Legal Document

471 U.S. 359 105 S.Ct. 1996 85 L.Ed.2d 385 SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF the TOWN BURLINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS, et al., Petitionersv.DEPARTMENT EDUCATION Commonwealth of MASSACHUSETTS al. No. 84-433. Argued March 26, 1985. Decided April 29, Syllabus The Education Handicapped Act requires participating state and local educational agencies to assure that handicapped children their parents are guaranteed procedural safeguards with respect provision free appropriate public education for such children. These procedures include parents' right participate in development an "individualized program" (IEP) child challenge administrative court proceedings a proposed IEP which they disagree. With judicial review, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2) authorizes reviewing "grant relief as determines is appropriate." Section 1415(e)(3) provides during pendency any review proceedings, unless or agency otherwise agree, "the shall remain then current placement child." Respondent father rejected petitioner town's 1979-1980 school year calling certain school, sought by respondent Massachusetts Department Education's Bureau Special Appeals (BSEA). Meanwhile, father, at his own expense, enrolled state-approved private special education. BSEA thereafter decided was inappropriate better suited child's needs, ordered town pay expenses year. Federal District Court. Ultimately, after meantime had agreed private-school 1980-1981 but refused reimburse BSEA, overturned BSEA's decision, holding one not responsible costs through 1981-1982 years. Court Appeals, remanding, held father's unilateral change would be bar reimbursement if were appropriate. Held: 1. grant authority under includes power order authorities expenditures on ultimately placement, rather than IEP, proper Act. ordinary meaning language directing [it] appropriate" confers broad discretion court. To deny mean education, fully developing all less complete. Pp. 369-371 2. A parental violation changing "then placement" challenged does constitute waiver placement. Otherwise, forced leave what may turn out obtain only sacrificing claim reimbursement. But courts determine appropriate, barred from obtaining interim period violated 1415(e)(3). 371-374. 736 F.2d 773 (CA1 1984), affirmed. David Berman, Medford, Mass., petitioners. Ellen L. Janos, Boston, State respondent. W. Rosenberg, Panico. Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion 1 (Act), 84 Stat. 175, amended, 1401 seq., "to guardians education" 1415(a). §§ 1401(19), 1415(b), (d), (e). Where present case contested takes years run its course—years critical important practical questions arise concerning financial responsibility This us address some those questions. 2 Michael Panico, son Robert first grader system Town Burlington, when he began experiencing serious difficulties school. It later became evident "specific learning disabilities" thus "handicapped" within Act, 1401(1). entitled him receive expense specially designed instruction meet unique well related transportation. 1401(16), 1401(17). negotiations other between Panicos, far spanning more eight years, too involved relate full detail; following parts relevant issues we granted certiorari. 3 In spring 1979, attended third grade Memorial School, individual tutoring reading specialist hour day group counselling. Michael's continued poor performance fact School equipped handle needs led much discussion officials about future schooling. Apparently course these discussions did smoothly; upshot Panicos generally above average superior intelligence, Memorial. They disagreed over source exact nature difficulties, believing emotional it neurological. 4 late June, presented academic called placing highly structured class six social located another Pine Glen School. On July 3, 1415(b)(2) hearing initially scheduled August 8, apparently postponed favor mediation session 17. efforts proved unsuccessful. 5 Meanwhile received results latest expert evaluation specialists General Hospital, who opined "emotional secondary severe disorder characterized perceptual difficulties" recommended "a specialized setting handicaps . Carroll School," Lincoln, Mass.App. 31. Believing Town's light Mr. Panico mid-August started there September. 6 several hearings fall January 1980 officer least restrictive adequate program record" needs. tuition transportation year, including reimbursing items date. 7 State's decision United States pursuant parallel statute, naming defendants. November 1980, summary judgment against state-law "substantial evidence" standard entering final this Rule Civil Procedure 54(b). also set federal trial. vacated claim, statute pre-empted 1415(e)(2), establishes "preponderance permits hear additional evidence. 655 428, 431-432 1981). 8 meantime, comply order, denied stay moved preliminary injunctive relief. threatened outside freeze assistance complied order. response threat, February 1981 term, none yet been paid, continue paying until decided. persisted refusing When disposed status quo parties could show irreparable injury injunction. reasoned shown able repay borne lost merits, irreparably harmed reimbursed immediately past payments might determined responsibility. 9 remand, entered extensive pretrial claim. denying judgment, ruled despite insistence proceedings. concerned physical IEP. dealt problem no developed "appropriate" upon included subsequent lack IEPs connection, however, interpreted place burden proof upset terms 10 After 4-day trial, 1982 failed have Accordingly, concluded "not cost 1979-80 1981-82." 11 contesting form embodying court's conclusion, argued that, finally losing merits 1982, should 1979-1980, finish recently completed required date, because question fell contemplated 1415(e)(2). transferred Judge consolidated two cases resolve similar 12 cases, Panico's argument "current obligated maintain Doe v. Anrig, 561 F.Supp. 121 (1983). Panicos' action without consent "confer thereon imprimatur placement," id., 129, n. 5, even though strictly speaking actual effect summer 1979 finished itself transfer new fall. 13 next argument, grounded part regulation, rely upholding contrary regardless whether reversed made threat cut off funding, criticized resorting extrajudicial pressure enforce subject further review. Because "was where legally obliged section preserving quo," coercion viewed basis liability," "regarded wrongful assumption returned reversed." Id., 130. ordering 1981-1982. appealed. 14 opinion, most do First Circuit remanded second time. (1984). ruled, among things, erred conducting trial de novo, gave insufficient weight findings, respects properly evaluate considered availability bars relief, remand prevail actions judgment." 799. dictum suggested, consultation "attempt achieve negotiated compromise agreement "may taken into account district computation award equitable reimbursement." Ibid. guide stated "whether reimbursement, amount, balancing equities." 801. reliance estop "for paid bill period, must reimbursed." 15 filed petition writ certiorari challenging numerous issues, scope relevance violations Act's requirements. We certiorari, 469 1071, 562, 83 504 (1984), consider issues: potential available expenses, reject authorities. express many views Appeals. 16 Congress purpose words: 17 them emphasizes services [and] rights protected." 1400(c). 18 defines "free 19 "special (A) provided supervision direction, charge, (B) standards agency, (C) preschool, elementary, involved, (D) conformity [an] individualized program." 1401(18). accomplish ambitious objective, money undertake implement substantive requirements See Hendrick Hudson Bd. Rowley, 458 176, 179-184, 102 3034, 3037-3039, 73 690 (1982). 21 modus operandi already mentioned brief comprehensive statement employed 1401(19). jointly official qualified teacher, guardian, and, child. places, participation assessing effectiveness. 1400(c), 1412(7), 1415(b)(1)(A), (C), (D), (E), 1415(b)(2); 34 CFR 300.345 22 recognizing cooperative approach always produce consensus parents, disputes natural advantage, incorporated elaborate labeled "procedural safeguards" insure resolution disagreements. 1415(b) entitles examine records identification, evaluation, child," independent child, notice initiate complaints above. "an impartial due process hearing," instant hearing, complaints. 23 "[a]ny party aggrieved findings decision" hearing. authority: 24 "[T]he evidence request party, basing preponderance evidence, 25 decide 26 conclude directs words type specified, except "appropriate." Absent reference, possible interpretation As noted, principally provide needs." contemplates will regular schools, same activities nonhandicapped children, schools possible. 1412(5); 300.132, 300.227, 300.307(b), 300.347 desired inappropriate, seems clear beyond cavil prospective injunction develop 27 If matter weeks, difficult imagine sufficient. so vividly demonstrates, ponderous. instances come term covered has passed. disagree faced choice: go along detriment turns choose latter course, conscientious means reasonably confident assessment normally would, empty victory tell officials. case, undoubtedly intend result, empowering meant retroactive remedy case. 28 Court, repeatedly characterizes "damages," simply Reimbursement merely belatedly instance Such post hoc determination legislative history: 29 "If parent contends she forced, parent's seek schooling exist disagrees, disagreement remains financially established [the predecessor 1415] appl[y]." S.Rep. 94-168, p. 32 (1975), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1975, pp. 1425, 1456 (emphasis added). 30 300.403(b) (1984) (disagreements procedures). 31 Regardless maintains waived 1415(e)(3), provides: "During conducted [§ 1415], guardian ." 33 need both For purposes our assume therefore, "change" motion. doing, contravened conditional command placement." initial matter, note calls either agency. seem issued longer entirely dispute seeking prior concurrence 35 agree constitutes says nothing responsibility, waiver, conclusion Moreover, principal defeated way never available. often while program. adequacy school's unlikely runs course. Thus, intended give one; defeat objectives. 36 history supports interpretation, favoring pending disagreements IEP: 37 "The conferees cognizant completely protected. feel, unnecessarily delayed long tedious appeals being exhausted. Thus conference adopted flexible try State." Cong.Rec. 37412 (1975) (Sen. Stafford). 38 think prevent removing classroom objection completion observed U.S., 192, S.Ct., 3043, impetus came federal-court decisions, Pennsylvania Assn. Retarded Children Commonwealth, 334 1257 (ED Pa.1971), 343 279 (1972), Mills Board Columbia, 348 866 (DC 1972), arose exclusion expulsion schools. widespread practice relegating institutions warehousing classes. 1400(b)(4); 300.347(a) detailing largely benefit 39 say parents. While doubt authorize particular operates unilaterally officials, risk. supported agency's application placements parents: 40 "(a) facility, facility. 41 "(b) Disagreements regarding 1415]." 300.403 42 certiorari; here interlocutory posture, estoppel ruling below specific factors identified granting correct concluding "such appropriate," considerations fashioning 43 Affirmed.

Classification Label: 1