09 - 38 50 - c v( L) ; 09 - 39 20 - c v( X A P) A. H. v . De p ’ t o f

E d u c . o f

Ci t y o f N. Y. UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER RU L I NG S B Y S UMM ARY ORDE R DO N OT HA VE P RE CE DE NT I AL E F F E CT . C I T AT I ON T O A S UM M ARY ORD ER FI LED ON OR AF TER J ANU ARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S P ERM I TTED AND I S GO VERN ED BY FE DERA L RULE OF APP ELLATE P RO CEDU RE 3 2 . 1 AND THI S COUR T’ S LOCAL RULE 3 2 . 1 . 1 . W HEN CI TI NG A S UM M ARY ORD ER I N A D O CUM ENT FI LED W I TH TH I S COU RT, A P ARTY M US T CI TE E I T HE R T HE F E DE RA L AP P E ND I X OR A N E L E CT RO NI C DA T AB AS E ( W I T H T HE N OT AT I ON “ S UM M ARY ORDE R” ) . A P ARTY CI TI NG A S UM M ARY ORDE R M US T S ERVE A COP Y OF I T ON ANY PARTY NO T REPRES ENTED BY CO UNSEL. A ta s t at ed t erm of

the U ni t ed St at es C ourtof A ppeal s forthe Second C i r cui t , hel d at the D ani el Patr i ck M oyni han U ni t ed St at es C ourthous e, 500 Pear l Str eet , i n the C i ty of N ew Y ork, on the 16 day of A ugus t, tw o thous and t en. th P RE S E NT : RO BE RT D. S AC K,

R E E N A R A G G I, GE RA RD E . L YNC H,

C i r cui tJudges .

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- A .H ., o n b e h a lf

o f J .H ., a n in fa n t, P lai nt i f f -Appel lant- Cr os s -Appellee , v . Nos . 0 9 - 3 8 5 0 - c v ( L) 09 - 39 20 - c v( X A P) THE D EPARTM ENT O F EDU CA TI ON OF TH E CI T Y OF NE W YOR K,

D ef endant-Appellee- Cr os s -Appellant .

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- A PPE A R I N G FO R A PPE L L A N T : ST E W A R T L E E K A R L I N , L aw O f f i ces of N eal H . R os enber g, N ew Y ork, N ew Y ork. A PPE A R I N G FO R A PPE L L E E : J A N E T L . Z A L E O N (K ri st i n M . H el m er s , T oni G a n tz , on the bri ef

), f orM i chae l A . C ar dozo, C orpor at i on C ouns el of the C i ty of

N ew Y ork, N ew Y ork, N ew Y ork. A p p ea l f rom the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfor the E astern D istri ct of N ew Y o rk (C h a rl e s P . S if

to n , Judge ).2

UP ON DUE CONS I DE RA T I ON, I T I S HE RE BY OR DE RE D, ADJUDGE D, AND D E C R E E D thatthe j udgm entof the di s tr i ctc ourte nt er ed on A ugus t21, 2009, is AF F I RMED i n p a rta n dRE VE RS E D i n p a rt , a n dth e c a s e i s RE M ANDE D. P lai n ti ff A . H . , p roc ee d ing o n b eh alf o f h er s o n J.H . , a n infa n t, a p p ea ls from an aw ard of s um m ary j udgm enti n f avorof def endan tN ew Y ork C i ty D epartm entof E ducat i on ( “ DOE ” ) o n p l a i n t i f

f’ s c l a i m u n d e rth e I n d i v i du a l s wi th Di s ab i l i t i e s E du c a t i o n Ac t( “ I DE A” o r “ A c t”) , 2 0 U .S .C . § 1 4 0 0 e t. se q ., se e k in g re im b u rse m e n t fo r th e c o st o f J.H .’s p riv a te s c h o o l tu i t i o n a tth e M a ry Mc Do we l l C e n t e rf o rL e a rn i n g f

