language that says our purpose as trial address the educational needs of students but certainly it isn't a purpose do you have a claim say today wait two years sit on those rights and then take that is there's a certain value khalid you have on that track of particular violations rabbi and now you're not saying that those violations have to have had to have occurred on that day right so by by necessity by definition that go back for two years of violations yes i did violation january one of thirteen and i didn't become aware of it until january one of fourteen that's ok right prior to that she anyway twenty fourteen days but in my hypothetical i just told you that i am on january one of fourteen i became aware of particular violations right one of those violations occurred on january the violations you become aware of occurred on january one of thirteen is it correct that i may now litigate at any time from the caution they were until janeway one of six occurred on january one of thirty three under your interpretation may i now litigate what i learned on january one of forty for two years at any time i could do it on day one violations one that occurred on january one of thirteen one that occurred on january one of eleven rights of the one on january one of eleven is obviously three years removed from the caution right  either i'm sorry both the january what i learned on the fourteenth that's a january one of thirteen violation as well as the january one of eleven eilish little gate that any time between filing any child the student had left the district and margin twenty ten so by going back to that two year time frame as the district presented there's only a three month window of liability  principal and then the letter was a year later informing the birth of the child was failing the struggles of leaving the school so if your system is right for a two year arguably a two year what supports your argument the congress would in turn result that seems so contrary to the policy that drove this legislation how about just plain language and this isn't your reading that for  every day that you from the time that you knew she had known the claim for every day in what seems like a two year window congress set up you investigate your claim this do you see whether you should bring it  how you should bring it and then you for your pleadings to file with the nec to your window every day week you're you're suggesting an interpretation that you lose a day of remedy what other statute works like that a continuing obligation to provide and then a book is occasion to a child and every year and i'm not saying this is what happened here that's not the issue every year the child was and i had an appropriate i e the for whatever reason something is not within there or so here you can't really do that sick until rhodesian and if the purpose of the law is to compensate that i don't know how the law can be read in the manner that eliminates a big chunk of time here  it mention remedy at all or any limitation on on the remedy and when we look at the legislative history you cite on page twenty two of your brief the senate's senate report says in essence where the issue g rise to the claim is more than two years old and not ongoing cleanness board where the conduct or service is at issue are ongoing to the previous two years the claim for compensatory education services may be made on the basis of the most recent conduct or this case is offering that if they're continuing they're going to be in the kind i p and they will be addressed in that two year period they're very clear and explicit that it is a short time frame to address any remedy so reauthorizing ideate and putting forth for the first time a limitation was to address the claims that to also recognize that the current status at the time required reactors ation people are just removed their student in march attorney and and waited two years to file for did process at the time that they removed their child they found the pennsylvania human relations complaint against the school district so we're  challenging discrimination on the basis of the educational services provided to the child as well as retaliation so there was litigation ongoing clearly you know where in the state why they chose to create twenty twelve i don't know but that's what happened here you notion of sitting on your rights comes from clear and i don't think anyone is suggesting that anywhere in any of the papers that it costs that was generally one of fourteen you could bring it in january want to each we're talking about whether you have a two year period and you've you agree with that right and you agree that on a cost date what i've learned of goes back in time one year or two years or three years i may bring it within us what you mean is the seem to your period and both of them are meant to be forward looking to your structures to limitations isn't that what the legislative history suggests that both the house and the senate here had in mind for additional statute of limitations so that people didn't see your parents or not sitting on their rights they were actually bringing a claim within two years if they knew or should have known date why learn about it if you learn about something on on day one and on that that very same day the school district starts stops that the the practice room or fixes whatever the deficiency was same we defer to that doesn't that same simply mean that section is in essence a drafting or you're asking us to read the out of the statute and take the language of no more than two years simply a forward looking traditional two year statute patients from a new or should have known date and if you file within that time frame then you are compensated going back as far as the injury goes back not limited to two years if in it's continuing not limited except to the extent however long that that ongoing injury i took place this court is already rejected the proposition that there are continuing violations backward that date that's fundamentally inconsistent to allow claims to sit back for years children are growing let's talk about reading you learn to read you learn your that the child is in classified we got a i e p meetings the school officials tell us everything is fine we're really not understanding what much of what's going on we're signing that we were present and we're signing the id we ask a cousin to come with us to to a meeting because it comes with us and says hey you know there's a lot going on that you don't understand and i think there's an people let's assume for a moment that that is a cost the cost they are and that is january one of of fourteen and our cousin now tells us really what's been going on that we had no idea about and there are of violations that have occurred between january one of twelve and january one of fourteen dhubri with the following proposition i now have from january one of fourteen my cost limited it to that two year period two year period so we're talking about the same two year period there isn't a claim of cruel bit belton to