|
 COPAA is a leader in shaping the body of case law protecting and enforcing the rights of students with disabilities and their families.
Our Amicus Committee provides technical assistance to members and files briefs in cases of national significance. The issues for amicus are issues affecting all children with disabilities and topics of the briefs are varied. Recent topics include the requirement to identify and evaluate all children in all areas of suspected disability; to the constitutional protections and right to be free from physical restraints in schools; and, the three separate and distinct rights and protections offered to all students with disabilities in schools under the IDEA, Section 504 and the ADA.
In the past two years COPAA filed 25 amicus briefs; two in the United States Supreme Court and the rest in the courts of appeals. 80% of those cases in which COPAA filed an amicus brief were decided in favor of the parents. COPAA welcomes requests for Amicus Briefs for cases that:
1) present an issue(s) consistent with our mission statement
2) have a precedent setting value, and
3) affect the educational welfare of students with disabilities.
Click here for instructions on how to submit request for Amicus or Technical Assistance.
This collection included Amicus Briefs written by or for the COPAA Amicus Committee. Also includes ruling, opinions, and Briefs that COPAA signed onto authored by other organizations.
|
LeJeune G., v. Pennsylvania (3rd Cir., 2019)
PDF (373.02 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
2/4/2019
|
|
COPAA and Education Law Center (ELC) filed an amicus brief in the Third Circuit case: LeJeune G., v. Pennsylvania Department of Education, et. al. Catherine Merino Reisman wrote and filed the brief for COPAA, Selene Almazan, Ellen Saideman and Jessica Salonus assisted with the editing. David Berney and Kevin Golembiewski, COPAA members represent the family in this matter. They appealed the District Court decision. IDEA places ultimate responsibility for ensuring that students get FAPE on the states, which are responsible for having in effect policies and procedures that make FAPE available to all children with disabilities between the ages of 3 and 21. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1). States are responsible for general supervision of educational programs in the state. 20 U.S.C. § 1411. States may provide for charter schools to be free-standing Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) or for charter schools to be operated by Local Educational Agencies. See 20 U.S.C. § 1401(19)
|
|
A.L. v. Clovis USD (9th Cir, 2018)
PDF (444.73 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
1/14/2019
|
|
COPAA filed a brief on December 21, 2018 in the Ninth Circuit in A.L. v. Clovis Unified School District. Catherine Merino Reisman and Selene Almazan drafted and filed the brief for COPAA. Barbara Ransom, COPAA member, represents the family. IDEA is a very different statute from ADA and Section 504. Reading the Handicapped Children’s Protection Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-372 (HCPA), now codified at 20 U.S.C. § 1415(l), to require exhaustion in all discrimination cases that deal with students or educational environments confuses and conflates the entirely different processes, standards, and purposes of these acts. Such a reading is inappropriate and erroneous.
|
|
Spring Branch ISD v. OW (5th Cir, 2018)
PDF (431.26 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
1/7/2019
|
|
COPAA filed an amicus brief on December 17, 2018 in the case of Spring Branch Independent School District v. OW. Selene Almazan and Jessica Salonus drafted and filed the brief on behalf of COPAA. Sonja Kerr and Dorene Philpot, longtime COPAA members, represent the family. Disability Rights Texas filed a brief in support of the family as well. The IDEA mandates that courts make independent determinations as to whether a school district has complied with IDEA based upon the evidence in the record. While the district court’s role is to provide an “independent review of the administrative record and make a determination based upon the preponderance of the evidence,” the district court must also “give due weight to state administrative proceedings, mindful that the judiciary generally lacks the specialized knowledge and experience necessary to resolve persistent and difficult questions of educational policy.”
|
|
Spring Branch ISD v. OW -Appellant's Brief
PDF (614.65 KB)
|
Administration
|
1/7/2019
|
|
Disability Rights Texas’s Brief in Spring Branch
PDF (105.88 KB)
|
Administration
|
1/7/2019
|
|
C. D. v. Natick PSD & MA Bureau (1st Cir, 2018)
PDF (543.42 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
1/7/2019
|
|
COPAA filed an amicus brief in the 1st Circuit last month in C. D. v. Natick Public School District and Massachusetts Bureau of Special Education Appeals. Selene Almazan and Ellen Saideman drafted and filed the brief on behalf of COPAA. Laura Martucci, COPAA member, and Benjamin Wish filed the brief on behalf of the parents. COPAA’s brief supported the parents’ least restrictive environment (LRE) argument. Congress made clear that one of its overriding priorities in enacting IDEA was giving students with disabilities access to the general education curriculum and education in the regular classroom to the maximum extent possible. This requirement has been strengthened in subsequent reauthorizations of the IDEA. IDEA’s mandates are not empty aspirations; in fact, research demonstrates children with disabilities can achieve considerably more educational benefit from placement in general education classes with access to the general ed curriculum through supplementary aids and services.
