Source: https://marshalldennehey.com/articles/idea-statute-limitations-finally-explained
Timestamp: 2020-07-10 22:16:16
Document Index: 179170031

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1415', '§1415', '§1415', '§1415', '§1415', '§1415']

The IDEA Statute of Limitations (Finally!) Explained | Marshall Dennehey
By Christopher J. Conrad, Esq.*
Congress sought to remedy this concern in its 2004 reauthorization of the IDEA by adding a statute of limitations, now found at 20 U.S.C. §1415(f)(3)(C), which, in pertinent part, states: “A parent or agency shall request an impartial due process hearing within two years of the date the parent or agency knew or should have known about the alleged action that forms the basis of the complaint…” Thus, under the IDEA, parents generally must file their due process complaint within two years of the date they “knew or should have known” of the alleged violation (often referred to as the KOSHK date), except in limited circumstances when certain equitable tolling provisions built into the statute apply, or unless the governing state has an explicit time limitation for requesting a hearing, in which case state law governs.
While §1415(f)(3)(C) seems fairly straightforward on its face, as the language reads like a typical two-year statute of limitations found elsewhere under federal and state law, the intent of this limitations provision was muddied by another amendment appearing elsewhere in the IDEA as a result of the 2004 reauthorization. Section 1415(b), entitled “types of procedures,” lists and briefly describes the procedures for commencing and conducting a due process hearing under the IDEA. Section 1415(b)(6)(B), as amended in 2004, states that the procedures discussed generally in §1415(b) afford “[a]n opportunity for any party to present a complaint… which sets forth an alleged violation that occurred not more than two years before the date the parent or public agency knew or should have know about the alleged action that forms the basis of the complaint…”
The Third Circuit in G.L. v. Ligonier Valley, carefully considered each of these competing viewpoints and found that the limitations provision warranted further scrutiny, finding that the language of §1415(b)(6)(B) was not plain but, rather, ambiguous, and that “[t]he clearest way to demonstrate the ambiguity it has created in the statute… is through the diametrically opposed interpretations…” that have been adopted by different courts in the Circuit and, by extension, the varying interests of the special education bar. In reviewing the legislative history behind Congress’s drafting of the 2004 reauthorization, the court reasoned that the inconsistent language in §1415(b)(6)(B) and §1415(f)(3)(C) reflected nothing more than a drafting error in the reauthorization process and that Congress actually intended the statute of limitations appearing in both sections to be one and the same. Thus, the court concluded that the two-year statute of limitations appearing in both sections, when read together, “functions in a traditional way, that is, as a filing deadline that runs from the date of reasonable discovery and not as a cap on a child’s remedy for timely-filed claims that happen to date back more than two years before the complaint is filed.” In so reasoning, the court held:
*Chris is a shareholder in our Harrisburg, Pennsylvania office who can be reached at 717.651.3531 or cjconrad@mdwcg.com.