be sex that says you can have this knowledge d and we're going to let you go back two years and then seems to me you're only arguing you're arguing basically with this  not to assure that no what you've got to use the file but if you need to fully in order to fully compensate the parents and the student and you go back beyond the two years if it's a continuing violation and that's what we have here you can do that you it off in two years you're arguing the latter is your honor i don't need to go back more than two years because g l was only in district for ninth grade until march of a seventh grade song talking about a school here and couldn't convince the hearing officer of was that f three c is the statue limitations hearing officer found this on page sixty two of the record big march ninth two thousand and ten was mine knew or should have filing date rather the new issue rather than in you should have known to me that's where i got off track here that's where he limited me except in the districts argument to that three month window that's why we waited til the end of the hearing up to judge hornyak and then had to come back and these two sections work yes the other and so we need to address that question about whether it functions as as a cap or we look at it as going back to the extent of the remedy needed which in your case happens to be two years just far and the reauthorization of four was focused on parents not making could complaints the legislative history is clear parents didn't if i have to start over to men based on that timeline starts over and turns a resolution session i file i get the fifteen days i have thirty days to complete resolution and then we need me quest to process  what didn't happen which should have happened leading up to that last day and i don't know how you remedy something on the last day without looking how and how that we get what would be the school district not you that put us in this situation in europe to compensate the two hundred hours or three hundred hours because we have to go back and scrape away all those morning calluses so but in the court is this is not about limiting remedies this is about a pleading requirement under the sixty i made a complaint i present it includes certain elements we could our complaint was not challenge for sufficiency we didn't have a resolution session because we both through what we were fighting about my complaint i asked for more than two thousand dollars of compensatory education in pennsylvania high school student goes to school for nine hundred ninety hours i was at the limit because that's where we were he was a sophomore i wanted freshman year i want to sophomore year we were seems like we have a couple of choices what one presented by anika suggests that as long as within the two year window leading up to that new or should have known indeed there's some continuation of the violation into that window two years that you then can for cut and station another approach may be to look at the statute and say given the ambiguity in the statute and given what the department of education has said they should be the same and given the legislative history which is seems quite clear that both the house and senate had attended a traditional o looking two year statue of limitations that he is more like a drafting or and we don't we don't have a cap on on remedy b still if you have a situation where you file  known date and you can look forward this far and say you must file within two years this right where you can take it from that final and date and say you must file within one year or two years of of the injury or you should know date  lesion was that the emphasis was placed because the house was focused on complaints because the parents weren't telling districts enough of what the alleged violation was so please explain it was say tell me what it is t with tell me how long it is tell me where it started so i do your bag and assemble a group of people and get the history of how this shall got there so it was focus on trying to make parents clearly better to put districts on notice to make the resolution session meaningful meaning the everybody says you may request a hearing you don't have to get a hearing because hopefully we get a resolution the focus was on this resolution because the core congress  also focused on mediation of the ring hearings so you think the right interpretation of the statute is one that requires an allegation that the violation if continued into a two year we built before and you are s that if you can't do that if there's a violation that occurred three years earlier and you learned that the knew or should have known is three years later there's simply no remedy here i would think i would have to the harm that happened it's i don't see an isolated harm i know the hypothetical is built around an isolated one time occurrence it was a teacher didn't show up one day and i missed my speech class i would thing that doesn't impact on me  benefit but if a teacher were on some type of a leave the parent never knew and never found out that the child wasn't getting services that promise would have been impacted every year i don't know i always  ongoing violation under that i d a and b wrong depending on how the child's didn't progress that could be opening up it's the hypotheticals are green but they don't it was enough for the information not going to argue that any violation of any argument with regard to what might constitute a violation they could turn it into a continuing violation argument  correct me they all don't fall into that category actually got to agree by at least two categories of violations one that are discrete as kraus was alluding to and then ones where at least you can make the argument that it might understand why mason here in europe seems to me to be totally rational even require compensation but yeah i think you'd agree that in this case we would have to get there because the student is only talking  because the court and the g l court the light on the ice court decision both of those decisions specifically defined two plus two as the two years back creating a look back provision that restricted the scope of liability and the scope of remedy available and so simply by virtue of the fact of affirming the requests decision in this matter i believe that it would have meant for cations for many children most of whom are the ones who have compensatory education as their sole remedy available because they're not able to find the cost of an appropriate education and then seek reimbursement i'm so you don't think that the district court went so far as to say that if there were what's been referred to today as a continuing violation that could be recompense hypothetical and setter if you prefer i stick to yours well i was going to make a hypothetical  five year period before the parents kosh a case of before the parents seem to know or should have known about the entry so clearly fourteen fifteen f three c applies only to the situation where the parent then has two years from that september