1 The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the caption as indicated above. 1 10-4298-cv French v. New York State Department of Education
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

## SUMMARY ORDER
Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed on or after January 1, 2007, is p ermitted and is governed by Fede ral Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and this court’s Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this court, a party must cite either the Fede ral Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation “summary order”). A party citing a su mmary order must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the 1 Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthou se, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, 2 on the 3 rdday of November, two thousand eleven. 3 4 PRESENT: 5 6 J OSÉ A. C ABRANES , 7 D EBRA A NN L IVINGSTON , 8 S USAN L. C ARNEY , 9 Circuit Judges

. 10

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 11 AMY F RENCH , a person with a disability, by her Parent, 12 GARY F RENCH , 13 14 Plaintiff-Appellant , 15 16 -v.- No. 10-4298-cv 17 18 N EW Y ORK S TATE D EPARTMENT OF E DUCATION , 19 F AYETTEVILLE -MANLIUS B OARD OF E DUCATION ; 20 Superintendent of Schools, D R

. P HILIP 1 21 MARTIN ; and Assistant Superintendent 22 L ISA M IORI -D INNEEN , 23 24 25 Defendants-Appellees

. 26

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 27 28 292 FOR APPELLANT: J OHN J OSEPH H ENRY (Kathleen Copps DiPaola, 1 on the brief ), Whiteman Osterman & Hanna LLP, 2 Albany, NY. 3 4 FOR APPELLEES: J ONATHAN B. F ELLOWS , Bond, Schoeneck & 5 King, PLLC, Syracuse, NY. 6 7 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New 8 York (Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., Judge ). 9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 10
DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be AFFIRMED

. 11 Plaintiff-appellant Amy French (“Amy”) appeals from a judgment of the District Court granting 12 summary judgment to the defendants on all of her cl aims. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 13 underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issue s on appeal. We briefly repeat here those facts that 14
are relevant to our decision. 15 Amy is an autistic individual who has been classified by the New York State Department of 16 Education (“DoE”) as a student with a disability un der the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 17 (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. In mid-1995, just prior to the start of her sixth grade year, Amy 18 moved into the school district of Fayetteville-Manlius (th e “District”), where she began receiving special 19 educational services pursuant to an Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) developed by the 20 District’s Committee on Special Education (“CSE”) inconsultation with her father, Gary French 21 (“French”). Amy apparently thrived under the IEP, but her progress was disrupted in May 1996 when it 22 was determined that she was no longer a resident of the District. Although Amy’s education in the 23 District resumed around November 1996, after Frenchcommenced an appeal of the District’s residency 24 determination, her program was apparently no longer as beneficial as it had been under the 1995 IEP, 25 and it ceased altogether at the end of that school year. 26 Amy and her father moved back into the District in September 1997, but French did not provide 27 the District with proof of residency until December of that year. Shortly after French proved his 28 residency to the District’s satisfaction, the District sc heduled a meeting of its CSE to begin developing a 29 new IEP for Amy. However, French refused to attend the meetings, and instead demanded Amy be 302On April 17, 1998, the District filed a complaint withthe State Department of Social Services, Children’s Protective Service Unit, against French for educational neglect. Seven months later, on No vember 14, 1998, the Office of Children and Family Services informed French that the complaint against him had been determined to be unfounded

