19 - 354 Doe v. E. Lyme Bd. of Educ. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F OR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

______________ August Term 2 0 18 (Argued: November 14, 2018 | Decided : June 18, 2020 )
Docket No. 19

- 354 JANE DOE, JOHN DOE , BY AND THROUGH HIS PARENT JANE DOE, Plaintiff s - Appellant s ,

v. EAST LYME BOARD OF E DUCATION , Defendant

- Appellee , CONNECTICUT STATE DE PARTMENT OF EDUCATIO N Defendan t.

______________ Before: JACOBS, POOLER, and WESLEY , Circuit Judge s . 1 Appellant Jane Doe (“Doe”) sued the East Lyme Board of Education (the “Board”) on behalf of herself and her son, John Doe, under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA” or the “Act” ) , alleging that the Board denied John a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) and violated the “stay

- put” provision of the Act by r efusing to pay for services mandated by John’s individualized education plan (“IEP”)

. W e previously held that the Board had provided John with an adequate IEP and a FAPE, and that John’s private school placement had been inappropriate

. We agreed, however , that the Board had2 violated the IDEA’s “stay

- put” provision

. Thus, we vacated the reimbursement award and remanded for the purpose of calculating the total value of services specified in John’s “stay

- put” IEP and to structu re a prospective, compensatory education award to remedy the Board’s stay

- put violation

. T he United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Arterton, J. ) awarded Doe reimbursement for her out

- of

- pocket expenses relating to services covered by John’s stay

- put IEP , but denied reimbursement for tuition and services not mandated by the IEP. The district court also ordered that compensatory funds be placed in an escrow account with certain restrictions. Doe appeals, and now argues , that she should be reimburse d for tuition payments and other expenses, and that the award structure i s inequitable

. We agree in part. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying reimbursement for several of the expenses Doe requeste d

. T he district court did, however, err in determining that the fund’s administrator could unilaterally reduce the services covered by the fund and that Doe must pay for half the compensatory fund’s fees. We therefore AFFIRM IN PART , VACATE IN PART , and RE MAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion

.

_________________ JANE DOE , pro se , Old Lyme , C T , for Plaintiff s - Appellant s . SHELDON D. MYERS , Kainen , Escalera & McHale, P.C., Hartford, CT , for Defendant

- Appellee

.

_________________ WESLEY , Circuit Judge : Appellant Jane Doe (“Doe”) , through counsel, sued the East Lyme Board of Education ( the “Board”) on behalf of herself and her son, John Doe (“John”) , under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq. , alleging that the Board denied John a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”)3 and violated the “stay

- put” provisions of the IDEA by refusing to pay for services mandated by John’s individualized education plan (“IEP”). 1 The district court granted summary judgment ( in part ) to Doe on the stay

- put claim and ordered reimbursement of certain mandated services for which Doe had paid out

- of

pocket. It granted summary judgment to the Board on the other claims, reasoning
that th e Board had provided a FAPE during the 2009

– 2010 school year and Doe’s placement of her son in a private school had been inappropriate. Both parties appealed. We affirmed the district court’s substantive rulings but vacated the
reimbursement award and re manded for the limited purpose of calculating and

1 A FAPE “includes both ‘special education’ and ‘related services.’” Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. RE

- 1 , 137 S. Ct. 988, 994 (2017) (quoting 20 U.S.C. § 1401(9)). “Special education” is “specially designed instruction . . . to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability,” 20 U.S.C. § 1401(29) , and “related services” are the services “required to assist a child . . . to benefit from” that specially designed instruction, 20 U.S.C. § 1401( 26 ) . As discussed in detail below, if a parent believes her child has not received a FAPE, she may file an administrative due process complaint, and the IDEA’s “stay put” provision requires that “during the pendency of any [such] proceedings

. . . the child shall remain in the then

- current edu cational placement of the child.” 20 U

. S.C. § 1415(j)

. “It therefore requires a school district to continue funding whatever educational placement was last agreed upon for the child until the relevant administrative and judicial proceedings are complete.” T.M. ex rel. A.M. v. Cornwall Cent. Sch. Dist. , 752 F .3d 145, 171 (2d Cir. 2014).4 structuring a prospective, compensatory education award. See Doe v. E. Lyme Bd. of Educ. , 790 F.3d 440 (2d Cir. 2015) ( “ Doe I ”). On remand, after a three

- day bench trial, the district court awarded Doe
rei mbursement for past expenses relating to services covered by John’s IEP . It denied any reimbursement for tuition or for services Doe provided that were not mandated by the IEP. It ordered that the compensatory funds be placed in an
escrow account with ce rtain restrictions. Doe appealed pro se . 2 We dismissed that appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, but allowed Doe to appeal again once the district court entered a new judgment that included a prejudgment interest
calculation. Doe v. E. Lyme Bd. o f Educ. , 747 F. App’x 30, 30

– 31 (2d Cir. 201 9 ) (summary order) (“ Doe II ”). Following our dismissal, t he district court approved a formula for calculating interest and entered a new judgment. Doe now appeals for a third

2 G enerally, a non - lawyer parent may not represent her child pro se . Tindall v. Poultney High Sch. Dist. , 414 F.3d 281, 284 (2d Cir. 2005) . However, a parent has an independent enforceable right under the IDEA and may pursu e a claim on her own behalf. Winkelman ex rel. Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist. , 550 U.S. 516, 535 (2007)

. Therefore, Doe may appear pro se in this appeal because she brought claims on her own behalf as well as her son’s.5 time , pro se , resulting in a new appeal in the above

- captioned case. W e permitted the parties to file supplemental briefs. 3
For the re asons state d below , we vacate and remand the judgment of the
district court as to : (1) the power of the escrow agent to unilaterally decide whether John still requires certain educational services , and (2) the requirement that Doe pay for half the maintena nce fee on the escrow account

. We affirm the district
court’s order in all other aspects.
BACKGROUND Facts Doe and her son, John , reside d within the District of East Lyme, Connecticut (the “District ” ) at all relevant times

