R.S. v. New York City Department Of Education
- James Oetken
- 1:21-cv-02257
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In R.S. v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Oetken permanently ordered the Department to pay A.S.’s private-school tuition and evaluation costs.
R.S. and A.S. received an order requiring the New York City Department of Education to reimburse specified tuition and evaluation costs and to assume ongoing Titus School tuition payments during the second due-process proceeding.
What happened
R.S. v. New York City Department of Education concerned payments owed after a hearing officer found that the Department had denied A.S. an appropriate public education for the 2019–20 school year. The hearing officer ordered $82,215 for A.S.’s Titus School tuition and an independent educational evaluation.
The Department did not appeal that decision and later acknowledged that Titus was A.S.’s required educational placement while a second proceeding continued. But it had not made the required payments, while A.S.’s family had paid more than $101,000 in tuition and faced continuing monthly payments of $12,650.
The court permanently ordered the Department to reimburse the $82,215, reimburse tuition payments from October 19, 2020, through the present for the 2020–21 school year, and immediately assume responsibility for future Titus tuition until the second proceeding ended. Judge James Oetken ruled that the family satisfied the requirements for an injunction.
The detailed version
- R.S. v. New York City Department Of Education · No. 1:21-cv-02257
- James Oetken
- June 17, 2021
Background
R.S., individually and on behalf of A.S., a minor, brought the case against the New York City Department of Education and Meisha Porter, in her official capacity as Chancellor of the Department. The dispute arose under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, a federal law governing public education for children with disabilities.
In April 2020, R.S. filed a due-process complaint concerning the 2019–20 school year. The complaint alleged that the Department had denied A.S. a free appropriate public education and sought reimbursement for tuition at the Titus School and for an independent educational evaluation. Hearing Officer Daniel Ajello later found that the Department had denied A.S. a free appropriate public education and that Titus was an appropriate private placement. He ordered the Department to reimburse $82,215: $75,715 for tuition and $6,500 for the evaluation. He also ordered the Department to provide documents or forms needed to process reimbursement within ten days.
The Department did not appeal that decision, making it final and binding. The decision also established Titus as A.S.’s required educational placement while the second due-process proceeding was pending. In that situation, the school district was required to pay for the private school during the proceeding.
Payment dispute and requested injunction
R.S. filed a second due-process complaint for the 2020–21 school year. The Department did not appoint a hearing officer for that proceeding until January 26, 2021, and later notified the parties that the appointed officer had recused herself. The Department acknowledged that it owed three categories of payments: the $82,215 ordered in the first proceeding; reimbursement for Titus tuition from October 19, 2020, forward; and responsibility for Titus tuition until the second proceeding was complete.
As of March 15, 2021, the Department had made none of those payments. After the lawsuit was filed, the Department told the court that payments were being processed. On June 15, 2021, it purported to make the $82,215 payment, but the parents’ attorney had not received it, and the Department had not made or promised the other required payments. The opinion states that the family had paid more than $101,000 in tuition since October 19, 2020 and had to continue paying $12,650 per month.
Court’s analysis
The court stated that enforcement of the educational-placement requirement should occur automatically, without considering traditional injunction factors such as irreparable harm, likelihood of success, or the balance of hardships. The court nevertheless concluded that the family satisfied all four traditional requirements for an injunction.
First, the Department did not contest that the requested payments were owed, so the family was likely to succeed. Second, the continuing tuition payments caused substantial financial hardship and placed A.S.’s continued enrollment at Titus at increasing risk. The court considered that risk an irreparable injury. Third, the Department would suffer no hardship by meeting obligations it did not contest. Fourth, the public interest would not be harmed by requiring the Department to meet those obligations.
Disposition
The court entered a permanent injunction under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and New York Education Law. It permanently restrained and enjoined the Department to:
- Immediately reimburse $82,215 for A.S.’s 2019–20 Titus School tuition and independent educational evaluation;
- Immediately reimburse tuition payments made to Titus from October 19, 2020, through the present for the 2020–21 school year; and
- Immediately assume responsibility for Titus tuition payments until the second due-process proceeding was complete.
The opinion does not state a separate disposition concerning Meisha Porter.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.