Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE 1
137 S.Ct. 988 (2017)(served as amicus counsel) – The Supreme Court articulated a more robust FAPE standard requiring that students be provided with “challenging objectives” that are “appropriately ambitious” commensurate with their unique needs.
T.K. v. New York City Department of Education
810 F.3d 869 (2d Cir. 2016). In this landmark decision, the court held that the school district failed to provide a student with a free appropriate public education (FAPE) when it failed to address the bullying of a student with a disability.
Ermini v. Vittori
758 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2014) (served as amicus counsel) – In this case involving an international custody dispute brought under the Hague Convention, the Second Circuit held that, despite a father’s wishes, his son with “severe” autism would remain in the United States with his mother and brother so that he might continue to..Read More
T.M. v. Cornwall Central School District
752 F.3d 145 (2d Cir. 2014) – The court held that Congress’ “least restrictive environment” mandate applies to Extended School Year (ESY) placements and school districts must consider the “full continuum” of placements.
C.F. v. New York City Department of Education
746 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2014) – The court held that the school district’s failure to offer student 1:1 instruction, parent training and an appropriate behavior plan deprived the student’s right to a FAPE.
C.L. v. New York City Department of Education
2014 WL 278405 (2d Cir. 2014) (served as amicus counsel) – The Second Circuit held that the school district failed to meet its burden to show how a 6:1:1 placement would be able to provide educational benefits to a student who required 1:1 instruction to learn.
P.K. v. New York City Department of Education
2013 WL 2158587 (2d Cir. 2013) – The court held that the IEP at issue in the case was substantively inadequate because it failed to provide sufficient 1:1 instruction to the student, despite clear evidence in the record demonstrating the student’s need for 1:1 instruction.
R.E. v. New York City Department of Education
694 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2012) – The court held that a school district may only offer testimony that explains or justifies what is already written in the IEP – it may not “rehabilitate” or amend an IEP after the fact through testimony regarding services that do not appear in the IEP. In other words,..Read More
Forest Grove School District v. T.A.
129 S. Ct. 2484 (2009) (served as amicus counsel) – The Court held that parents are not obligated to first “try out” a school district’s proposed placement to have standing to seek reimbursement relief.
Student X v. N.Y. City Dept. of Educ.
2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 88163 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) – The court held that a student’s pendency entitlements continue during an appeal at the district court level. The local educational agency (“LEA”) failed and refused to honor and implement the student’s pendency entitlements for ABA service hours and other interventions, and the District Court awarded the student..Read More
Deal v. Hamilton County Board of Education
392 F.3d 840 (6th Cir. 2004) – The court, approving funding for the student’s ABA program, held the child was denied a FAPE where the school district impermissibly “predetermined” the child’s educational program and failed to meaningfully include the child’s parents at the IEP meetings.
L.B. v. Nebo School District
379 F.3d 966 (10th Cir. 2004) – The Tenth Circuit held that the child’s school district had failed to educate the child in the child’s “least restrictive environment” and was liable to reimburse the child’s parents for ABA and other privately secured services.
T.H. v. Board of Educ. of Palatine
55 F.Supp.2d 830 (D. Ill. 1999) – T.H. is an early reimbursement case involving autism and tuition reimbursement for ABA services. Significantly, a sizeable portion of this court’s compensatory relief was for the student’s ABA services.