. Shortly before turning three years old , John

was diagnosed with autism and he requires special education services. 4 J ohn attended East Lyme public schools from preschool through the middle of first grade

. He was then placed in Hope A cademy (“Hope”) , a private special

3 We consider Doe’s arguments from her brief in Doe II and her supplemental brief in this appeal.

4 Although John was diagnosed with autism, Doe has offered evidence that John is more appropriately diagnosed as having “dyslexia, and a specific language impairment , including an expressive language disorder and underlying syntactic deficits. ” Doe ex rel. v. E. Lyme Bd. of Educ. , No. 3:11

- CV

- 291 (JBA), 2012 WL 4344304, *2 n.7 (D. Conn. Aug. 14, 2012)

.6 education facility in Orange, Connecticut

. He attended Hope Academy at the
Board’s expense for the rest of the 2006

– 2007 school year and remained there for
the 2007

– 2008 school year

. During a June 2008 Planning and Placement Team meeting, the B oard proposed an IEP where John would continue at Hope for third grade during the
2008

– 2009 school year

. In August 2008, Doe expressed concerns about John’s social development at Hope to Stephen Buck, the Board’s then

- Director of Special
Education. Doe’s concerns included John’s lack of interaction with typical peers, and a report that another Hope student had harassed and hit John at school

. Buck agreed to place John on a leave of absence from Hope

. I n September 2008, Doe
enroll ed John at Solomon Schechter Academy (“Solomon Schechter”) , a private religious school in New London, Connecticut, at her own expense

. Solomon Schechter did not provide specialized instruction to students with disabilities , nor did it employ staff certified to provide such instruction

. In December 2008, Doe and the Board agreed to an IEP placing John at
Solomon Schechter (the “2008

– 2009 ” or “stay

- put” IEP ). Under the 2008

– 2009 IEP,
Doe would pa y Solomon Schechter’s tuition costs, but the Board would provide7 funding for related services. 5 These services included Orton

– Gillingham reading instruction (5 hours/week), speech therapy (2.5 hours/week), and occupational/physical therapy (1.5 hours/week). In February 2009, t he parties

am ended the 2008

– 2009 IEP to increase speech therapy to three hours per week

. In June 2009, the Board informed Doe that it would not pay for tuition at Solom o n Schechter should she continue John’s placement there . The Board proposed instead that John enroll at Niantic Center School (“Niantic”), a public
school in the District with a qualified special education teacher

. Doe disagreed with this placement

. Nevertheless, the Board issued an IEP placing John at either
Niantic or Flanders Element ary (John’s home elementary school ) , with specified
related services (the “2009

– 2010 IEP”)

. Doe faxed a letter to the Board reject ing the 2009

– 2010 IEP , explain ing her intention to keep John at Solomon Schechter, and outlin ing additional services she planned to secure for John

. She a lso communicated her expectation that such
services would be provided at public expense , including, for the first time, “the

5 Doe did not request that the Board pay for Solomon Schechter tuition at that time. Indeed, in a December 21, 2008 letter, she confirmed that she agreed to be responsible for Solomon Schechter tuition.8 cost of t he placement at [Solomon Schechter.]” Doe A pp . 103

. John continued to
attend Solomon Schechter for the 2009

– 2010 school year

. In August 2010, Doe again provided written notice of her intention to
continue John’s enrollment at Solomon Schechter for the 2010

– 2011 school year , with specified related services, and her expect ation that she would be reimburse d
for her expenses , including the cost of the placement at Solomon Schechter. The
Board did not provide John with an IEP for the 2010

– 2011 school year

. 6 Procedural History On April 27, 2010 , 7 Doe filed a n administrative due process complaint with
the State of Connecticut under the IDEA

. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (b)(6), (f) ; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10

– 76h

. Doe alleg ed that the Board failed to provide John a FAPE and violated various requirements under both the IDEA and Connecticut law

. She sought reimbursement of Solomon Schechter tuition for the 2009

– 2010 and 2010

–

6 The Board erroneously believed that by unilaterally placing John at Solomon Schechter for the 2010

– 2011 school year, Doe terminate d the Board’s responsibility to provide an IEP for John because the school was outside of the District’s borders.

7 Doe initially filed a due process complaint o n April 27, 2010 , but because her lawyer withdrew from the case, she requested that the matter be dismissed without prejudice

. The Hearing Officer granted that request on September 23, 2010 and she refiled on September 30, 2010.9 2011 school years, and the costs of additional services she secured as a result of the Board’s alleged violations

. 8 After an administrative hearing, the hearing officer found that (1) the Board
offered John a FAPE for school yea rs 2008

– 2010, (2) the Board failed to provide a FAPE during the 2010

– 2011 school year, (3) S olomon S chechter was an inappropriate placement due to its lack of special education s ervices , and therefore ( 4 ) Doe was not entitled to reimbursement for S olomon S chechter tuition. 9
1. Doe’s First Appeal Following the hearing officer’s decision, Doe, through counsel , filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut , alleging that the Board denied John a FAPE, that S olomon S chechter was an appropriate placement, and that the Board had violated the “ stay

- put ” provision of the IDEA. The parties cross

- moved for summary judgment. The district court

8 As we noted in Doe I , because the parties agreed that Doe would pay tuition at Solomon Schechter for the 2008

– 2009 scho ol year, Doe did not seek reimbursement of tuition for that year. See Doe I , 790 F.3d at 447 n.1.

