Third Circuit affirmed lower court, concluding school district’s re-evaluation was appropriate, its diagnosis of autism was supported, and school district’s proposed IEP was an offer of a FAPE.

The school district re-evaluated the student during the 2021–22 school year and concluded the student was eligible to receive IDEA services based upon a primary disability category of autism. The student was also identified as gifted. The school district proposed an IEP that included, among other things, social skills every other day in an autistic support classroom. The parents rejected the proposed IEP, arguing, in part, that the school district incorrectly identified the student with autism. The parents also notified the school district that they intended to place the student in a private parochial school at public expense.

The parents filed a due process complaint under the IDEA and § 504, alleging the school district denied the student a FAPE, and they sought tuition reimbursement for the private school placement. The due process hearing officer found the school district made an offer of a FAPE and denied the parents’ request for tuition reimbursement. The parents appealed to federal District Court, which affirmed the hearing officer’s decision. The District Court, in part, reasoned that the school district’s diagnosis of the student with autism was “multifactorial” and consistent with the record evidence.

The parents appealed again to the Third Circuit, which affirmed, concluding the school district’s re-evaluation was appropriate, that its diagnosis of the student with autism was supported, and that the school district’s proposed IEP was an offer of a FAPE:

The District Court did not legally or factually err when it concluded that Ruari has autism because his evaluation was based on multiple assessments that were technically sound and indicated that he exhibits characteristics of autism. Moreover, even if we thought there was a basis for saying that the diagnosis of autism was not adequately supported by the record, we would still affirm the conclusion that Ruari was offered a FAPE. The Family contends that the IEP did not provide him with an education in the least restrictive environment by requiring that he spend ninety minutes every other day in the autistic support classroom. Because “the proposed IEP would have provided Ruari with a meaningful educational benefit,” the Family’s claim fails.

^{Legal Update for Special Education Law – September 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.}