o rth e 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 s c h o o l y e a r . A. H. f urtherchal l enges the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s det erm i nat i on thatthe I ndi vi dual i zed Educat i on P r o g r a m ( “ I E P ” ) d e v e l o p e df o rJ . H. f o rth a ts c h o o l y e a rwa s l e g a l l y s u f f i c i e n ti n a l l b u ttwo r e s p e c t s . Th e DO E c r o s s - ap p e a l s f r o m th e di s tr i c tc o u rt ’ s de c l a r a t o ry j u d g me n tth a tth e I EP wa s s u b s t a n t i v e l y a n dp r o c e du r a l l y d e f i c i e n ti n two r e s p e c t s , s u c h th a ti tf a i l e dt o o f

f e rJ . H. a f ree app ropri at e pub l i c educa t i on i n viol at i on of the A ct . W e assu m e the p art i es’ f ami l i ar i ty w i th the f

act s and the r ecor d of

pri or proc eedi ngs , w hi ch w e r ef er ence onl y as nece s s ary t o expl ai n ourdeci s i on. 1. St andar d of

R evi ew W h il e w e re v iew d e n o v o an aw ard o f sum m ary jud g m en t i n an ID E A ca se, see C erra v. Paw l i ng C ent . Sch. D i s t . , 427 F. 3d 186, 191 ( 2d C i r . 2005) , w e neve rthel es s “ m us tgi ve due w ei ghtt o the admi ni s tr at i ve pr ocee di ngs , m i ndf ul thatthe j udi ci ary gener al l y l acks the s peci al i zed know l edge and exper i ence nece s s ary t o r es ol ve per s i s t entand di f f i cul tques t i ons of educa t i onal pol i cy, ” T. P. ex r el . S. P. v. M amar oneck U ni on Fr ee Sch. D i s t . , 554 F. 3d 247,3

252 ( 2d C i r . 2009) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and br acke t s om i tt ed) . I n s hort , i ndependent r evi ew “i s b y no m eans an i nvi t at i on t o the court s t o s ubs t i tut e thei row n not i ons of s ound educa t i onal pol i cy f

orthos e of

the s chool author i t i es w hi ch they revi ew . ” B d. of E duc. v. R o w ley , 4 5 8 U .S . 1 7 6 , 2 0 6 (1 9 8 2 ). D e fe re n c e to a d m in istra tiv e p ro c e e d in g s is “ p a rticu lar ly w arr ant ed” w here, as her e, the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s r evi ew i s bas ed s ol el y on the admi ni s tr at i ve rec o rd. G ag li ard o v . A rl ing ton C en t. S ch . D ist . , 4 8 9 F . 3 d1 0 5 , 1 1 3 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). 2 . Ade q u a c y o f

th e I EP T he d i stri ctcou rtcon cl ud ed thatthe IE P ati ssue w as procedu ral l y d efi ci ent because no s pe c i a l e du c a t i on t e a c he ro f J . H . ’ s p a rt i c i pa t e d i n the c omm i tt e e tha tf ormul a t e d the I EP, s ee 34 C. F. R . § 300. 321( a) ( 3) , N . Y . Com p. Codes R . & Regs. t i t . 8, § 200. 3( a) ( 1) ( i i i ) , and s ubs t ant i vely de fi ci entbecaus e i tf ai l ed t o addr es s one of

J . H . ’ s part i cul ardi s abi l i t i es – a h ig h lev e l o f d istra c tib ili ty –du rin g tra n sitio n s in th e sc h o o l d a y a n din in ter a c tio n s w ith l ar ge gr oups of

chi l dr en. B ecaus e thi s conclus i on f ai l ed t o acc or d s uf

f i ci entdef er ence t o the d e c isio n s o f th e Im p a rtial H e a rin g O ffic e r ( “ IH O ” ) a n dS tate R e v iew O ffic e r (“ S R O ” ), b o th of w hom concluded thatthe I E P of f er ed J. H . a f

r ee appr opr i at e educ at i on, w e r ever s e the d e c lar a to ry ju d g m e n t in fa v o r o f A .H . W e fu rth e r r e jec t a s w ith o u t m e rit A .H .’s a rg u m e n ts thatthe di s tr i ctcourtf