9 If a parent believes a state has not provide d a FAPE to her eligible child, “ the parent [] may enroll the child in a private school and seek retroactive reimbursement for the cost of the private school from the state. Private placement is reimbursable only if such placement, rather than a proposed IEP, is proper under the Act.” Doe I , 790 F.3 d at 448 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).10 (Arterton, J. ) adopt ed the magistrate judge’s recommendations and grant ed the Board’s motion in part

. It agreed that the Board provided John a FAPE in the 2009

– 2010 school year and that Solomon Schechter was an inappropriate placement , but
held that the Board violated the IDEA’s stay

- put provision by failing to provide
the related services in place under the 2008

– 2009 IEP once Doe and the Board reached an impasse concerning John’s IEP. See Doe v. E

. Lyme Bd. of Educ. , Civ. No.
3:11

- CV

- 291 (JBA), 2012 WL 434430 1, at * 2

– 8 (D. Conn. Sept. 21, 2012 ). Thus, the
district court ordered the Board to reimburse Doe for the out

- of

- pocket expenses she paid for such services during litigation. Both parties appealed. On appeal, Doe argued that the Board’s stay

- put violation entitled her to the
full value of the related services provided for in the 2008

– 2009 IEP , and not just the amounts she paid out

- of

- pocket

. She also challenged the district court’s
decision s that John received a FAPE and that S olomon Schechter wa s an in appropriate placement. As relevant here, while Doe claimed that she should be
reimbursed for Solomon Schechter tuition because it was an appropri ate placement , she explicitly stated that she did “not assert any stay

- put right to [Solomon Schechter] tuition .” Doe I , 2d Cir. 14

- 1261, d oc. 81 , ( Appellant Br. ) at 25.11 We affirmed in part, holding that the 2009

– 2010 IEP was procedurally and substantively adequate, and that John received a FAPE during the 2009

– 2010 school year. Doe I , 79 0 F.3d at 449

– 50. We also affirmed the district court’s
conclusion that , notwithstanding the Board ’s fail ure to provide a FAPE in the
2010

– 2011 school year, Doe was not entitled to reimbursement for S olomon
S chechter tuitio n . Id. at 450

– 52. 10 As to the st ay - put claim, w e affirmed the district court’s conclusion that the
Board violated the IDEA’s stay

- put provision on an ongoing basis by failing to provide John with the “ related services ” specified in the 2008

– 2009 IEP. Id. at 452

– 54. We explained that the relevant educational placement for purposes of the stay

put analysis was the 2008

– 2009 IEP (as amended in February 2009), which required that (1) Doe pay for S olomon Schechter tuition at her own expense, and (2) the Board pay for the “re lated services , ” i.e. , the Orton

– Gillingham reading instruction (5 hours/week), speech therapy ( 3 hours/week), and occupational/physical therapy (1.5 hours/week)

. Id. at 446, 454.

10 Specifically, we found that because the school was not tailored to meet John’s special needs, which had to be addressed by outside providers, it was an “inappropriate placement.” Doe I , 790 F.3d at 450

– 52.12 We also held that the district court erred by order ing the Board to reimburse
Doe only for her out

- of

- pocket expenses because John was entitled to the full value
of all services covered by the 2008

– 2009 IEP

. This includ ed covered services Doe
did not (or could not) provide for John

. Id. at 456. Thus , we de termined that “the Board owes reimbursement in the amount [Doe] expended for services the Board was required to provide, [ i.e. , those described in the stay

- put IEP,] plus compensatory education to fill the gap of required services th at [Doe] did not
fund.” Id. at 457. We held , however, that the Board’s obligation to provide stay

put services was triggered upon Doe’s filing of the administrative complaint, and not when the parties reached an impasse

. Id. at 455

– 56. We thus required the
district court to recalculate the value of the ser vices owed to Doe because we determined the Board’s obligations began in April 2010, rather than June 2009.
Because Doe did not seek S olomon Schechter tuition as a part of the stay

put claim, and because we determined that the stay

- put IEP services did not include “extended school year” services, we held that Doe was not entitled to
reimbursement for those services

. Id. at 453, 455.
We vacated the district court’s award and instructed that, on remand, the
district court should (1) calculate “the total valu e” of the services required under13 the stay

- put IEP , (2) order the Board to reimburse Doe for her out

- of

- pocket expenses for such services, and (3) direct the Board to make available to Doe the remainder of the total value in the form of compensatory educat ion

. Id. at 456

– 57. We left the mechanics of structuring the compensatory education award to the
district court’s discretion. Id. at 457.
2. Doe’s Second Appeal On remand, the district court held a three

- day bench trial to determine the
value of Doe’s reimbursement and the compensatory education award (the “2017 Bench Trial”)

. Doe asked the district court to reimburse her not only for the
“covered” services she paid for ( i.e. , services described in the 2008

– 2009 IEP ), but
also for “uncovered” se rvices ( i.e. , services either not described in the 2008

– 2009 IEP or “over and above” the hours prescribed in the 2008

– 2009 IEP). 11 ROA doc.

11 Specifically, Doe asked the court to “provide a portion of the compensatory education remedy by reimbursing [her] for Uncovered Services, in the amount of $129,4 0 5.34, with interest calculated from the date of each expenditure.” ROA doc. 179 (Pre

- Trial Mem.) at 5. The “Uncovered Services” for which Doe requested reimbursement and compensatory education included items such as “speech

- language therapy services [Doe provided] over and above the number of hours specified in the stay

- put IEP, as well as on other services and items not specified in the stay

- put IEP that she provided to John ,” id. at 4, including assistive technology; computer services; language hardware and software; tuition and transportation for the schools John attended; and tra nsportation expenses incurred in taking John to and from appointments with his providers , see ROA doc. 179

- 4 at 3

.14 179 ( Pre

- Trial Mem.) at 4

– 5

. She submitted lists of her requested expenses, which
included items such as evaluations and assistive technology. Doe offered testimony from Dr. Robert Kemper, a psycholinguistic specialist who had evaluated John on numerous occasions and who had provided writing instruction to John , regardi ng John’s current educational needs

. She did not , however, include the cost of Dr. Kemper’s 2016 evaluation in her list of expenses. Nor did she request that Dr. Kemper’s fees for his appearance and testimony be paid.
Doe also asked that compensatory ed ucation funds be placed in an escrow account because of John’s age and his plans to attend college

. She argued that the
account be made available for at least six years , representing the duration of the Board’s stay

- put violation, and that the Board pay all expenses associated with the
account. Additionally , Doe claimed that the compensatory award should include tuition for John’s high school, Lyme

- Old Lyme High School. In a pre

- trial conference held on March 17, 2017, t he district court ruled that Doe could seek relief only for covered expenses specified in the stay

