Perez v. Porter

Background

Marina Perez sued individually and as parent and natural guardian of C.P., a young man with a disability. She alleged that the New York City Department of Education and Meisha Porter, in her official capacity as Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education, failed to provide C.P. with a free appropriate public education for the 2019–2020 school year, as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

Perez moved for summary judgment, and the Department of Education cross-moved for summary judgment. Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang recommended denying Perez’s motion and granting the Department’s motion. Judge Broderick reviewed Perez’s objections to that recommendation.

Court’s Analysis

Under the IDEA, a federal district court independently reviews the administrative record and any additional evidence to determine whether the school complied with the statute and appropriately addressed the student’s educational needs. The court must give weight to the state administrative decision, particularly when the state review was thorough and careful, and may not replace school officials’ educational judgments with its own policy preferences.

Procedural challenges

Perez argued that C.P.’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) violated IDEA procedures because:

- the meeting notice was not written in her native language of Spanish; - the Committee on Special Education did not include people with knowledge or special expertise about C.P.; and - the committee did not consider classroom placements with fewer students.

Judge Wang concluded that Perez forfeited these arguments because she did not identify them in her due process complaint. Judge Broderick held that Perez could not raise for the first time in her objections the argument that the Department nevertheless received fair notice. He also agreed that the general allegation in the complaint—that the Department significantly impeded Perez’s participation in decisions about C.P.’s education—did not specifically identify the three alleged procedural violations. Judge Broderick therefore overruled this objection.

Substantive challenges

Perez also challenged the conclusion that the IEP was substantively adequate.

Class size and related services. Perez argued that C.P.’s highly intensive management needs required a 6:1:1 classroom. The court noted that C.P. also had severe multiple disabilities and that a 12:1:4 classroom was an appropriate and highly supportive setting for students with those characteristics. The court deferred to the state review officer’s classroom-placement decision.

Perez also argued that thirty-minute related-services sessions were insufficient. The record included testimony that C.P. had a short attention span, became easily fatigued, and could not attend sessions longer than thirty minutes. The court concluded that the record supported the state review officer’s decision to defer to the January 2019 committee’s recommendation of three thirty-minute related-services sessions per week.

Evaluations. Perez argued that the state review officer did not adequately address confusion about which Vineland-II test scores appeared in C.P.’s IEP. The court disagreed, noting that the state review officer acknowledged the confusion but found that the information available to the committee sufficiently described C.P.’s significant global deficits.

Assistive technology. Perez argued that the IEP should have formally recommended assistive technology. The court noted that she did not identify what technology the IEP should have provided. The hearing record showed that the committee knew C.P. used certain devices to communicate, but a school psychologist testified that the committee did not consider additional devices because of concerns about C.P.’s ability to understand and use them and about their appropriateness. The court found no error in the state review officer’s decision to credit that testimony.

Annual goals. Perez challenged the IEP’s goals, focusing on a goal involving shooting a basketball with hand-over-hand assistance, which a school psychologist described as unrealistic. The court concluded that Perez did not explain why one allegedly unrealistic goal made the other goals inadequate or denied C.P. a free appropriate public education. It again deferred to the state administrative decision.

Other objections

Perez argued that the Department had made major errors and careless mistakes in its briefing before Judge Wang. Judge Broderick found those alleged errors immaterial because they did not concern whether the Department complied with its IDEA obligations or provided C.P. with a free appropriate public education. He also found that Perez’s remaining objections repeated arguments already addressed.

Disposition

Judge Vernon S. Broderick overruled Perez’s objections and adopted Judge Wang’s report and recommendation in its entirety. Perez’s motion for summary judgment was denied, and the Department of Education’s cross-motion for summary judgment was granted. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.