|
|
CD. v Natick Appellant Brief (1st Cir, 2018)
PDF (9.63 MB)
|
Administration
|
1/7/2019
|
|
Jay F., et.al. v. William Hart USD (9th Cir, 2018)
PDF (407.79 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
10/24/2018
|
|
Manifestation Determinations Are an Important Defense for Children with Emotional Disturbance. COPAA and fellow amici, The California Association for Parent-Child Advocacy (CAPCA), filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amici Curiae Brief in the Ninth Circuit, Jay F., et. al. v. William Hart Union School District, on October 18, 2018. Jay F. and A.F., are represented by COPAA members, Ben Conway, Disability Rights California and Mayra Lira, Public Counsel. Kevin Golembiewski, Selene Almazan and Ellen Saideman drafted the amici brief, Alexis Casillas, Roberta Savage and Maureen Graves, on behalf of CAPCA, assisted in the drafting and edits.
|
|
R.F. v. Cecil County (4th Cir, 2018)
PDF (121.05 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
10/24/2018
|
|
Parental Participation Is a Cornerstone of IDEA. COPAA filed an amici curiae brief in the Fourth Circuit, RF v. Cecil County, on September 17, 2018. After reviewing the school districts opposition to our brief the Court granted our Motion for Leave to file on October 1, 2018. COPAA was joined by National Disability Rights Network and Disability Rights Maryland. Selene Almazan, Ellen Saideman and Jessica Salonus wrote and filed the brief. The family of RF is represented by long time COPAA members Wayne and Cheryl Steedman. Longtime COPAA members, Kevin Golembiewski and David Berney, Berney & Sang, co-counseled the Appellants’ brief. The Supreme Court has recently made clear that the Individual Education Programs (IEPs) of children with disabilities must be “appropriately ambitious” to enable them to make progress in light of their unique abilities. Endrew F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 988, 1000 (2017).
|
|
P.S. et. al, v. Pleasantville (NY Sup Ct. 2018)
PDF (1.21 MB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
1/28/2019
|
|
Brief filed by COPAA and Advocates for Children and Youth - New York. IDEA Does Not Impose an Exhaustion Requirement on State Law Claims.......; The United States Supreme Court’s Recent Fry Decision Held that Exhaustion Is Required Only for Claims Alleging a Denial of a Free Appropriate Public Education under IDEA. Brief asserts the decision granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss should be reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings.
|
|
Wilson v. City of Southlake (5th Cir, 2018)
PDF (334.46 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
8/23/2018
|
|
Joined by Disability Rights Texas, the National Center for Youth Law, and Texas Appleseed, on August 17, 2018, COPAA filed a motion requesting permission to file an Amici Curiae brief in the Fifth Circuit case of Wilson v. City of Southlake, et al. which involved application of the Hainze exception to an eight-year-old student with disabilities who was exhibiting challenging behavior at school. Amici assert that use of excessive force on children with disabilities must only be the exception in life threatening situations.
|
|
Krawietz v. Galveston Decision(5th Cir, 2018)
PDF (107.91 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
8/23/2018
|
|
On August 17, 2018, parents prevailed in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Ashley Krawietz v. Galveston Indep. Sch. Dist., which affirmed the district court decision finding that the school district violated its child find duties under IDEA and that the parents were the prevailing party entitled to an award of attorney’s fees.