- put IEP, and not for any additional expenses Doe may have incurred

. See Doe ex rel. Doe v. E

. Lyme Bd. of Educ. , 262 F. Supp. 3d 11, 18 & n.6 (D. Conn. 201 7)

. On June 29, 2017,
the district court ordered the Board to reimburse Doe for her out

- of

- pocket15 expenses on covered services and to fund an escrow account for compensatory educational services, which included speech

- language ther apy, reading instructors, writing instructors, occupational and physical therapy, as well as analogous services such as assistive technology and other transition

- related
needs. 12 Id. at 3 6

– 37. B ecause the 2008

– 2009 IEP did not require the Board to pay
tuition , however, the district court held that Doe could not use payments from the escrow account for John’s high school tuition. Id. at 37 n.49. As to the structure of the escrow account, t he district court ordered that the account remain open until Joh n completed college or until six years passed,

“ whichever comes first

. ” Id. at 35

. A ny remaining funds would be refunded to
the Board. Id. The district court appointed Doe ’s recommended attorney as the
account’s escrow agent and empowered her to not only review reimbursement

12 Specifically, the district court ordered the Board to (1) reimburse “in the [additional] am ount of $36,555.94 plus interest (the amount of which remains to be calculated) , ” Doe ex rel. Doe , 262 F. Supp. 3d a t 37 , for the expenses Doe had incurred on covered services in the stay

- put IEP since the date of the March 17, 2014 judgment; and (2) “place $203,478.10 for compen satory education into an escrow account for [ John ], to remain open for six years or until [he] graduates college, whichever occurs first ,” id. at 15. In addition, the dis trict court directed Doe to submit documentation of “supplemental reimbursement and transportation expenses incurred between January 12, 2017 and the date of [the judgment],” and further directed both parties to “submit their proposed interest calculations and methodology.” Id. at 37 n.51

.16 claims , but also reduce the services eligible for reimbursement if she concluded that John no longer needed the services. Id. at 37 & n.50

. In addition, the district court ordered the parties to split the costs of the agent and administration of the
account. Id. at 37 n.50. On July 19, 2017, the district court entered its judgment

. Doe timely appealed

. On January 9 , 2019, we dismissed Doe’s second appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remanded to the district court to “complete calculations as to prejudgment interest, supplemental reimbursement, and transportation expenses.” Doe II , 747 F. App’x at 31.

3. Doe’s Third Appeal Following our dismissal, t he district court “updated” the awards from its July 19, 2017 judgment and ordered the Board to “reimburse [ Doe ] in the amount of $47,968.02, plus interest, and to place $192,066.02 for compensatory education into an escrow account within thirty (30) d ays of the date of [ the Order on
Remedies ] .” ROA doc. 282 at 4 , 7

. The Board was ordered to “pay interest to [ Doe ] on the reimbursement awards calculated using [the Board’s] proposed methodology and reduced slightly to reflect the final value of the reimburs e ment17 award owed to [the Does] set forth [in the Order on Remedies].” Id. at 7

. On January 18, 2019, the district court entered an amended final judgment.
Doe then filed this appeal

. She subsequently moved for a stay of the prospective compensatory award pending our determination here.

DISCUSSION During the course of this long litigation, we have already resolved several questions surrounding the conduct at issue here, including whether Doe was deprived of the right to participate in the development of John’s IEP; whether John’s IEP for the 2009

– 2010 school year was reasonably calculated to enable him to receive educational benefits; whether the Board’s fail ure to provide an IEP during t he 2010

– 2011 school year denied John a FAPE; and whether John’ s enrollment in Solomon Schechter was an appropriate placement

. See Doe I , 79 0
F.3d at 44 0

– 5 7. Therefore, the only remaining issues involve the compensatory award owed to Doe for the Board’s stay

- put violation. To that end, we again emphasize that o nce a party has file d an administrative due process complaint , t he IDEA’s stay

- put provision prov ides
that “during the pendency of any proceedings conducted pursuant to [ 20 U.S.C.18 § 1415 ]

. . . the child shall remain in the then

- current educational placement of the
child .” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j)

. In other words, the provision “ seeks to maintain the
edu cational status quo while the parties’ dispute is being resolved

. ” T.M. ex rel. A.M. v. Cornwall Cent. Sch. Dist. , 752 F.3d 145, 152 (2d Cir. 2014)

. Thus, a school
district is required “ to continue funding whatever educational placement was last agreed upon for the child until the relevant administrative and judicial proceedings are complete.” Id. at 171

. Although courts may not award damages for violations of the IDEA, Polera v. Bd. Of Educ. , 288 F.3d 478, 486 (2d Cir. 2002) , they may award retrospective and/or prospective equitable relief, including reimbursement of paid expenses or compensatory education. See Doe I , 790 F.3d at 454

. Compensatory education is

“ prospective equitable relief, requiring a school district to fund education beyond the expiration of a child ’ s eligibility as a remedy for any earlier deprivations in the
child ’ s education. ” Somoza v. N

. Y

. C

. Dep’t of Educ. , 538 F.3d 106, 109 n.2 (2d Cir. 2008)

. In other words, c ompensatory education aims to make up for educational services the child should have received in the first place

. Where , as here, an educational agency has violated the stay

- put provision, “c ompensatory education
may
— and generally should

— be awarded to make up for any appreciable19 difference between the full value of stay

- put services owed and the (reimbursable) services the parent actually obtained.” Doe I , 790 F.3d at 456

– 57 ; see also id. at 4 4 5 ( “ [T] he appropriate equitable relief for a stay

- put violation is reimbursement or compensatory education (or both) for the full value of services that the educational agency was required to fund, not the (lesser) value of services the Parent was able
to afford. ” ). We review awards of equitable relief for abuse of discretion. Abrahamson v. Bd. of Educ. of Wappingers Falls Cent. Sch. Dist. , 374 F.3d 66, 76 (2d Cir. 2004) ; T.M. , 752 F.3d at 170; Doe I , 790 F.3d at 457 (“We leave the mechanics of structuring the

co mpensatory education award to the district court ’ s sound equitable discretion