ai l ed t o re cogni ze addi t i onal proc edur al and s ubs t ant i ve def i ci enci es i n the I EP.Am o n g th e p e o p l e who s i g n e di n a tth e f i r s tc o mmi tt e e me e t i n g t o f o rmul a t e th e I EP 1 w ere D ina G ab ri el an dJo li e L ern er, i den t i fi ed elsew h ere i n the r ecord as J. H . ’s t eache rs . B ecaus e N ew Y ork r egul at i ons r equi r e thatcl as s es pr ovi di ng i ns truct i on t o both di s abl ed and nondi s abl ed s tudent s i ncl ude, ata mi ni m um , a s peci al educa t i on t eache r and a gene r al educa t i on teacher , s ee N . Y . C om p. C odes R . & R egs . t i t . 8, § 200. 6( g) , and bec aus e the rec o rd id en ti fi ed M s. G ab ri el as J.H . ’s ge n era l edu ca ti o n teac h er, an i nfer ence m i ghtbe d ra w n th a t M s . L e rn e r w a s J .H .’s s p e c ial e du c a tio n tea c h e r. F o r p u rp o se s o f th is ap p e a l, how ever , w e make no s uch as s um pt i on. 4

a. Pr ocedur al C om pl i ance A s s um i ng w i thoutdeci di ng thatJ . H . ’ s s peci al educat i on t eac herw as , i n f act , abs ent f r om both comm i tt ee meet i ngs – a poi nton w hi ch the r ecor d i s ambi guous – w e conc l ude 1 th a t th is p ro c e du ra l erro r d idn o t re n d e r th e IE P in a d e q u a te. S e e G rim v . R h in e b e c kC e n t. S c h . D ist, 3 4 6 F .3 d3 7 7 , 3 8 1 -8 2 (2 dC ir. 2 0 0 3 ) (h o ld in g th a t n o t ev e ry p ro c e du ra l erro r in d e v e l o p me n to f

I E P r e n d e r s th a tp l a n l e g a l l y i n a d e q u a t e ) . Re l i e f i s wa rr a n t e do n l y i f

we conclude, bas ed on ouri ndepende ntrevi ew o f the r ecor d, thatthe err ordeni ed J . H . a f r ee appr opr i at e publ i c educ at i on. See J . D . ex r el . J . D . v. P aw l etS ch. D i s t . , 224 F . 3d 60, 69 ( 2d C i r . 2000) . I D E A i ns truct s thatsuch a conclus i on i s w arr ant ed onl y w her e the pr ocedur al de f i c i e nc i e s ( 1) “ i mped e d the c hi l d’ s r i gh tt o a f r e e app r op r i a t e p ub l i c e du c a t i on, ” ( 2) “si gn i fi cantl y im ped ed the parent s’ opp ortun i ty to part i ci pate i n the decis i on m aking process r egar di ng the pr ovi s i on of a f r ee appr opr i at e publ i c educa t i on, ” or(3) “caus ed a depr i vat i on of educa t i onal be nef

i t s . ” 20 U . S. C . § 1415( f ) ( 3) ( E ) ( i i ) . N one of

thes e cr i t er i a i s m ether e. E ven i f J . H . ’s specia l educa t i on t eac herdi d notpart i ci pat e i n f orm ul at i ng the c h a l l e n g e dI EP, ac e rt i f i e d s pe c i a l e du c a t i o n t e a c h e rwho t a u g h ta n ds e rv e da s a n I EP co o rdin ator a t J. H . ’s sch o o l did so . L ike th e S R O , w e c o n c lu d e tha t no thing in the rec o rd5