|
|
D.L. v. D.C. (D.C., 2018)
PDF (472.97 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
1/31/2019
|
|
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE PUBLIC CITIZEN, INC., HOWARD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW CIVIL RIGHTS CLINIC, NATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM, WASHINGTON LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND URBAN AFFAIRS, COUNCIL OF PARENT ATTORNEYS AND ADVOCATES, INC., ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, JUDGE DAVID L. BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW, DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, NATIONAL WOMENS LAW CENTER, AARP, AARP FOUNDATION, AND ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS AND REVERSAL. As Appellants explain, the district court erred when, having concluded that Appellants are entitled to attorneys’ fees based on prevailing market rates for complex federal litigation in the relevant community, it applied the rates set forth in the United States government’s new USAO-ALM Matrix created in 2015. Those rates do not reflect prevailing rates for complex federal litigation in the District of Columbia. he district court should have used the LSI Laffey Matrix.
|
|
K.M. v. Montgomery County (MD, 2018)
PDF (124.07 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
1/31/2019
|
COPAA brief asserts that the Court should not allow MCPS to frustrate federal civil rights law by insisting that K.M. further exhaust administrative remedies and then moving to dismiss K.M.’s claims in the
administrative proceeding when the student’s attorney, consistent with his ethical obligations, declined to pursue a frivolous IDEA claim. ‘Such unnecessary procedural hurdles frustrate IDEA's broad, remedial purpose. They become even more indefensible when they put children and their parents in ‘Zugzwang’’1 Moorestown Bd. of Educ. v. S.D., 811 F. Supp. 2d 1057, 1077 (D.N.J. 2011). Amicus is profoundly concerned that parents and children should not be required to waste scarce time, money, and other resources in litigating IDEA claims when they have available stronger claims under the ADA and its regulations.
|
|
KD v. Downington En Banc Request (3rd Cir, 2018)
PDF (558.02 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
10/24/2018
|
|
The Court declined to reverse the district court’s decision granting judgment for the school district. The Court upheld the district court decision and determined that the Third Circuit standard met the standard articulated in Endrew F. The Court dismissed all Section 504 allegations as well. The wholesale rejection of the 504 claims is very troubling as is the contention that the Third Circuit FAPE standard is the same as the new standard articulated in Endrew F, namely: The Supreme Court made clear that the IEPs of children with disabilities must be “appropriately ambitious” to enable them to make progress in in light of their unique abilities. Endrew F., 137 S. Ct. at 1000. The Court explained that children with disabilities are to be challenged to reach their potential for progress just as their non-disabled peers are, regardless of the severity of their disabilities. Attorneys for the parents filed a petition for an en banc review.
|
|
K.D. vs Downingtown ASD (3rd Cir, 2018)
PDF (636.72 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
4/17/2018
|
COPAA, along with fellow amici, Education Law Center, New Jersey Special Education Practitioners and National Center for Learning Disabilities, filed an amici brief in the Third Circuit, K.D., by and through her parents, Theresa and Jonathan Dunn; Theresa and Jonathan Dunn, individually on February 27, 2018. COPAA members Kevin Golembiewski and David Berney drafted and filed the brief which was edited by Selene Almazan and Ellen Saideman on behalf of the amici. The amici brief supports the parents and urges the Court to reverse the district court’s decision granting judgment for the school district. Long time COOPAA members Catherine Merino Reisman, Judith Gran and Sarah Zuba represent K.D.
|
|
RENEE J. ET. AL. v Houston ISD (5th Cir, 2018)
PDF (395.51 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
4/17/2018
|
|
COPAA filed an amicus brief in the Fifth Circuit, Renee J., as parent/guardian/next friend of C.J., a minor with a disability; Cornelius J., as parent/guardian/next friend of C.J., a minor individual with a disability on April 9, 2018. Selene Almazan, Jessica Salonus, Catherine Merino Reisman, and Ellen Saideman drafted and filed the brief for COPAA. The brief supports the parents and urges the Court to reverse the district court’s ruling granting summary judgment for the school district and grant judgment in favor of C.J. finding that C.J.’s transition plan and the school’s refusal to address his school aversion through the provision of homebound services, resulted in a denial of FAPE, or remand his case for further proceedings. The Cuddy Law Firm represents C.J.