. . . . ”) ; see also Florence Cty. Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter ex rel. Carter , 510 U.S. 7, 16 (1993) (explaining that the court enjoys “ broad discretion” in crafting I DEA relief , which depends upon “equitable considerations” (internal quotation marks omitted )). “A district court abuses its discretion when its decision (1) rests on an error of law or a clearly erroneous factual finding, or (2) cannot be found within the ran ge of permissible decisions

. ” T.M. , 752 F.3d at 170.20 I. The Compensatory Award Doe argues that various aspects of the structure of the prospective compensatory award are inequitable. Doe first challenges the district court’s use
of an escrow account with c ertain limitations

— a time limit, use of an escrow agent for determining payouts, and a refund of unused funds to the school district. However, Doe asked for this structure and the district court granted her proposal and selected her proposed escrow agent, all over the Board’s objection. Moreover,
in Doe I , we referenced Streck v. Bd. of Educ. of E. Greenbush Cent. Sch. Dist. , 408 F. App’x 411, 415 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order), which involved a similar escrow arrangement, as an example for how the district court could structure the award. See Doe I , 790 F .3d at 457. Doe further argues that her award’s time limit is unduly short relative to the
one in Streck , and she objects to the requirement (not in Streck ) that she coordinate John’s service providers. But Doe specifically requested the six

- year limit and the autonomy to select John’s service providers. Furthermore, Streck , a summary order, was not a tight constraint on the district court’s discretion. Finally, we reject Doe’s argument that the award should not overlap with her son’s final year of21 IDEA eligibility. 13 The district court stated that the compensatory education
award would be used in addition t o John’s IEP services and Doe points to no evidence showing duplication of benefits. In addition, Doe now argues for the first time that the compensatory award should be lengthened to 11 years from the date of the judgment because John, who
is now in colle ge, may go to graduate school. Because Doe did not make any argument in the district court to extend the award, this argument is waived. See Virgilio v. City of New York , 407 F.3d 105, 116 (2d Cir. 2005) (“In general we refrain from passing on issues not raised below.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Two of Doe’s arguments regarding the compensatory award have merit. First, Doe argues that giving final decision

- making authority to the escrow agent
violates the IDEA. Doe directs our attention to Reid ex rel. Reid v. District of Columbia , 401 F.3d 516, 526 (D.C. Cir. 2005) for the proposition that decision making (or modifying) authority in IDEA cases cannot be delegated beyond a hearing officer or the court that reviews the officer’s award. See 4 01 F.3d at 527

13 The obligations imposed by the IDEA generally terminate when a child reaches the age of 21. See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)(A ). I n Connecticut, however, a child remains eligible under the IDEA until he or she reaches the age of 21 or graduates from high school, whichever comes first. See Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 10

– 76d(b)

.22 (“[A] s IDEA makes plain, hearing awards ‘ shall be final ’ unless modified through administrative appeal or judicial action.

. . . The point is that absent a new hearing, the existing award is binding on both parties. ” (internal citations omit ted)). Although Reid arose in the context of the denial of a FAPE , we find that the logic of Reid applies here

. Cf. Doe I , 790 F.3d at 456 (“Although we have typically endorsed compensatory education as a remedy for substantive FAPE claims, there
is no reason why the remedy should not be equally available for stay

- put violations.” (internal citation omitted) )

. The escrow agent’s power to unilaterally reduce Doe’s access to the award amounts violates the IDEA’s requirement that adjustments to an award “m ust be justified to a hearing officer.” Reid ex rel. Reid , 401 F.3d at 527; see also 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(1)(A) , (B). The IDEA requires that upon obtaining final relief, Doe’s award may not be modified by either party absent a new hearing. S ee 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(1)(A) , (B). Doe also challenges the requirement that she pay for half the administrative
fee on the escrow account. The IDEA seeks to ensure a “free” education ; Doe should not be required to pay for a portion of the cost of ma naging a fund fo r educational services the Board should have provided. See Doe I , 790 F.3d at 456 (“Congress did not intend the child’s entitlement to a free education to turn upon23 her parent's ability to ‘front’ its costs.” (quoting Miener ex rel. Miener v. State of Mo. , 800 F.2d 749, 753 (8th Cir. 1986) ); E.M. v. N

. Y

. C

. Dept. of Educ. , 758 F.3d 442, 452 (2d Cir. 2014) (“ The IDEA promises a free appropriate education to disabled children without regard to their families ’ financial status. ”). This is particularly true wh ere prospective instruction is meant to remedy an “educational deficit” created by the
Board. See G. ex rel. RG v. Fort Bragg Dependent Schs. , 343 F.3d 295, 309 (4th Cir. 2003)

. To make Doe pay for the maintenance of a compensatory education account
woul d make John’s access to appropriate education dependent upon Doe’s ability
to front its costs. Therefore, we vacate the compensatory education award to the extent that
it permits the escrow agent to unilaterally decrease Doe and John’s reimbursable
service s and requires Doe to pay for half the maintenance costs

. We remand for the district court to enter an amended order removing these conditions.
II. The District Court’s Interest Calculations In June 201 5 , the Board paid Doe $97,455 to reimburse her for expenses covered by the stay

- put IEP. After the 2017 B ench T rial (following the remand in Doe I ) , the district court asked the parties to submit proposed methods for calculating prejudgment interest

. Doe proposed the following formula for interest24 calculations: (1) calculating the interest for “covered service” expenses based on the average interest rate during the school year the expense was incurred; and (2) calculating the interest for tr ansportation expenses based on the average interest rate during the calendar year the expense was incurred. Her interest calculations yielded a total interest payment of $1,1 25

. 25 based on the updated reimbursement award of $47,968.02

. She did not argue that the original $97,445 payment made in 201 5 was without interest and did not calculate the interest due
on that interest

. The Board proposed a flat interest rate of 1.22 percent (“ [T] he weekly 1

- year
constant maturity Treasury yield as published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the week of 06/23/2017, the calendar week preceding the date of the [first] judgment”). ROA doc. 255

