Third Circuit finds District Court’s compensatory education award was not an abuse of discretion.

The parents filed a due process complaint under the IDEA and § 504, alleging the school district denied the student a FAPE during the 2020–21 and 2021–22 school years. The due process hearing officer found for the parents, in part, and the school district, in part, concluding the student received a FAPE for the 2020–21 school year and most of the 2021–22 school year (through mid-April 2022). The hearing officer awarded compensatory education for the end of the 2021–22 school year. 

Both parties appealed the hearing officer’s decision to federal District Court. The parties cross-moved for judgment on the administrative record. The District Court departed from the hearing officer’s conclusions and found the school district denied the student a FAPE for the entirety of the 2020–21 and 2021–22 school years. The student was awarded full days of compensatory education in an amount valued at $128,635.

On further appeal to the Third Circuit, the school district argued that the District Court erred in casting aside the hearing officer’s findings, concluding the student was denied a FAPE for the entirety of the two school years in dispute and awarding full days of compensatory education. The Third Circuit rejected the school district’s arguments entirely. As to the award of compensatory education in particular, the Third Circuit reasoned:

The District Court’s compensatory education award was not an abuse of discretion. The record supports the Court’s conclusion that K.W.’s behavioral challenges pervaded his school days and inhibited meaningful educational progress. The District was on notice for the entire period about these unmet needs: it knew that K.W. needed a PBSP before he started at YALE [an out of district placement], and his mother repeatedly complained about his IEP while he was there.

^{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.}