Montalvan v. Banks

Background

Kristie Montalvan sued David C. Banks, in his official capacity as Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education, and other defendants under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and New York Education Law. She sought review of a State Review Officer’s decision concerning her daughter, S.M., who has autism, hypertonia, and apraxia and is nonverbal.

S.M.’s April 2020 individualized education program required a specialized class, a one-to-one health paraprofessional at school, individual occupational, physical, and speech therapy, special transportation, and extended-year services. After her school closed for in-person instruction in March 2020, S.M. was unable to participate meaningfully in remote classes. Montalvan alleged that the Department failed to provide S.M. a free appropriate public education, or FAPE, and sought an independent evaluation and compensatory services.

An Impartial Hearing Officer, Randy Glasser, ultimately awarded compensatory education for services S.M. missed during summer 2020, although the decision also stated that the Department provided a FAPE during the broader period. State Review Officer Carol H. Hauge reversed that result. She held that the complaint involved systemic decisions outside the state administrative process and, alternatively, that Montalvan had to raise the matter with S.M.’s Committee on Special Education before filing the due process complaint.

Court’s analysis

The court rejected the State Review Officer’s jurisdiction ruling. The IDEA gives parents the right to present complaints about any matter relating to a child’s FAPE and requires the hearing process to decide on substantive grounds whether the child received a FAPE. The court held that an individual claim does not become unavailable in the state process merely because it is based on a policy—such as pandemic-related remote instruction—that affected many students. Montalvan sought individualized relief for S.M., including an evaluation and compensatory services, which the state administrative process could provide.

The court also rejected the exhaustion ruling. First, the State Review Officer incorrectly stated that Montalvan had not requested a new Committee on Special Education review; Montalvan’s complaint expressly requested a new committee meeting after an independent evaluation. Second, neither the governing statutes and regulations nor the state guidance document required a parent to seek a committee meeting before filing an IDEA due process complaint. The guidance encouraged parents to use that process but did not make it mandatory.

Disposition

The court granted Montalvan’s motion in part, holding that the State Review Officer erred by failing to consider her FAPE claim on the merits and by requiring a prior committee review. The court did not decide whether S.M. actually was denied a FAPE or whether the Department adequately implemented S.M.’s individualized education program. Instead, it remanded those issues to the State Review Officer, permitted further proceedings before the hearing officer if needed, stayed the federal case, directed the Clerk to terminate all pending motions, and ordered the parties to report within 14 days after a substantive state decision or order.

Classification rationale

This is classified as a substantive ruling because the court granted summary judgment in part on the legal issues presented in the IDEA review and ordered a remand as the remedy. The ultimate FAPE question remains unresolved in the opinion.