- 1 at 2 ; ROA d oc. 282 at 6

. Further, the calculation included compounded interest. The Board’s prop osed calculations resulted in a total of $4,099.06, with $3,089.62 to be paid on the $97,445 the Board paid Doe in 201 5

. The district court adopted the Board’s proposed interest method because it was comparatively straightforward and efficient compared to Doe’s proposed method , and ordered that the Board additionally reimburse Doe for $47,968.02 “plus interest .” ROA doc. 282 at 6

– 7

.25 Doe argues that the district court incorrectly calculated the interest owed to her by (1) using an interest percentage that was too low, (2) failing to compound the interest, and (3) failing to include interest on interest owed on the Board’s June
201 5 pay ment. We review the decision to grant prejudgment interest and the rate
at which such interest is calculated for abuse of discretion. Endico Potatoes, Inc. v. CIT Group/Factoring, Inc. , 67 F.3d 1063, 1071

– 72 (2d Cir. 1995)

. We conclude that
the district court did not abuse its discretion. Generally, interest for money judgments in civil cases is calculated from the date of the judgment and uses the “weekly average 1

- year constant maturity Treasury yield, as published by the Board of Governors of the Fed eral Reserve System” for the calendar week preceding the entry of judgment

. 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a) . The interest is calculated daily and compounded annually. Id. § 1961(b). Prejudgment interest is generally not awarded, but it may be ordered in the distri ct court’s discretion to ensure that a plaintiff is fully compensated or to meet the “remedial purpose of the statute involved.” See Wickham Contracting Co., Inc. v. Local Union No. 3, Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, AFL

- CIO , 955 F.2d 831, 833

– 34 (2d Cir.
19 92)

. In the IDEA context, we have awarded prejudgment interest that departed
from the interest rates set in Section 1961 “because the [plaintiffs] incurred the[]26 costs years before the first district court decision in th[e] case[.]” Streck , 408 F. App’x at 415. There , we instructed the district court to calculate the interest from the date the plaintiffs paid each expense. Id.
The district court elected not to calculate interest from the various years Doe incurred expenses (Doe’s propo sed method) and instead adopted the Board’s method (use of a single, higher interest rate based on the date of the 2017 judgment) because it was more straightforward. Doe does not argue explicitly that the method adopted by the district court is erroneous

. See Appellant Supp l

. Br. at 34 ( explaining that Doe is not “appealing the fact that the district court chose the
Board’s method of calculating interest”)

. Indeed, as Doe apparently recognizes, the Board’s method results in a higher interest payment for her

. 14 Finally, Doe ’s contention that the Board’s calculations did not include compounded interest is simply incorrect. III. T he Law of the C ase Doctrine Bars Several of Doe’s Arguments Doe also raises several arguments that we already addressed in Doe I

. These include her challenges to (1) the denial of reimbursement for school tuition; (2) the

14 Doe’s remaining challenges either misread Streck , propose a lower rate of interest, or are waived by her failure to raise them in the district court. See, e.g. , Appellant Suppl. Br. at 34

– 36, 44

– 45.27 denial of reimbursement for assistive technology, extended school year services,
and other services not covered by the stay

- put IEP; (3) the determination that the filing of Doe’s due process complaint triggered the Board’s stay

- put obligation; (4) the determination that Solomon Schechter was an inappropriate placement; and (5) the determination that the Board offered John a FAPE for the 2009

– 2010 school year

. T hes e arguments are barred by the law of the case doctrine.
The law of the case doctrine “ forecloses reconsideration of issues that were
decided

— or that could have been decided

— during prior proceedings.” United States v. Williams , 475 F.3d 468, 471 (2d Cir. 2007)

. Thus , a failure to raise an issue
that could have been raised in an earlier appeal bars a litigant from raising it in a second appeal. See i d. at 475

– 76. Further, “when a court has ruled on an issue, that decision should generally be adhered to b y that court in subsequent stages in the same case unless cogent and compelling reasons militate otherwise.” Johnson v. Holder , 564 F.3d 95, 99 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Compelling reasons to revisit a decision include “an interv ening change in law, availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Id. at 99

– 100 (internal quotation marks omitted).28 Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. RE
- 1 Doe contends that Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. RE

– 1 , 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017) “change [ d ] controlling law” in this Circuit allowing us to
revisit the denial of her FAPE claim , Appellant Suppl. Br. at 16 ; we disagree. In Endrew F

. , the Su preme Court determined that the IDEA ’ s substantive requirements were not met where the student had received an “educational benefit that is merely

. . . more than de minimis .” 137 S. Ct. at 997 (quoting Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dis t. RE

– 1 , 798 F.3d 1329, 1338 (10th Cir. 2015) (brackets omitted)) ; see also id. at 1000

– 01 (“It cannot be the case that the [IDEA] typically aims for grade

- level advancement for children with disabilities who can be educated in the regular classroom, but is satisfied with barely more than de
minimis progress for those who cannot.”)

. The Court held that “[t]he IDEA
demands more. It requires an educational program reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child ’ s circumstances.” Id. at 1001. In Doe I , we explained that “ while an IEP need not ‘ furnish e very special service necessary to maximize each handicapped child ’ s potential, ’ it must be

‘ likely to produce progress ’ that is more than ‘ trivial advancement. ’ ” Doe I , 79029 F.3d at 450 (quoting Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist. , 427 F.3d 186, 194

– 95 (2d Ci r. 2005) ). Equating “trivial advancement” with a “ de minimis ” educational benefit,
Doe now claims that the 2009

