Maysonet v. New York City Department of Education

Background

Judith Maysonet and Anthony McFarlane brought the action for their minor daughter, A.M., under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The IDEA requires participating states and school districts to provide disabled children with a free appropriate public education and to create an individualized education program for each qualifying child.

A.M. has an acquired brain injury affecting her mobility and communication. She attended a private program during the 2017–2018 school year. For the 2018–2019 school year, the Department of Education’s Committee on Special Education developed an individualized education program without the participation of the parents or staff from A.M.’s prior school. The parents did not attend the scheduled meeting or provide progress reports. The resulting plan recommended a larger class, no one-on-one paraprofessional, and shorter related-service sessions.

The parents challenged the plan and placed A.M. at IBrain. In the administrative proceedings, the Department conceded that it had failed to offer A.M. the required education. An impartial hearing officer found IBrain appropriate and ordered reimbursement or direct payment for most of the school year’s tuition and transportation costs. On review, the State Review Officer upheld the finding that the Department had denied A.M. an appropriate education and that IBrain was appropriate, but imposed a 20% reduction based on the parents’ failure to cooperate with the education-planning process. The State Review Officer also required reimbursement only upon proof that the parents had paid the costs, rather than allowing direct payment to IBrain.

Issues and Analysis

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The parents challenged both the 20% reduction and the restriction of the award to reimbursement for amounts they had already paid. The Department argued that the State Review Officer’s decision should be upheld in full.

20% reduction. The court upheld the reduction. Under the IDEA, reimbursement for private education may be reduced when the parents’ actions are unreasonable. The court found that the Department repeatedly notified the parents about the planning meeting, rescheduled it to accommodate them, and agreed to hold it on a Monday at their request. The parents nevertheless did not attend, did not notify the Committee on Special Education that they would be absent, and did not provide the progress reports they had said they would provide.

The court rejected the parents’ arguments that the Department’s failure to provide an appropriate education prevented consideration of the parents’ conduct, that their attendance was not required, and that the failure to provide reports was attributable to the prior school. The court explained that the denial of an appropriate education and the equitable question of whether reimbursement should be reduced are separate parts of the analysis. Although a district may proceed without a parent who does not attend, the regulations favor parental participation, and the Department had taken steps to include the parents. The court deferred to the State Review Officer’s determination of the amount of the reduction because the administrative analysis was careful and supported by the record.

Direct payment. The court reversed the State Review Officer’s decision to limit recovery to tuition and transportation costs that the parents had already paid. The court did not decide whether parents must always prove that they cannot afford the costs before receiving direct tuition funding. Instead, the court considered additional evidence submitted during the federal case, including Maysonet’s sworn statement that she and her family could not afford to pay the costs in advance. The Department was allowed to respond but did not do so.

The court concluded that the IDEA gives courts broad authority to order appropriate relief, including direct payment to a private school. The circumstances supported direct payment because the parents lacked the means to front the costs, nearly five years had passed since the services were provided, and the parties agreed that the Department was ultimately responsible for the outstanding costs. Direct payment also advanced the IDEA’s goal of allowing children to receive an appropriate education regardless of their families’ financial resources.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part both the parents’ and the Department’s cross-motions for summary judgment. It upheld the 20% reduction and ordered the Department to pay 80% of A.M.’s placement costs for the 2018–2019 school year directly to IBrain. The parties were directed to meet and confer about the parents’ fee application and submit a joint letter concerning next steps.