. 3 subjected to a series of comprehensive physical and psychological evaluations before he would permit 1 the CSE to develop a new IEP. For the same reason, he declined the home education that the CSE 2 determined was necessary to help Amy make a transition back to the public school environment. The 3 issue of the comprehensive evaluation was not resolv ed until March 1999, and French refused to permit 4 the District to implement its IEP calling for homebound education throughout that time period. 2After 5 receiving approximately 50 hours of instruction un der a new IEP during the 1999-2000 school year, 6 Amy’s schooling ceased entirely. 7 On March 5, 1998, French filed a complaint and petition for due process review before an 8 impartial hearing officer (“IHO”). Due to a series of delays, no action was taken on the petition, and on 9 March 12, 1999, French withdrew his complaint. At a February 2, 2000 meeting with the IHO, French 10 withdrew his complaint. 11 On September 12, 2001, French filed a second complaint and petition for due process review 12 requesting compensatory education. A hearing on the petition was held before IHO Stephen Aldersley 13 on fourteen days over the course of several months, during which nine witnesses testified (three for the 14 District and six for Amy) and 440 exhibits were filed. On May 30, 2002, as an interim measure, the IHO 15 directed the District to commence homebound education as laid out in its October 1996 IEP, and 16 directed the CSE to meet and discuss Amy’s educational plan with French. On January 16, 2003, the 17 IHO denied Amy’s request for compensatory education, holding that, although the District had 18 committed several procedural violations, it had on the whole demonstrated a substantial willingness to 19 provide Amy with the free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) required by the IDEA. The IHO’s 20 decision was affirmed by a State Review Officer (“SRO”) on December 18, 2003. On March 31, 2003, 21 during the pendency of the administrative review, Amy reached the age of 21, at which point she was no 22 longer eligible to receive benefits under the IDEA. Mrs. C. v. Wheaton , 916 F.2d 69, 75 (2d Cir. 1990); see 23 Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 318 (1988) (child “no longer en titled to the protections and benefits of the 243 Amy appeals the District Court’s grant of summary judgment based solely on the administrative record. Summary judgment in an IDEA case “invol ves more than looking into disputed issu es of fact; rather, it is a ‘pragmatic procedural mechanism’ for reviewing administrative decisions.” T.P. ex rel. S.P. v. Mamaroneck Union Free Sch. Dist. , 554 F.3d 247, 252 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting Lillbask v. Conn. Dep’t of Educ. , 397 F.3d 77, 83 n.3 (2d Cir. 2005))

. Accordingly, the District Court is not required to grant additional disc overy, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C), but may conduct its own evidentiary hearing, see T.Y. v. N.Y. City Dep’t of Educ. , 584 F.3d 412, 418 (2d Cir. 2009) (“Though the court must show deference to administrative board findings, the court is also empowered to conduct an independent review of the record as a whole and even hear additional evidence.”); Lillbask , 397 F.3d at 83 n.3 (“Though the parties . . . may call the procedure ‘a motion for summary judgment’ . . . the procedure is in substance an appeal from an administrative determination, not a summary judgment.”). 4 [IDEA]” after reaching the age at which his or he r home state considers the child to have completed 1 school). 2 Having properly exhausted her state administrative remedies, see Mrs. W. v. Tirozzi , 832 F.2d 748, 3 756 (2d Cir. 1987), Amy then brought suit in the Northern District of New York against the District, the 4 DoE, and two District administrators in their individu al and official capacities, pursuant to the IDEA, 5 the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Rehabilitation Act, and 6 Articles 65 and 89 of the New York State Education Law, seeking compensatory education and money 7 damages. The defendants moved for summary ju dgment, which was granted on September 30, 2010 8
based on the administrative record. 3 9 In granting judgment for the defendants the District Court affirmed the determination of the 10 IHO and SRO that those of Amy’s claims that aros e before the 2000-2001 school year were time-barred. 11 The District Court then dismissed the remainder of the claims because, inter alia, “[p]laintiff’s lack of a 12 formal education during this period was not due to the District’s unwillingness to provide her with a 13 FAPE, but because Plaintiff’s father repeatedly de monstrated an unwillingness to permit Plaintiff to 14 attend school pursuant to any IEP in place.” French v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Educ. , No. 04-CV15 434(FJS/ATB), 2010 WL 3909163, at *6 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2010). 16
DISCUSSION 17
A. Standard of Review 18
We review de novo the District Court’s grant of summary judgment. T.P. ex rel. S.P. v. Mamaroneck 19
Union Free Sch. Dist. , 554 F.3d 247, 252 (2d Cir. 2009). In undertaking this review we are mindful that 20 the IDEA offers no “invitation to the courts to substitute their own notions of sound educational policy 214Although Amy also appeals the District Court’s determination that a large portion of her complaint was timebarred, for the purpose of this appeal we assume, without deciding, that the entirety of the complaint was timely.