i ndi cat es thatthi s t eac her“i n any w ay l acke d know l edge r egar di ng the s peci al educa t i on pr ogr am opt i ons forthe s tudent . ” A ugus t29, 2008 SR O O p. at10- 11. A l s o i n att endanc e atthe r el evantcomm i tt ee meet i ngs w er e both of J . H . ’ s par ent s , a s chool ps ychol ogi s t , and J . H . ’ s gener al educat i on t eac her , w i th w hom A . H . had di s cus s ed J . H . ’ s s peci al educa t i on n e e d s a n dth e r e s u lts o f ath o ro u g h p s y c h o lo g ic a l e v a lu a tio n b y D r. J o d y E . B ra n d t. J. H . ’s occupa t i onal ther api s tal s o att ended the f i r s tof the tw o m eet i ngs . T he I E P thatr es ul t ed f r om th e tea m ’s c o llab o ra tiv e e ffo rts w a s b a se do n J.H .’s p a rticu larn e e d s, a s d e taile db y h is par ent s , t eac her s , s peec h and occ upat i onal ther api s t s , a s oci al w orker , and D r . B r andt . T he r e c or d i nd i c a t e s tha tJ . H . ’ s pa r e nt s a c t i vel y part i c i pa t e d i n the f ormul a t i on of

the I EP. In d e e d , itap p e a rs th a t A .H . p lay e dan in stru m e n tal ro le in se c u rin g J.H .’s p ro p o se dm o v e to a “12: 1: 1” cl ass r oom w i th tw el ve s tudent s , a s peci al educa t i on t eac her , and a p a rap ro fe ss io n a l, as e n d o rse db y D r. B ra n d t. O n th is re c o rd , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e ab se n c e o f J.H .’s s p e c ial e du c a tio n te a c h e r d id n o t im p e d e th e c h ild ’s r ig h t to a fre e ap p ro p ria te e du c a tio n , li m it th e p a re n ts’ a b ili ty to p art i ci pate i n the decis i on m aking process, or r esul ti n the den i al of educ at i on al ben efi t s. F u rth e r , f

o rth e s e r e a s o n s a n dth o s e s t a t e di n th e d i s tr i c tc o u rta n dS RO o p i n i o n s , we co n clud e tha t th e re co rd d o es n o t sup p o rtA . H . ’s cl ai m s that the co m m ittee fo rm u lat ing J. H . ’s IE P (1 ) d idn o t c o n sid e r s u ffic ien t e v a lu a tiv e d a ta, ( 2 ) ig n o re dth e e v a lu a tio n o f D r. B ra n d t, ( 3) f ai l ed ade quat el y t o di s cu s s the I EP’ s goal s and r ecomm endat i ons w i th J . H . ’ s par ent s , and ( 4 ) a rb i tr a r i l y a d

j u s t e dth e I EP t o a s s i g n J . H. t o a1 2 : 1 : 1 c l a s s r o o m.6

In su m , w e c o n clud e tha t n eith er the p roc ed u ral fai li n g rec o g n ized b y the d istri ct co u rt n o r th o se alle g e db y A .H . d e n ied J.H . the e du c a tio n to w h ich h e w a s e n tit led u n d e r th e A c t.

b. Subst ant i ve C om pl i ance T h e d istri ct co u rtco n clud ed that the IE P fail ed to tak e into ac co u n t J. H . ’s di s tr act i bi l i ty dur i ng tr ans i t i ons a nd hi s di f f i cul ty i nt er act i ng w i th l ar ge gr oups of chi l dr en. Speci f i cal l y, i tdet erm i ned thatthe pr opos ed s chedul e w oul d r es ul ti n J . H . exper i enci ng a “20 m i nut e del ay i n f

