C.S. v. New York City Department of Education

Background

C.S. and C.S.1 sued on behalf of themselves and their child, Y.S. According to the complaint, Y.S. is a young woman with multiple disabilities, including Rett Syndrome and a seizure disorder. The complaint states that she does not use her hands, is non-verbal, and communicates using eye-gaze assistive technology.

The plaintiffs alleged that they obtained home-based special-education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act through administrative litigation because the defendants did not offer those services. They claimed that the defendants failed to implement administrative hearing officers’ orders and denied Y.S. services protected by the IDEA’s “stay-put” or “Pendency” provision. They also asserted a claim under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, alleging denial of reasonable accommodations and modifications, and a claim under Section 1983 alleging that the defendants lacked adequate policies, procedures, protocols, and training to implement federal special-education laws.

Discovery Dispute

The parties disagreed about whether the case required discovery or could proceed directly to briefing on summary judgment. The defendants argued that the only remaining claims concerned attorney fees from the underlying administrative proceeding. They represented that the New York City Department of Education, or DOE, had complied with the relevant administrative orders and that all invoices had been paid or were being processed through its ordinary procedures.

The court explained that policies and procedures could be relevant to whether the Section 504 allegations showed bad faith or gross misjudgment. It also explained that a municipal-liability claim under Section 1983 may be based on an alleged violation of the IDEA or the Rehabilitation Act when the alleged injury resulted from a municipal policy or custom.

Ruling

The court ordered that the plaintiffs were entitled to discovery concerning the defendants’ policies, procedures, practices, data, and similar information relevant to the Section 504 and Section 1983 claims. The court separately held that the claims concerning failure to implement administrative hearing officers’ orders involved matters occurring after the administrative record, so the plaintiffs were entitled to discovery on those allegations as well.

The court stated that it would enter a case-management plan in a separate order. It also ordered the DOE, within 30 days, to pay all outstanding invoices that it had represented were being processed and to respond to the plaintiffs’ demand for attorney fees. This order addressed discovery and related payment and fee matters; it did not decide the ultimate merits of the claims.