– 2010 IEP was “evaluated under too low of a standard” because “[p]roviding ‘more than trivial advancement’ is hardly offering an education at all.” Appellant Suppl. Br. at 16 (quoting Doe I , 790 F.3d at 450). Had the school district successfully defended John’s IEP as adequate because it provided only a “trivial advancement” there would be a good deal of traction to Doe’s argument. But that was not how we measured the adequacy of John’s IEP. In Cerra , we explained that “ a school district fulfills its substantive obligations under the IDEA if it provides an IEP that is ‘ likel y to produce progress, not regression, ’ and if the IEP affords the student with an opportunity greater than

mere ‘ trivial advancemen t.’” Cerra , 427 F.3d at 19 5 (quoting Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist. , 142 F.3d 119, 130 (2d Cir. 1998) ). However , we have been
clear that “[t] his Court ’ s decision in Cerra does not stand for the proposition that
the IDEA is satisfied with any progress above the floor of ‘ trivial advancement, ’ and it should not be cited for that proposition. ” Mr. P. v. W. Hartford Bd. of Educ. , 885 F.3d 735, 757 n.12 (2d Cir. 2018) . This is because “ in Cerra the State Review Officer found that the student had made meaningful

— not simply more than trivial30 or de minimis

— progress when she took advantage of the services offered to her, based on her passing grades, progress reports, teacher testimony, and formal
evaluations. ” Id. 15 Indeed, we specifically observed that “[p]rior decisions of this
Court are consisten t with the Supreme Court’s decision in Endrew F. ” Id. at 757

. Endrew does not signal a change in the law of this C ircuit

. T he Law of the Case Doctrine Bars Doe’s Arguments for Reimbursement of Several Expenses Notwithstanding Doe I , Doe continues to argue that she should have been reimbursed for school tuition, extended school year services, assistive technology , and other uncovered services that she p aid for during this litigation. As for tuition, Doe expressly disclaimed “ any stay

- put right to [school] tuition” i n her prior appeal ( 2d Cir. 14

- 1261, doc. 81 at 25 ), thereby waiv ing any reimbursement claim ,

s ee Williams , 475 F.3d at 475

– 76

.

15 The “trivial advancement” language originates from Walczak , 142 F.3d at 130 , w here we explained that although “IDEA doe s not itself articulate any specific level of educational benefits that must be provided through an IEP,” “the door of public education must be opened for a disabled child in a meaningful way. This is not done if an IEP affords the opportunity for only tr ivial advancement.” Id. at 130 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)

. Importantly, in Walczak , we found the student’s “objective academic achievements [were] uncontradicted and certainly not ‘trivial’ ” and

“ impressive when considered in light of the significant social problems that impeded [the student ’ s] academic progress .

. . .” Id. at 131. Thus, Walczak also did not stand for the proposition that anything above “mere trivial advancement” satisfies the IDEA ’s requirements

.31 Moreover, we determined in Doe I that the stay

- put IEP for the 2008

– 2009 school year required that (1) Doe pay for school tuition at her own expense, and (2) the Board pay for the “related services,” which consisted of a certain amount of speech and language therapy, reading instruction, and physical and occupational therapy. See Doe I , 790 F.3d at 446 ( specifying what the stay

- put IEP required of both parties )

. In awarding compensatory education, we recognized
that the Board fell short of its requirements under the IDEA and determined that, although Doe could not be reimbursed for tuition, the award would “make up for any appreciable difference between the full value of stay

- put services owed and the (reimbursable) services ” Doe provided

. Id. at 456

– 57 (emphasis added). Doe I required the district court to determine the total value of stay

- put services the
Board had failed to provide and to craft a prospective award in that amount. See id. Uncovered expenses , i.e. , any services not included in the stay

- put IEP, were not
to be included in that amount

. Id. at 455

– 57. Doe cannot now bypass that determination by seeking reimbursement from funds set aside for prospective
relief , and any further requests for such relief would be equally frivolous

.32 Accordingly, Doe’s argument for reimburse ment of tuition and uncovered expenses fails. 16 Similarly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the compensatory award should not include John’s high school tuition. The compensatory award is meant to cover “analogous educational services” to those provided in the stay

- put IEP. Id. at 457. While we d id not explicitly define “analogous educational services” in Doe I , we explained that the stay

- put provision was meant to g uarantee the same general educational program. Id. at
457 & n.17 ( citing T.M. , 752 F.3d at 171 )

. This is because the IDEA’s stay

- put provision “guarantees only the same general level and type of services that the disabled child was receiving.” T.M. , 752 F.3d at 171. Here , “analogous” services do not extend to tuition, as that was not a “type” of service John received from the

16 W hile Doe is correct that a stay

- put violation can result in an award regardless of the merits of an accompanying FAPE claim, in Doe I we determined that, because of the stay

put IEP , the Board was not required to pay for uncovered services, and thus, Doe w as not entitled to reimbursement for those services. Doe I , 790 F.3d at 456

– 57 . Moreover, as discussed above, Doe did not seek tuition on her stay

- put claim.33 Board in the 2008

– 2009 IEP

. See Doe I , 790 F.3d at 446. That Doe did not seek tuition as part of her stay

- put claim supports th is determination. 17
Doe offer s no compelling reason to revisit these issues

. Doe argues that reimbursing her for tuition and uncovered services would be more equitable than the compensatory education award . But t he purpose of the stay

- put provision is to maintain the status quo

. S ee Mackey ex rel. Thomas M. v. Bd. of Educ. for Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist. , 386 F.3d 158, 163 (2d Cir. 2004) ; see also Zvi D. v. Ambach , 694 F.2d 904, 906 (2d Cir. 1982) (“Under the [stay

- put provision of the] sta tute, t he inquiry focuses on identifying ‘the then current educational placement,’ and, further, on who should pay for it .” (emphasis added)). T he IDEA does not require school districts to provide “every special service necessary to maximize each handicap ped child ’ s potential

. ” Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley , 458 U.S. 176, 199 (1982) . Here, the relevant IEP only provided for certain
hours of related services. See Doe I , 790 F.3d at 446. To make up for the Board’s

17 Because we find that Doe is not entitled to reimbursement for tuition during the pendency of proceedings, we need not address her claim that tuition reimbursement should not be subtracted from the total value of the compensatory award. See Appellant Suppl. Br. at 26

– 27.34 violation, compensatory education was awarded, which includ ed expenditures for “analogous services” based on John’s evolving needs. 18
Doe also claims that the delays caused by our dismissal of Doe II warrant s reconsideration of the reimbursement issue with respect to extended school year services, assistive technology , and other “uncovered” services. T he order that Doe appealed in Doe II was not “a final, appealable order

