Central
School Dist. v. Murphy, the plaintiffs sought fees for services
rendered by an educational consultant used during legal proceedings
held pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act ("IDEA"). Despite their status as the "prevailing party"
in the lengthy litigation, the Supreme Court overturned the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals by holding that 20 U.S.C. §
1415(i)(3)(B) does not authorizing prevailing parents to recover
expert fees.
-
(May 18, 2006)
U.S. Supreme Court
Education, Legal Representation: The issue presented
on this appeal is whether the United States Supreme Court's
controversial holding regarding attorney's fees in Buckhannon
Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dept. of Health & Human Serv.,1
applies to a "prevailing defendant"? If so, was the Appellant
here a "prevailing defendant"? The Second Circuit Court of Appeals
held that a "prevailing party" under the federal fee-shifting
statute is one who has achieved a judicially sanctioned change
in the legal relationship among the parties, such as a judgment
on the merits or a court-ordered consent decree, applies to
"prevailing defendant" cases and further held that plaintiff
here was not a prevailing defendant under this standard.
-
Bruno
v. Greenwich Bd. Of Educ. (January 6, 2006)
United States District Court, D. Conn.
Education: Does
the failure to provide a copy of the notice of procedural safeguards
to an "adult" special education student constitute a per se
violation of the special education act, requiring an award of
compensatory educational services?
-
(November 14, 2005)
U.S. Supreme Court
Special Education: In a decision that may have far reaching
implications for disabled students eligible for special education
services, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the burden
of proof in an administrative "due process" hearing challenging
the student's education plan is placed on the party seeking
relief, whether that party is the disabled child or the local
school district.
-
A.R.
v. New York City Dept. of Educ. (May 10, 2005)
Federal District Court
Education: Do "winners" in administrative hearings governing
...
-
Mr.
and Mrs. L., v. Plainville Bd. of Educ. (March 28, 2005)
Federal District Court
Education: On March 28, 2005 the federal district court
of Connecticut handed down a ruling in favor of the Plainville
Board of Education
-
P.S.
v. Brookfield Bd. of Educ. (January 31, 2005)
Federal District Court
Education: Is dismissal from a Due Process hearing an
appropriate remedy for parental non-compliance with a hearing
officer's order? Yes says the federal district court of Connecticut
in P.S. v. Brookfield, a short but thoughtful decision that
affirms dismissal of
-
Comm.
on Human Rights and Opportunities v. Bd. of Educ. of the Town
of Cheshire (August 31, 2004)
Connecticut Supreme Court
Civil Liberties and Civil Rights, Education: The Connecticut
Supreme Court tackled the issue of whether pursuant to Conn.
Gen. Stat. § 48a-58(a), the state Commission on Human Rights
and Opportunities ("CHRO") has the jurisdictional authority
to address a student's claim of racial discrimination aga
-
Banks
ex. rel. Banks v. Danbury Bd. of Educ. (Jan 8, 2003)
United States District Court
Special Education: ...an interesting special education
case involving parents who unilaterally placed their child in
a private school and requested reimbursement from the local
school board. In upholding the administrative hearing officer's
decision (that affirmed the scho
-
R.M.
v. Vernon Bd. of Educ. (May 22, 2002)
United States District Court, D. Conn.
Education: Special Education The District Court concluded
that in an action seeking a preliminary injunction, the plaintiff
must establish that 1) "the injunction is necessary to prevent
irreparable harm," and 2) ". . . the likelihood of success on
the merits. . ."
-
Polera
v. Bd. of Educ., Newburgh City Sch. Dist. (April 29, 2002)
Second Circuit Court of Appeals
Education: Polera, a visually impaired student ... alleged
that the school system failed to provide her with the proper
educational tools ... the Second Circuit Court reversed the
District Court’s decision and determined that Polera was required
to exhaust her admin
-
J.C.
v. Regional School Dist. 10, Bd. of Educ. (Jan 24, 2002)
US Court of Appeals
Education: Attorneys' Fees In J.C., the second circuit
panel holds that a favorable special education settlement, negotiated
by counsel, that is not adopted by a hearing officer as an official
"order" does not rise to the level of a "prevailing party."
-
Warton
v. New Fairfield Bd. of Educ. (Nov 8, 2000)
US District Court
Education: Special Education; IDEA The federal district
court of Connecticut recently granted a plaintiff's motion for
a preliminary injunction granting a stay-put placement in a
special education case.
-
M.C.
v. Voluntown Bd. of Educ. (Oct 30 2000)
US Court of Appeals
Education: Special Education Another special education
case from the second circuit dealing with the limits of reimbursement
for placements...