5 According to the IHO, these violations included the omission of required informat ion from several notices of meeting issued to French by the CSE, a failure to properl y form a transition plan for Amy’s post-secondary vocational or educational placement, and the District’s unauthorized alte ration of the October 1996 IEP to reflect placement in special education classes (as opposed to the May 1996 IEP which refl ected placement in a seventh grade curriculum). With regard to the latter, the IHO found that French had failed to object to the violation, and indeed had repeatedly requested 5 for those of the school authorities which they review,” and that courts “lack the specialized knowledge 1 and experience necessary to resolve persistent and difficult questions of educational policy.” Bd. of Educ. 2 of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206, 208 (1982) (internal quotation marks 3 omitted). Accordingly, our deferential inquiry is “twofold: first, [we review] the state’s compliance with 4 IDEA procedures and, second, [we determine wheth er] the IEP created through those procedures was 5 ‘reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.’” T.Y. v. N.Y. Dep’t of Educ. , 6 584 F.3d 412, 418 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting Lillbask v. Conn. Dep’t of Educ. , 397 F.3d 77, 83 n.3 (2d Cir. 7 2005)). 4 8
B. The IDEA Claim 9 A disabled student who has attained the age of 21 is generally no longer eligible to receive state 10
educational services under the IDEA. See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)(A). However, a form of “prospective 11 equitable relief,” Somoza v. N.Y. City Dep’t of Educ. , 538 F.3d 106, 109 n.2 (2d Cir. 2008), known as 12 compensatory education remains available to such an individual if a “gross procedural violation” has 13 resulted in the student’s complete deprivation of a FAPE during her period of eligibility. Garro v. State of 14
Conn. , 23 F.3d 734, 737 (2d Cir. 1994) (citing Mrs. C. , 916 F.2d at 75) (quotation marks omitted). A 15 plaintiff seeking compensatory education in such circumstances must show by a preponderance of the 16 evidence that she has suffered a gross procedural violation. See Hendrick Hudson , 458 U.S. at 206; A.C. ex 17 rel. M.C. v. Bd. of Educ. of the Chappaqua Ctrl. Sch. Dist. , 553 F.3d 165, 172-173 (2d Cir. 2009). Therefore, 18 the threshold issue on appeal is whether the Distri ct committed one or more gross procedural violations 19 that deprived Amy of a FAPE. 20 It is clear from the administrative record that the District did commit several procedural 21
violations. 5 However, addressing this issue, the District Court determined that “Plaintiff’s lack of a 22that the District implement the offending IEP, and determin ed that the procedural violation did not merit an award of compensatory education.

