Notable Cases

Notable Cases

Cool Timeline

2017
January 10

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.
2016
January 20

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.
2014
July 8

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
April 2

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.
March 4

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.
January 27

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.
2013
August 19

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.
2012
September 20

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
2009
June 22

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.
2008
October 30

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
2004
December 16

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.
August 11

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.
1999
May 14

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.

Sign Up For our Newsletter

Select list(s) to subscribe to


By submitting this form, you are consenting to receive marketing emails from: Mayerson & Associates, 330 West 38th Street, New York, NY, 10018. You can revoke your consent to receive emails at any time by using the SafeUnsubscribe® link, found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Constant Contact
330 W 38TH ST, SUITE 600 NEW YORK, NY 10018

© 2020 Mayerson & Associates - Attorney Advertising