Source: https://www.copaa.org/general/custom.asp?page=Amicus&DGPCrSrt=&DGPCrPg=2
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 16:13:46+00:00

Document:
COPAA, along with AARP, AARP FOUNDATION, NATIONAL FEDERATION FOR THE BLIND, NATIONAL DISABILITY RIGHTS NETWORK, THE JUDGE DAVID L. BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW, NATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM, UNIVERSITY LEGAL SERVICES, AND THE LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVILRIGHTS UNDER THE LAW filed an amicus brief on December 8, 2016 in D.L. v. District of Columbia, et. al.
AARP Foundation Litigation filed the brief on behalf of amici. Selene Almazan drafted and edited the brief on behalf of COPAA. Margaret Kohn, COPAA member, began the litigation, and continues to represent the Plaintiffs along with BRUCE J. TERRIS, CAROLYN SMITH PRAVLIK, TODD A. GLUCKMAN, PATRICK A. SHELDON, Terris, Pravlik & Millian, LLP.
Supreme Court asked to decide: “What is the level of educational benefit that school districts must confer on children with disabilities to provide them with a free and appropriate public education guaranteed by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. COPAA files brief with CHADD and CAPCA asserting the following standard: A child “benefits from” instruction when the services target all areas of educational need in order to ensure achievement consistent with non-disabled peers in the general education curriculum so as to enable students to be prepared for post-school activities.
COPAA and the Advocates for Children of New York (AFC) filed an amicus brief on August 29, 2016 in support of Stacy Fry, Brent Fry and the minor child E.F. At issue is the refusal of Napoleon Community Schools to allow E.F. to bring her service dog to school, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504). The reason given to the family was that the provision of E.F.’s one on one assistant satisfied its obligations to E.F. under a completely different statute: IDEA. When E.F. and her family brought suit under the ADA and Section 504, the Sixth Circuit ruled that the family should first have sought relief under the IDEA and exhausted administrative remedies through the IDEA. IDEA is a very different statute from ADA and Section 504.
COPAA filed an Amicus brief in the 8th Circuit in the case I.Z.M. by and through his parents and natural guardians, T.M. and L.M. v. ROSEMOUNT-APPLE VALLEY-EAGAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 196; ROSEMOUNT-APPLE VALLEY-EAGAN SCHOOL BOARD. COPAA members Amy Goetz and Andrea Jepsen represent the family. Catherine Merino Reisman, Alexis Casillas , Selene Almazan and Judith Gran drafted the brief. Judith Gran, a member of the 8th circuit, filed the brief on behalf of COPAA. I.Z.M. is blind and cannot use printed educational material and must rely on accessible instructional material and assistive technology in order to access the high school curriculum. Having lost below at the administrative proceedings under IDEA, the family filed an original complaint in US District Court challenging the administrative decision and raising de novo claims under Section 504 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district court, based upon a mischaracterization of I.Z.M.
COPAA filed an Amicus brief in support of the parents, Plaintiffs-Appellees in the case of N.P. v. Maxwell. The parents are represented by Michael J. Eig and Paula Rosenstock of Michael J. Eig and Associates. The parents lost at the Administrative due process hearing, but then prevailed at the District Court level where US Judge F. Motz determined that the compelling evidence presented by the parents mandated placement at the private program designed to address NP’s unique needs as a student who is twice exceptional. Indeed, the ALJ’s decision is neither well-reasoned nor based on the record on this issue. The parent came forward with compelling evidence that N.P.’s progress in reading, writing and math was less than trivial, demonstrating that N.P. actually lost skills during the years in question.
The Second Circuit issued a decision in the case L.O ex rel. K.T. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ. and REVERSED and REMANDED the case for further proceedings. The family was represented by the Cuddy Law Firm, COPAA filed an amicus brief written by Andrew Feinstein and Selene Almazan. Andrew Feinstein filed the brief on behalf of COPAA and argued the amicus position in support of the parent (Appellant) on March 10, 2016. Phillip Abramowitz argued the case on behalf of the parent, L.O.. The parent lost at the hearing level (IHO) and the state review level (SRO). The District Court affirmed the order of the state reviewing officer. The parent appealed to the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit determined that the three IEPS developed by NYC violated the IDEA and deprived him K.T. (the student), of FAPE.
On April 18, 2016 COPAA filed an amicus brief in support of the Appellant-Plaintiff in the 2nd Circuit case: A.M., individually and on behalf of E.H., a child with a disability v. New York City Department of Education. COPAA member, Jason Sterne of the Cuddy Law Firm, represents the parent. Selene Almazan and Andrew Feinstein drafted the brief for COPAA, Andrew Feinstein, a member of the 2nd Circuit, filed the brief on COPAA’s behalf. Alexis Casillas assisted in the drafting.
COPAA filed an amicus brief in the case: JD v. NYDOE in the 2nd Circuit on April 6, 2016. COPAA member Caroline Heller represents the appellants-parents. The brief was written by attorneys from Morrison & Foerster, New York Office. Attorneys Carl Loewnson, Jr., Michael B. Miller and Srarah L. Prutzman wrote the brief for COPAA. Catherine Merino Reisman, Alexis Casillas and Selene Almazan participated in the editing.
The brief focuses on the deference due to hearing officer decisions. The amount of deference that the district court must give to the administrative decisions of the SRO and IHO varies depending on the “persuasiveness” of those decisions. M.H. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 685 F.3d 217, 244 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting Lenn v. Portland Sch. Comm., 99 F.2d 1083, 1086-87 (1st Cir. 1993)). Decisions that are “grounded in thorough and logical reasoning should be provided more deference than decisions that are not.” Id.
COPAA and Children's Law Center (CLC) filed an amicus brief on July 13, 2015 in the case: BD v. DC. COPAA member Diana Savit is the attorney for the parents. The Appellants' brief is here. The amicus brief offered guidance to the Court on the appropriate mechanism or procedure to enforce a favorable hearing officer decision (HOD) that parents received at the lower level.
Amici support the protection of all procedural and substantive rights afforded parents under the IDEA. The amici urge the court to follow the plain language of the IDEA in overturning the lower court’s finding that it had no jurisdiction to enforce a favorable and final HOD. Exhausting the detailed due process procedures set forth in the plain language of the IDEA is complex, costly and time-consuming for families of children with disabilities.

References: v. 
 § 1400
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.