6 Further, as noted by the IHO, once the June 23, 1999 IEP was invalidated, the District was in constant communication with the DoE to ensure that Amy’s new IEP complied with its directives. 6 formal education during [the period at issue] was not due to the District’s unwillingness to provide her 1 with a FAPE, but because Plaintiff’s father repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness to permit Plaintiff 2 to attend school pursuant to any IEP in place.” French , 2010 WL 3909163 at *6 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 3 2010). The District Court therefore denied Amy’s claim for “prospective equitable relief” in the form of 4 compensatory education. We agree with the District Court, as well as with the IHO and the SRO, that 5 the procedural violations, “by themselves, or in toto,” id. at *3 (quotation marks omitted), were not gross 6 procedural violations and cannot be said to have deprived Amy of a FAPE. See A.C. ex rel. M.C. , 553 7 F.3d at 172 (where the preponderance of the evidence indicated that the IEP “adequately addressed” the 8 student’s needs, the presence of a procedural viol ation did not invalidate the IEP and thereby deprive 9 the student of a FAPE). 10 In our view, the District Court did not err in finding that the primary fault for the gap in Amy’s 11 education lies with her father and not with the District. As discussed above, French repeatedly 12 rescheduled meetings and refused to allow special ed ucation teachers sent by the District to meet with 13 Amy, thereby delaying the development and implem entation of the District’s IEPs. He refused to 14 participate in CSE meetings or to recognize IEPs drafted throughout 1998 and 1999 because he insisted 15 that the District conduct a comprehensive evaluation of Amy—an evaluation French repeatedly 16 obstructed when the District later sought to conduct it. Further, although the June 23, 1999 IEP was 17 declared invalid by the DoE, it was only one of several IEPs developed by the CSE that were in effect 18 during the period between 1996 and 2003. 6 If French had availed himself of those IEPs, Amy would 19 not have been deprived of the opportunity for a FAPE. 20 It is clear from the record that French, by engaging in the obstructionist tactics discussed above, 21 substantially prevented the District from implementi ng properly-developed IEPs that it was ready and 22 willing to implement, and from developing revise d IEPs that could have assuaged his concerns. Cf. 237 Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Automotive Maint. Machinery Co. , 324 U.S. 806, 814 (1945) (the doctrine of 1 “[un]clean hands . . . closes the doors of a court of equity to one tainted with inequitableness or bad 2
faith relative to the matter in which he seeks relief.” ). We hold that it was the actions of Amy’s father, 3 rather than any procedural violation that may have been committed by the District, that prevented Amy 4 from receiving a FAPE, and that she is therefore not entitled to the prospective equitable remedy of 5 compensatory education. 6
C. The Remaining Claims 7 Amy further alleges that the District Court impr operly dismissed her ADA, Rehabilitation Act, § 8 1983, and state law claims. We disagree. Even if we were to conclude that the District had violated the 9 IDEA, such a violation, without more, would be in sufficient to support a claim of disability-based 10
discrimination under the ADA or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. See Wenger v. Canastota Ctrl. Sch. 11
Dist. , 979 F. Supp. 147, 152 (N.D.N.Y. 1997), aff’d mem. , 208 F.3d 204 (2d Cir. 2000) (“[S]omething more 12 than a mere violation of the IDEA is necessary in order to show a violation of Section 504 in the 13 context of educating children with disabilities, i.e. , a plaintiff must demonstrate that a school district 14 acted with bad faith or gross misjudgment.”). Specifically, Amy fails to show that the alleged 15 “discrimination” is anything more than a rehashing of her allegation that the defendants failed to provide 16 her with a FAPE. To make out a prima facie case under either of these statutes, a plaintiff must show 17 “‘(1) that she is a qualified individual with a disabili ty, (2) that the defendants are subject to [the relevant 18 statute]; and (3) that she was denied the opportunity to participate in or benefit from defendants’ 19 services, programs, or activities, or was otherwise di scriminated against by defendants, by reason of her 20 disability.’” Harris v. Mills , 572 F.3d 66, 73-74 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting Powell v. Nat'l Bd. of Med. Exam'rs , 21 364 F.3d 79, 85 (2d Cir.), corrected , 511 F.3d 238 (2d Cir. 2004). Amy has adduced no evidence that 22 would support an inference of such prima facie discrimination. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of 23 her discrimination claims under the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and New York law. 24 As for Amy’s § 1983 claim, it lacks any factual basis other than the alleged IDEA violations and 25 the related allegation of discrimination. We therefor e affirm the District Court’s dismissal of this claim 26
as well. See French , 2010 WL 3909163 at *10 n.6. 278 CONCLUSION 1 We have considered all of the appellant’s arguments on appeal and find them to be without 2 merit. Accordingly, for substantially the reasons contained in the District Court’s Memorandum and 3 Order of September 30, 2010, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court. 4
5 FOR THE COURT, 6 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court 7
8
9
10
11