M.P. v. The New York City Department of Education

Background

A.P. and M.P. sued the New York City Department of Education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, a federal law requiring participating states and school districts to provide disabled children with a free appropriate public education. The dispute concerns private-school tuition for the 2020–2021 school year.

An impartial hearing officer found that the parent’s private-school placement was generally appropriate but awarded only partial tuition reimbursement because A.P.’s instruction was remote during the COVID-19 pandemic. A state review officer later disagreed that the placement was appropriate and denied any reimbursement. The District Court then granted the plaintiffs partial summary judgment and awarded partial reimbursement.

The Second Circuit vacated that decision and sent the case back for further proceedings. It explained that the reimbursement analysis has three parts: whether the school district offered a free appropriate public education, whether the private placement was appropriate, and whether the fairness-related circumstances support reducing reimbursement. The first two questions generally determine whether reimbursement is warranted; the third determines the amount. The Second Circuit did not disturb the findings that the Department of Education had failed to provide a free appropriate public education and that A.P.’s private placement was appropriate.

Discussion

On remand, the parties agreed that the first two parts of the test were satisfied. The remaining issue was the third part: evaluating the fairness-related circumstances to determine the amount of reimbursement. Relevant considerations could include whether the private-school tuition was reasonable, whether the parents gave adequate notice, whether they obstructed the school district’s efforts, and other circumstances concerning the parents’ conduct and the tuition arrangement.

The administrative proceedings had addressed some issues concerning the parents’ conduct but had not considered whether the tuition was reasonable. The Department of Education raised that issue later, after the earlier proceedings, and the plaintiffs had not had an opportunity to present evidence about it. The court concluded that the Second Circuit’s clarification of the governing law justified considering the issue now.

Ruling

Judge Lorna G. Schofield remanded the matter to the impartial hearing officer to develop the factual record and analysis concerning the fairness-related circumstances under the third part of the test. The hearing officer must determine the proper amount of tuition reimbursement, including whether full reimbursement is appropriate. The District Court did not decide the amount itself.