DOWNINGTOWN AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT v. D.S

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
DecidedFebruary 22, 2022
Docket2:20-cv-00892
StatusUnknown

This text of DOWNINGTOWN AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT v. D.S (DOWNINGTOWN AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT v. D.S) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
DOWNINGTOWN AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT v. D.S, (E.D. Pa. 2022).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DOWNINGTOWN AREA SCHOOL : CIVIL ACTION DISTRICT : Plaintiff/Counterclaim : NO. 20-0892 Defendant : : v. : : D.S., by and through parents, C.S. : and C.S. : Defendants/Counterclaim : Plaintiffs

NITZA I. QUIÑONES ALEJANDRO, J. FEBRUARY 18, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION INTRODUCTION On May 16, 2019, C.S. and C.S. (“Parents”), the parents of minor child D.S., filed a due process complaint with the Office for Dispute Resolution1 pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”), 29 U.S.C. § 794, the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12213, and the regulations implementing these statutes, in which they averred that the development and implementation of the Individualized Education Programs (“IEPs”),2 designed for D.S. by the Downingtown Area School District (the “Downingtown School District”), failed to provide D.S. with a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”). As a result of this alleged failure, Parents sought an award for compensatory education for the time D.S. was enrolled at the

1 The Office for Dispute Resolution is the special education resolution system in Pennsylvania.

2 An IEP is an individualized education program or comprehensive plan prepared by a child’s IEP team, which includes teachers, school officials, and the child’s parents. See 20 U.S.C § 1414(d)(1)(B). Downingtown School District and reimbursement for D.S.’s private school tuition and related expenses. In their due process complaint, Parents further alleged, inter alia, that the IEPs denied D.S. a FAPE during the 2016–17 (fourth grade), 2017–18 (fifth grade), and 2018–19 (sixth grade)

school years. As a remedy, Parents sought (1) an award of compensatory education from the beginning of fourth grade through the first eleven weeks of the sixth-grade school year and (2) reimbursement for private school tuition and related expenses for the remainder of the sixth-grade school year. In response to the due process complaint, the Downingtown School District maintained that its special education program, as offered and implemented, was appropriate and, therefore, Parents were due no remedy. The Downingtown School District also moved to limit Parents’ claims pursuant to the IDEA’s two-year statute of limitations, which is also applicable to Parents’ Section 504 and ADA claims. On August 16, 2019, following an initial administrative evidentiary hearing addressing solely the statute of limitations argument, the Hearing Officer (“HO”) presiding over the due

process complaint issued a Final Interim Ruling, granting the motion and limiting Parents’ claims to the two-year period predating the filing of the due process complaint, i.e., claims arising on or after May 16, 2017. Following additional administrative hearings on Plaintiffs’ remaining claims, the HO issued a Final Decision and Order on November 27, 2019, denying Parents’ claims corresponding from May 16, 2017, through the 2017–18 school year, and finding that the Downingtown School District did not provide D.S. a FAPE from mid-November 2018 through the remainder of the 2018–19 school year and during the entire 2019–20 school year. The HO denied Parents’ claims for compensatory education, and granted Parents’ claims for tuition reimbursement and related expenses for the 2018–19 and 2019–20 school years. The Downingtown School District appealed the HO’s decision before this Court, seeking reversal of the Final Decision and Order insofar as it granted Parents tuition reimbursement for the

2018–19 and 2019–20 school years. [ECF 1]. Parents filed an answer with counterclaims, in which they sought reversal of (1) the HO’s Final Interim Ruling barring Parents’ claims prior to May 16, 2017, and (2) the HO’s Final Decision and Order insofar as it denied Parents compensatory education for the 2016–17 and 2017–18 school years and the first eleven weeks of the 2018–19 school year. [ECF 6]. Before this Court are the parties’ cross-motions for judgment on the original and supplemented administrative records. [ECF 17, 18].3 The issues in the cross-motions have been fully briefed and are ripe for disposition. For the reasons set forth herein, judgment is entered (1) in favor of the Downingtown School District with respect to Parents’ claims premised on the 2016– 17 and 2017–18 school years and (2) in favor of Parents with respect to their claims premised on

the 2018–19 and 2019–20 school years. Accordingly, this matter is remanded to the HO for calculation of the amount of compensatory education due to Parents for the portion of the 2018– 19 school year D.S. was enrolled in the Downingtown School District. BACKGROUND The facts relevant to the parties’ cross-motions are summarized as follows:

