1

13-558-cv

C.L. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Education

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

AMENDED SUMMARY ORDER

Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed on or 

after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal 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 Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation 

“summary order”). A party citing a summary 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 

Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, at 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on 

the 3

rd day of February, two thousand fourteen.

Present: ROBERT A. KATZMANN,

Chief Judge,

RICHARD C. WESLEY,

DENNY CHIN,

Circuit Judges.

____________________________________________________________

C.L., Individually and on Behalf of H.L.,

S.B., Individually and on Behalf of H.L.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

- v. - No. 13-558-cv

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF 

EDUCATION,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________________________________

For Plaintiffs-Appellees: CARL H. LOEWENSON, JR., Morrison & Foerster LLP, 

(Jesse Cole Cutler, Skyer and Associates, LLP, on the 

brief), New York, NY.

For Defendant-Appellant: JULIE STEINER, New York City Law Department, New 

York, NY.
2

For Amicus Curiae David, S. Lesser and Alan E. Schoenfeld (Joshua M. 

Advocates for Children of Salzman, on the brief), Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale

New York, Legal Services NYC and Dorr LLP, New York, NY.

Bronx, Manhattan Legal 

Services, and South Brooklyn 

Legal Services:

For Amicus Curiae Gary S. Mayerson, Mayerson & Associates, New York, 

Autism Speaks: NY.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York 

(Rakoff, J.).

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 

and DECREED that the judgment of the district court be and hereby is AFFIRMED.

Defendant-Appellant Department of Education (“DOE”) appeals from a judgment 

entered January 2, 2013, by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New 

York (Rakoff, J.), granting a motion for summary judgment filed by Plaintiffs-Appellees C.L. 

and S.B., individually and on behalf of H.L. (“H.L.” or “Plaintiffs”), and ordering that Plaintiffs 

be reimbursed for tuition paid for their son‟s education for the 2010-2011 school year. In so 

doing, the district court declined to defer to the decision of the State Review Officer (“SRO”), 

the final state administrative adjudicator, and instead deferred to the decision of the Impartial

Hearing Officer (“IHO”), the lower state administrative tribunal. It agreed with the IHO‟s 

finding that DOE failed to demonstrate that the proposed program, a 6:1:1 student-teacherparaprofessional aide with a 1:1 behavior management paraprofessional and other related 

services (the “proposed program”), would enable H.L. to learn new material. DOE argues that 

the district court erred in granting Plaintiffs‟ motion for summary judgment. We presume the 

parties‟ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case, as well as with 

the issues on appeal.
3

DOE argues that the district court erred by deferring to the IHO rather than the SRO in 

finding that DOE had not carried its burden to establish that it provided H.L. with a free 

appropriate public education, as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

(“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. It argues that, under our precedent, the SRO‟s finding that 

DOE demonstrated that the proposed program was substantively adequate, “thorough[,] and 

careful,” and therefore deserves deference. Brief for DOE at 2; see M.H. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of 

Educ., 685 F.3d 217, 240 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 

F.2d 119, 129 (2d Cir. 1998)). 

We recognize that “the role of the federal courts in reviewing state educational decisions 

under the IDEA . . . is circumscribed,” Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 

112 (2d Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted), because the judiciary generally “lack[s] 

the „specialized knowledge and experience‟ necessary to resolve „persistent and difficult 

questions of educational policy,‟” Board of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. 

Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 208 (1982) (quoting San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 

1, 42 (1973)). However, we have explained that “the deference owed to an SRO‟s decision 

depends on the quality of that opinion,” in particular, where—as here—the SRO and the IHO 

disagree. R.E. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 694 F.3d 167, 189 (2d Cir. 2012) (citing M.H., 685 F.3d 

at 240). In short, a district court “must defer to the SRO‟s decision on matters requiring 

educational expertise unless it concludes that the decision was inadequately reasoned, in which 

case a better-reasoned IHO opinion may be considered instead.” R.E., 694 F.3d at 189. Indeed, 

“where the SRO rejects a more thorough and carefully considered decision of an IHO, it is 

entirely appropriate for the court, having in its turn found the SRO‟s conclusions unpersuasive 

even after appropriate deference is paid, to consider the IHO‟s analysis, which is also informed 
4

by greater educational expertise than that of judges, rather than to rely exclusively on its own

less informed educational judgment.” M.H., 685 F.3d at 246. This is precisely what the district 

court did in this case. 

For substantially the reasons stated by the district court, we agree that DOE failed to 

provide H.L. with a free appropriate public education because it did not carry its burden of 

demonstrating that he could learn new material in the proposed program. Therefore, it is 

unnecessary to address the parties‟ arguments about other alleged deficiencies in the 

individualized education plan or the appropriateness of the proposed placement. We have 

considered DOE‟s remaining arguments about the proposed program and find them to be without 

merit. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

CATHERINE O‟HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK