Court Opinion

ID: 9490130
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 13:33:52.057601+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:53:55.049653
License: Public Domain

SCIRICA, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
Both the administrative law judge and the district court found that one-on-one assistance was “educationally necessary” for D.R.’s development. Although the ALJ found D.R.’s personal circumstances had not changed, the district court reversed, holding the settlement could not satisfy IDEA.
Whether or not the change in Benedictine’s funding policy should constitute a “change in circumstances” necessitating revision of the original agreement, Benedictine’s refusal to afford the same personal care for the same tuition charge meant D.R. no longer could receive the requisite amount of care contemplated under the settlement agreement.
The district court held that IDEA creates certain rights to educational assistance that cannot be waived by the guardians of a handicapped child and certain duties that cannot be bargained away by school boards.1 I agree and I would affirm the judgment of the district court.

. A settlement agreement that violates a federal public policy or federal statute may be invalidated. Miller Tabak Hirsch & Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 101 F.3d 7, 10 (2d Cir.1996). Because the state of New Jersey receives IDEA federal grant funds it must provide its handicapped citizens with the requisite educational assistance under the Act. See Bd. of Ed. of East Windsor Regional Sch. Dist. v. Diamond, 808 F.2d 987, 991 (3d Cir.1986); Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Astra USA, Inc., 94 F.3d 738, 744-45 (1st Cir. 1996).