The Downingtown Area School District is a Pennsylvania public school district and a local educational agency (“LEA”) under the IDEA with offices in Chester County, Pennsylvania. Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs are D.S., a minor student, and C.S. and C.S., the minor’s parents, all of whom reside within the Downingtown School District’s boundaries.

3 This Court has also considered the Downingtown School District’s response, [ECF 19], Parents’ response, [ECF 20], Parents’ reply, [ECF 21], and the Downingtown School District’s reply, [ECF 22]. According to the HO’s findings of fact, D.S. attended a private parochial school through the end of second grade—the 2014–15 school year. Due to concerns with D.S.’s reading and writing skills, in the spring of 2015, the Coatesville Area School District, where D.S. then resided, evaluated D.S.’s abilities using the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth Edition (WISC-IV). In May 2015, the Coatesville Area School District issued an evaluation report. The school psychologist interpreting the results reported that D.S.’s full-scale IQ was 104, falling within the average range of 90–109. Despite D.S.’s average intelligence and good work ethic, D.S. experienced academic difficulties because of challenges in working memory and a Specific Learning Disability with Impairment in Reading, or phonological dyslexia. The report also indicated that D.S. was in the 3rd percentile in total reading, 4th percentile in basic reading, and 3rd percentile in reading comprehension and fluency. The report further noted that D.S. showed “characteristics of a specific learning disability in basic reading skills, reading comprehension, reading fluency, and written expression.” (Administrative Record (“A.R.”), Doc. 9, at p. 430). Based on these characteristics, D.S. was diagnosed with a Specific Learning Disability pertaining to basic reading, reading comprehension, reading fluency, and written expression and, thus, was deemed eligible for special education. The programming recommendations included frequent progress monitoring and daily, small-group, direct instruction to improve sight word reading. Thereafter, the Coatesville Area School District developed an IEP for the start of D.S.’s third-grade school year.

In the summer of 2015, prior to D.S. beginning third grade, Parents relocated their family to the Downingtown School District and enrolled D.S. in its public schools.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

DS EX REL. DS v. Bayonne Bd. of Educ.
602 F.3d 553 (Third Circuit, 2010)
Houston Independent School District v. Bobby R.
200 F.3d 341 (Fifth Circuit, 2000)
C.H. v. Cape Henlopen School District
606 F.3d 59 (Third Circuit, 2010)
Reid Ex Rel. Reid v. District of Columbia
401 F.3d 516 (D.C. Circuit, 2005)
J.E. Ex Rel. J.E. v. Boyertown Area School District
452 F. App'x 172 (Third Circuit, 2011)
Ridley School District v. M.R.
680 F.3d 260 (Third Circuit, 2012)
D.K. Ex Rel. Stephen K. v. Abington School District
696 F.3d 233 (Third Circuit, 2012)
Mary Courtney T. v. School District of Philadelphia
575 F.3d 235 (Third Circuit, 2009)
Lower Merion School District v. Doe
878 A.2d 925 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2005)
Derrick F. v. Red Lion Area School District
586 F. Supp. 2d 282 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 2008)
Schaffer Ex Rel. Schaffer v. Weast
546 U.S. 49 (Supreme Court, 2005)
Swope v. Central York School District
796 F. Supp. 2d 592 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
DOWNINGTOWN AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT v. D.S, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/downingtown-area-school-district-v-ds-paed-2022.