. ” Doe II , 747 F. App’x at 31.
What ever time that was lost here was because Doe chose to appeal an order that was clearly not appealable. Thus, w e had no jurisdiction to address the merits at
that time. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291

. Further , regardless of any delay caused by Doe’s premature appeal , the Board was not obligated to reimburse Doe for services she

18 We emphasize that while Doe may believe that her responsibility for Solomo n Schechter tuition was originally contemplated as a temporary, or trial, arrangement, it ultimately became the plan provided for in the parties’ last agreed

- upon IEP. Accordingly, when Doe filed her administrative due process complaint, that arrangement became the status quo and defined the Board’s responsibility during the pendency of the proceedings that followed. That these proceedings have continued for years does not alter the requirements under the IDEA’s stay

- put provision. We understand that whe re there is protracted litigation, it may be challenging to craft an appropriate prospective award due to the student’s evolving needs

— especially where, as here, the stay

- pu t IEP is over a decade old. This is why the compensatory award may cover “analogous educational services” to those provided in the stay

- put IEP.35 chose to provide John beyond those outlined in the stay

- put IEP. See Rowley , 458 U.S. at 199. 19 Next, notwithstanding our determination in Doe I that 20 U.S.C. § 1415 “ is
clear that the Board ’ s obligation to provide stay

- put services was not triggered
until [Doe’s] administrative complaint was filed ,” Doe I , 790 F.3d at 456, Doe again argues that her stay

- put rights were triggered when parties reach an impasse. According to Doe, Doe I held her to a “more stringent statutory interpretation than the one in effect” at the time when the parties reached an impasse. Doe I I

, 2d Cir.
1 7

- 2564 , d oc. 50 , (Appellant Br. ) at 47. N ot true. In Doe I , we noted that the decision relied on by the district court and Doe was nonprecedential and distinguishable. Doe I , 790 F.3d at 455

– 56 (distinguishing A.S. ex rel. P.B.S. v. Bd. of Educ. for Town of W. Hartford , 47 F. App’x 615, 616 n.2 (2d Cir. 2002) (summary order)). Further, the plain language of the stay

- put provision, as well as its implementing regulation, supported our decision. See Doe I , 790 F.3d at 454

– 55

19 Doe would have had earlier access to compensatory education funds had she not moved for a stay of the prospective compensatory award . Among other things, the compensatory award allows Doe to obtain reimbursement for assistive technology. See Doe ex rel. Doe , 262 F. Supp. 3d at 36

– 37.36 (citing 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i), (j) ; 34 C.F.R. § 300.518 ). Doe’s attempt to revive this argument is barred by the law of the case doctrine. See Holder , 564 F.3d at 99. 20 Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, Doe’s challenges to various aspects of Doe I are barred by the law of the case doctrine and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Doe reimbursement for tuition and uncovered
expenses. IV. Other Issues Doe’s Request for Reimbursement for Physical Therapy After the 2017 B ench T rial o n compensatory education, the district court denied Doe reimbursement for physical therapy during the 2013

– 2014 school year
because it found that expense was covered by Doe’s medical insurance

. Doe moved for reconsideration by offering evidence that she p aid for the therapy

. T he district court did not abuse its discretion by denying reimbursement. See Kellogg v. Strack , 269 F.3d 100, 104 (2d Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (reviewing denial of reconsideration for abuse of discretion). Doe does not refute the di strict court’s

20 Doe also asks us to determine, once again, whether Solom on Schechter was an appropriate placement. Like many of Doe’s points in this appeal this is ground previously covered. Doe I , 790 F.3d at 45 2. Doe offers no cogent and compelling reason to reconsider the issue here.37 finding that her evidence

— receipts from the hospital where John received physical therapy

— were available during the original trial

. Doe’s Request for Reimbursement for Her Expert Witness Doe argues that the Board should have paid for her expert witness, Dr. Robert Kemper. F ees for non

- attorney experts, such as Dr. Kemper, are not
recoverable under the IDEA. See Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Murphy , 548 U.S. 291, 297

– 98 (2006) . Doe argues that the Board is obligated to pay for an independent education evaluation and that Dr. Kemper testified at the Board’s request. But Doe did not ask for reimbursement of Dr. Kemper’s fees for testifying
in the district court . Therefore, we will not consider whether the Board should reimburse her for the evaluation or for his testimony. See Virgilio , 407 F.3d at 116. Doe’s Request for Litigation Costs and Attorneys’ Fees Finally, Doe argues that she should be reimbursed for litigation costs while
she appeared pro se and for attorneys’ fees for attorneys she retained earlier in the

case. But the district court did not issue a final order as to Doe’s request for attorneys’ fees until March 17, 2020. S ee Dist. Ct. doc

. 301. Accordingly, Doe d id38 not, as a formal legal matter, appeal from this ruling and we decline to consider
the issue here

. 21

CONCLUSION We have considered all of Doe’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is
VACATED and REMANDED in part with regard to (1) the power of the escrow agent to unilaterally decide wh ether John still requires certain educational
services , and (2) t he requirement that Doe pay for half the maintenance fee on the
escrow account . It is AFFIRMED in all other aspects.

21 Doe also argues that Judge Jacobs s hould recuse himself from deciding this appeal because, according to Doe, he is biased in favor of the Board because he sat on the Doe I appeal. As an initial matter, we denied Doe’s motion for Judge Jacobs’s recusal in 2d Cir. 17

- 2564, which was premised on similar reasons. See 2d Cir. 17

- 2564, docs. 110 (Mot.), 1 1 6 (Order). We also denied Doe’s motion for Judge Jacob s ’s recusal in this appeal. See 2d Cir. 19

- 354, doc s . 40 (Mot.), 4 6 (Order)

. Further, prior adverse rulings are not evidence of bias. See Liteky v. United States , 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (“[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.”). Thus, Doe’s argument for Judge Jacobs’ s re cusal is without merit.