one twenty ten date to file for due process the patient that's all fourteen fifteen f three c that's there is nothing and in the case you it has no for the relevance besides be comes into play we don't believe that that is a statute of limitations we merely believe that it's it's  the i e e e and congress as way of setting forth what are the elements of a complaint it's not if i agree coach but it but it does state that in setting forth and a complaint must set forth an alleged violation an alleged violation that occurred not more than two years before the nor should have known and basically it's his contention that as long as the complaint includes a violation that occurred within that two year period prior to the nor should have no date and the complaint requirements are satisfied so in your hypothetical if there is  couple of examples i'd like to throw in there so the first is that if that violation was continued in just one day from section a into section b by virtue of being one t intersection b then that and higher d of the complaint can be heard i  entirely think where where would we where would we draw an end or is your argument that no matter how far we go about it if there is some nexus that provides the continuing violation argument that you're posing that it would hurdle i think the legislative history helps to clarify that point so i think the legislative well legislative history states that in essence language and basically it says it's a claim on started and had more than two years prior to that two year period before they knew or should have known  if it started and ended within section and then it's done the claim is barred and that's what the legislative history actually says the senate report but if it was ongoing at all into that area be in our diagram then you would be able to hear the claim in the entirety and the reason being that compensatory education does not unjustly enrich a student it does not and justly penalize the school district it's merely giving the student what the school district should have given the student have the district properly educated that student all along so if it means that we have to now go back six years like the case in ridgewood or whatnot and that's that was the period of deprivation a period of injury then giving that student back with the district should have done requires hires that remedy be awarded in its entire we're in the legislative history does it s quote that was the lead into that paragraph i apologies just so it states in essence where the issue giving rise to the claim is more than two years old and not ongoing the claim is part and so by that that's how we that's how a miki have understood that if the issue gave rise to a claim that was more than two years old some more than two years but the two years this is the senate report yes this is the report that is looking at the finally date so it how does this suggest that you're going back two years before the new or should have known date if you keep in mind that the senate is using up the aisle in the house that is is looking at it the other direction i see your point your honor there no legislative history for the b sixty eight provision and so this is the only piece of the legislative history when when one is trying to examine both f e c and the six to get any sort of indication as to how the two operate off of each other this was the only one that actually spoke about the any limitations that might be related to a particular claim and so it was our understanding that if you know following this language that that there would be a bar at some point in that bar would be more than two years prior not provide a replacement but then they came back and they came back and it went on but let's say the parent didn't learn about it and so they knew or should have known to nine one twenty you know we do believe that like the congress intended there to be some limit at some point because to limit a six to to litigate a six month claim that happened five years ago that the parent only learned about now that was time limited and scope where the district has done everything else post that time correctly that  that claim you know trying to think of the idea that clings to become stale and we're trying to be cognizant of that that that's not a claim that a violation that occurred within the two year period prior to the new or should have known date and so our view is that as long as the no it certainly does not have to work work its way to new or should have known all that has to do is work its way into the two year period prior to in georgia so even just one day and to be that that would make that claim it would satisfy the elements of the sixty we try to give meaning to the language of the sixty we tried not to think of it as as a drafting error and so we looked at it with without and on into and based on that we believe that in accordance with the plain language of the act it's clear that as long as a violation is stated that occurred within that two year period prior to the new or should have known then the complaint requirements are satisfied and just just on the burden of proof issue that was raised in th you know i believe that the burden of proof would fall on the filing party in that instance and so because we're talking about the parent here then it would be the parents unless of course or any jersey where we state that the  important specifically we know that many children who are affected by such a limit have the greatest need for special education services and two thirds of students who receive special education are in fact  households that earn at fifty thousand dollars annually or below and one half of those earning at the federal poverty level or below and these are the families who do realize this report compensatory education as a remedy and your honor just a screen away recognize the importance of this concern in sh versus lower merion school district and so we urge the court to consider the fact that you know any artificial limitations on the scope of liability are available remedy such as to question two and certainly such as what is being proposed by the school district here reduces the chances of low income children in particular with disabilities to perform commensurate with their non physical peers and their wealth your peers when the i d e s i leave it for lengthy periods of time and so just in conclusion while we recognize of course that this is somewhat outside the scope you know at the very least we would urge the score to please carefully craft the language of the opinion should this court be affirming the lower court and it's our belief that simply school district answered that complaint and and stated in the answer that they viewed the time period admission for the hearing was from the filing date back to the two year period so we did answer a reading specialist so the school comes forward and says you know i'm sorry about that we i don't know how we set up here we're going to do is give your kid you have two months before graduation that's fine school days