ocus i ng f ol l ow i ng the l unch and r ece s s per i od and f ol l ow i ng eac h tr ans i t i on t o a n e w c l a s s r o o m, ” wh i c h “ wo u l ds i g n i f i c a n t l y i mp a c tJ . H. ’ s c l a s s r o o m e x p e r i e n c e . ” A. H. v . N .Y . C ity D e p ’to f E du c ., 6 5 2 F . S up p . 2 d2 9 7 , 3 1 1 (E .D .N .Y . 2 0 0 9 ). ID E A d o e s n o t re q u ire th a t an IE P fu rn ish “ e v e ry sp e c ial s e rv ice n e c e ss a ry to m axi m i ze e ach handi cappe d chi l d’ s pot ent i al . ” B d. of E duc. v. R ow l ey, 458 U . S. at199. R ather , “a s chool di s tr i ctf ul f i l l s i t s s ubs t ant i ve obl i gat i ons underthe I D E A i f i tpr ovi des an IE P th a t is li k e ly to p ro du c e p ro g re ss , n o t re g re ss io n , an dif th e IE P a ffo rd s th e stu d e n t w ith an opportuni ty gr eat erthan mer e tr i vi al advanc ement . ” T. P. ex r el . S. P. v. M ama roneck U ni on Fr ee Sch. D i s t . , 554 F . 3d at254 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and al t er at i on om i tt ed) ; s ee al s o C err a v. Paw l i ng C ent . School D i s t . , 427 F. 3d at195. H er e, the I E P s peci f

i cal l y a ddr es s ed J . H . ’ s di f f i cul ty i n de al i ng w i th l ar ge gr oups of c h ildre n b y p ro p o sin g to m o v e h im fro m ac la s s ro o m o f tw e n ty -fo u r stu d e n ts to a1 2 :1 :1 cl as s r oom . T he I H O des cr i bed the l att erenvi r onm entas “a f arcry f r om the bus t l i ng col l abor at i ve t eam t eac hi ng s ett i ng of the pr i orki nder gart en cl as s r oom thathad f ai l ed. ” June 10, 2008 I H O O p. at4. T he I E P f urtherpr ovi ded f

ortw o thirty-m i nu t e se s s i ons perw eek7

of i ndi vi dual i zed s peec h and l anguage ther apy, tw o thirty-m i nut e s es s i ons perw eek of i ndi vi dual i zed oc cupati onalther apy, and one thi rty- m i nute s essi on of s m al l - gr oup s peec h and langua ge ther apy . T he IE P i ncluded a B ehav i or I nterven t i on P l an thatadd res sed J.H . ’s di s tr act i bi l i ty and s etgoal s and s tr at egi es f ori m pr ovi ng hi s f

ocus . Fi nal l y, the I E P i ndi cat ed th a t th e d istric t co n sid e re dp lac in g J.H . in a sp e c ializ e dsc h o o l b u t, i n k e e p in g w ith its st atutory o bli gati on t o ed ucate J. H . i n the l eastr estri ct i ve env i ronm ent s uit able f or hi s needs, s ee 20 U . S. C . § 1412( a) ( 5) ( A ) ; C ave ex r el . C ave v. E . M eadow U ni on F r ee Sch. D i s t . , 514 F. 3d 240, 245 ( 2d C i r . 2008), re j ect ed suc h a pl ace m entbecaus e J. H . “benef i t s f r om havi ng typi cal l y de vel opi ng pe er s a s r ol e m odel s [ , ] w hi ch he w i l l ha ve i n ac om m un i ty scho ol pr ogr am” suc h as thatpr ovi ded i n the I E P, J . A . at326. T h is re c o rd a m p ly su p p o rts th e S R O ’s c o n c lu sio n th a t th e IE P w a s re a so n ab ly c a lcu late dto p ro v id e J.H . w ith e du c a tio n a l b e n e fits a s m a n d a ted b y ID E A , d e sp ite h is d istra c tib ili ty . T h e re lev a n t in q u iry w a s n o t w h e th e r th e p ro p o se dIE P p ro v id e da ll p o ss ib le s upportt o e ns ur e thatJ . H . di d notl os e f ocus , butr atherw hetherobj ect i ve evi dence i ndi cat ed that the chi l d w as l i kel y t o pr ogr es s , notr egr es s , underthe pr opos ed pl an. See C err a v. Paw l i ng C ent . Sch. D i s t . , 427 F. 3d at196; s ee a l s o B d. of E duc. v. R ow l ey, 458 U . S. at206 (ho lding that co u rtm ay n o t i m p o se d em an d s o n d istri ct gre ater tha n tho se re q u ir ed b y A ct). A ccor di ng due de f

