Ferreira v. New York City Department Of Education
- Jesse Furman
- 1:19-cv-02937
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Ferreira v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Furman denied funding for a unilateral school transfer and granted the defendants’ motions.
Justine Ferreira and N.R. could not obtain stay-put funding for N.R.’s attendance at iBrain after Ferreira moved N.R. there without the DOE’s agreement. The DOE and the New York State Education Department prevailed on the motions addressed in the order.
What happened
In Ferreira v. New York City Department of Education and the related Ferreira case, Justine Ferreira sought government funding for her child’s attendance at iBrain after moving the child from iHOPE without the school district’s agreement. She sought funding under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s rule requiring the existing educational arrangement to continue during an ongoing dispute.
The court held that this rule did not require funding at iBrain because Ferreira had unilaterally changed the child’s school and the school district had not approved the change. The court also found that the state education agency no longer needed to appoint a hearing officer because one had been appointed and had held a hearing.
Judge Jesse M. Furman denied Ferreira’s motions for summary judgment and a preliminary injunction, granted the New York City Department of Education’s motion for summary judgment in both cases, granted the New York State Education Department’s motion to dismiss in one case, and granted summary judgment to the Department of Education in the other case even though it had not filed a formal cross-motion. The court dismissed both complaints and closed both cases.
The detailed version
- Ferreira v. New York City Department Of Education · No. 1:19-cv-02937
- Jesse Furman
- Mar. 2, 2020
Background
These two related cases concerned Justine Ferreira’s request for funding under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) provision that generally requires a child’s current educational placement to remain in place while an administrative or court dispute is pending. Ferreira brought the cases individually and as parent and natural guardian of N.R., a child with disabilities.
During the 2017–2018 school year, N.R. attended the International Academy of Hope (iHOPE). In June 2018, an impartial hearing officer approved funding for that school year and determined that iHOPE was an appropriate placement. The next day, Ferreira notified the New York City Department of Education (DOE) that she intended to move N.R. to the International Institute for the Brain (iBrain) for the 2018–2019 school year. The DOE did not agree to the transfer, and no impartial hearing officer approved it. N.R. nevertheless began attending iBrain on July 9, 2018.
Ferreira then sought funding for iBrain for the 2018–2019 school year, including funding under the IDEA’s “stay-put” provision. The impartial hearing officer denied that request, and the State Review Office upheld the denial on different grounds. Ferreira later re-enrolled N.R. at iBrain for the 2019–2020 school year and filed another administrative action seeking funding. An impartial hearing officer was assigned and held a hearing on the funding issue, but no decision had been issued when the court ruled.
Legal Analysis
The court explained that the stay-put provision requires the state or local education agency to maintain the child’s current educational placement during the dispute. That provision is intended to preserve the educational status quo and generally requires continued funding for the placement previously agreed upon by the parties.
The court ruled that parents may not obtain stay-put funding after unilaterally changing a child’s pendency-funded school when the school district has not agreed to the change through an impartial hearing officer or otherwise. The court found no evidence that iHOPE was inadequate, unavailable, or selected by the DOE in bad faith. Because Ferreira moved N.R. to iBrain without the DOE’s agreement, she assumed responsibility for the costs of obtaining those services.
The court also granted the New York State Education Department’s motion to dismiss in Case No. 19-CV-8519. Ferreira alleged that the agency had failed to ensure a timely administrative hearing and sought an order requiring it to appoint an impartial hearing officer. The court found that an officer had already been appointed and had held a hearing. It also found that Ferreira had identified no continuing harm while the administrative proceeding continued normally.
Disposition
The court denied Ferreira’s motions for summary judgment and for a preliminary injunction. It granted the DOE’s cross-motion for summary judgment in Case No. 19-CV-2937 and granted the DOE summary judgment in Case No. 19-CV-8519 even though the DOE had not filed a formal cross-motion. It granted the State Education Department’s motion to dismiss in Case No. 19-CV-8519. The court dismissed Ferreira’s complaints in both cases, directed the Clerk of Court to close both cases, and entered the order under Judge Jesse M. Furman.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.