D.F. v. Ramapo Central School
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
430 F.3d 595 (2005)
- Written by Jody Stuart, JD
Facts
N.F. was diagnosed with severe autism and associated conditions. For the 2002–2003 school year, the Ramapo Central School District (Ramapo) (defendant) developed an individualized education plan (IEP) for N.F. Under the IEP, N.F. was enrolled in Ramapo’s special preschool placement program at Prime Time for Kids (Prime). N.F. received full-day applied-behavior-analysis (ABA) therapy at Prime. The IEP did not provide for N.F. to receive additional ABA therapy at home. N.F.’s parents (plaintiffs) found the lack of at-home therapy unsatisfactory. N.F.’s parents requested a due-process hearing to assess whether the IEP satisfied the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (act) requirement that disabled students receive a free, appropriate public education (FAPE). The hearing officer concluded that at-home ABA therapy was not needed to ensure a FAPE for N.F. and that Ramapo had therefore satisfied its legal obligations. The state review officer (SRO) affirmed the hearing officer’s decision. N.F.’s parents challenged the SRO’s decision in federal district court, and both parties moved for summary judgment. During oral argument, the district court made several inquiries regarding whether N.F. had made meaningful progress at Prime. The district court (1) found significant evidence that N.F. failed to make meaningful progress under the IEP, (2) found that N.F. had consequently been denied a FAPE, and (3) did not consider the issue of whether retrospective evidence of a student’s progress was properly considered in determining the validity of an IEP. The district court granted summary judgment to N.F.’s parents. Ramapo appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Calabresi, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.