er ence t o s chool author i t i es , w e conc l ude thatthe cha l l enged I E P af f or ded J.H . a s u ffic ien t lik e lih o o do f p ro g re ss to sa tisfy ID E A ’s s u b sta n tiv e re q u ire m e n ts. S e e G rim v. R hi nebec k C ent . SchoolD i s t . , 346 F. 3d a t382 ( “[ T ] he s uf f i ci ency of

goal s and s tr at egi esB ecaus e w e r ever s e the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s decl ar at ory j udgm enton the m eri t s , w e do 2 n o t r ea ch the D O E ’s a rgu m en t th at the c o u rtim p rop erly issue da jud g m en t directed a t f u ture IEP s. 8 i n an I E P i s pr eci s el y the typ e of i s s ue upon w hi ch the I D E A r equi r es def er ence t o the ex p erti se o f th e a d m inistrati v e o ffi ce rs. ”). N o r a re w e p e rsu a d e db y A .H .’s a rg u m e n ts th a t th e IE P fa iled to se t ap p ro p ria te g o a ls o r a d e q u a tely a d d re ss J .H .’s b e h a v io ra l p ro b lem s. A s n o ted b y th e S R O a n dd istric t co u rt, I E P m ath goal s w er e unnec es s ary i n l i ghtof e val uat i ons i ndi cat i ng thatthe s ubj ectw as not a part i cul arar ea of

w eakne s s . Further , the SR O r eas onabl y concluded thatJ . H . ’ s s i gni f i cant d e la y s in la n g u a g e s k ills w a rr a n te dre a d in g g o a ls s e t a t th e k in d e rg a rt e n le v e l. A p rep o n d era n ce o f th e e v iden ce also su p p o rt s the S R O ’s co n clus ion that the d istri ct’s fai lure t o conducta f

orm al “f unct i onal behavi or al anal ys i s ” di d notr enderthe I E P’ s B ehavi or In te rv e n tio n P lan d e fic ien t, as th e p lan w a s d ire c ted a t J.H .’s d iffic u lty su sta in in g h is att enti on du ri ng edu cat i on al and group act i vit i es. B ecaus e the pr opos ed I E P w as thus r eas onabl y cal cul at ed t o enabl e J . H . t o r ece i ve e d u c a t i o n a l b e n e f

i t s , we r e v e r s e th e d i s tr i c tc o u rt ’ s d e c l a r a t o ry j u d g me n ti n f a v o ro f A. H. 2 3. T ui t i on R ei m bur s ement A .H . as se rts e rro r in th e d istric t co u rt’s c o n c lu sio n th a t sh e w a s n o t en tit led to r ei m bur s ementf

orthe cos tof

J . H . ’ s 2007- 08 tui t i on at the M ary M cD ow el l C ent erf or L earni ng. See T . P. ex re l . S . P. v. M amar oneck U ni on F r ee Sch. D i s t . , 554 F. 3d at252. T he a rg u m e n t fa ils in lig h t o f o u r c o n c lu sio n th a t th e p ro p o se dIE P fo r th a t y e a r w a s a d e q u a te9

underthe I D E A . See M . C . ex r el . M r s . C . v. V ol unt ow n B d. of E duc. , 226 F . 3d 60, 66 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ); W a lc z a kv . F la . U n io n F re e S c h . D is t., 1 4 2 F .3 d1 1 9 , 1 3 4 (2 dC ir . 1 9 9 8 ). 4. C oncl us i on F o r th e fo re g o in g re a so n s, th e A u g u st 2 1 , 2 0 0 9 ju d g m e n t o f th e d istric t c o u rt is A FFIRM E D i n partand R E V E R SE D i n part , and the ca s e i s R E M A N D E D w i th i ns truct i ons t o e n t e rj u d g me n ti n f

a v o ro f th e DO E. FOR TH E CO UR T:

C A T H E R IN E O ’H A G AN W O L F E , C lerko f C o urt