|
|
L.J. v. SB of Broward County (11th Cir,2018)
PDF (156.74 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
2/20/2018
|
|
COPAA filed an amicus brief in the Eleventh Circuit, L.J. v. School Board of Broward County. COPAA members, Jodi Siegel, Kirsten Anderson, Alice Nelson, and Kevin Golembiewski represent the family. The Supreme Court has recently made clear that the IEPs of children with disabilities must be “appropriately ambitious” to enable them to make progress in in light of their unique abilities. Endrew F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 988, 1000 (2017). The Court explained that children with disabilities are to be challenged to reach their potential progress just as their non-disabled peers are, regardless of the severity of their disabilities. The Supreme Court instead held that IDEA “requires an educational program reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” Endrew F. 137 S. Ct. at 1001.
|
|
L.H. v. Hamilton Cty -Decision (6th Cir.,2018)
PDF (340.17 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
8/23/2018
|
|
On August 20, 2018, parents, who are COPAA members, received an overwhelming victory in a swiftly delivered opinion from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in L.H. v. Hamilton Cty. Dept. of Educ., regarding their child’s right to be educated in his least restrictive environment (LRE), a decision which the school district’s counsel referred to at oral argument as “arguably the most important special education case heard by the Sixth Circuit in the past thirty-five years.” The Sixth Circuit’s opinion affirmed the district court decision finding that the school district violated IDEA when it demanded that a second-grade student with Down syndrome be removed from his general education classroom in his neighborhood school to a segregated special education classroom comprised solely of children with disabilities at another school.
|
|
L.H. v. Hamilton County (6th Cir, 2018)
PDF (302.01 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
2/20/2018
|
|
COPAA filed an amicus brief in the Sixth Circuit, L.H. v. Hamilton County. COPAA member, Justin Gillbert represents the family. The central issue is the least restrictive environment for a student with Down Syndrome. Essentially, COPAA, and our fellow amici Disability Rights Montana and The National Down Syndrome Society argued that Congress made clear that one of its overriding priorities was giving students with disabilities access to the general education curriculum and education in the regular classroom to the maximum extent possible. This requirement has been strengthened in subsequent reauthorizations of the IDEA. Moreover, abundant quantitative and qualitative research demonstrates that students with disabilities can achieve considerable educational ben
|
|
Nicole B. v SD of Philadelphia (Pa., 2018)
PDF (576.83 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
1/30/2018
|
|
COPAA and Disability Rights Pennsylvania (“DRP”) , represented by Reisman Carolla Granfiled an amicus brief in Pennsylvania appellate court.The case concerns whether the student and his family can sue the School District of Philadelphia, the student’s principal, and the student’s teacher under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act for allegedly failing to do nothing to prevent ongoing and pervasive harassment, which included sexual harassment and sexual assault based on non conformity to gender stereotypes.The brief focuses on the problems that school bullying causes students and their parents. Bullying can negatively impact all students by interfering with their ability to enjoy the benefits of a public education and by detrimentally affecting their physical and mental well-being. Students with disabilities are particularly susceptible to such harm.
|
|
Decision: Quatro v. Tehachapi (9th Cir, 2018)
PDF (169.48 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
11/27/2018
|
On November 19, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision in Charis Quatro v. Tehachapi Unified Sch. Dist. affirming the award of the attorney’s fees on behalf of the parent as the prevailing party. The parent was represented by Andrea Marcus, a longtime COPAA member; Selene Almazan, Alexis Casillas, Catherine Merino Reisman and Ellen Saideman drafted and edited the amicus brief for filing.
|
|
Quatro v. Tehachapi Unified SD (9th Cir, 2017)
PDF (356.15 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
1/9/2018
|
|
COPAA filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit, Charis Quatro v. Tehachapi Unified Sch. Dist. on December 22, 2017. Alexis Casillas, Selene Almazan, Catherine Merino Reisman, and Ellen Saideman drafted and filed the brief for COPAA. COPAA member, Andrea Marcus, represents the parents. The brief supports the parents and urges the Court to affirm the district court’s award of attorney’s fees for the work done securing the favorable ruling at the attorney’s typical hourly rate, rather than incurring a drastic reduction of the attorney’s hourly rate, as urged by the school district, merely based upon the average hourly rate of other attorneys practicing in the underrepresented locality.
|
|
Soto v. Clark County School Dist (9th Cir, 2017)
PDF (325.87 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
12/5/2017
|
|
COPAA submitted an amicus curiae brief in the Ninth Circuit, Soto v. Clark County School District, on November 28, 2017, pending acceptance of the Motion for Leave to File an Amicus Brief. Selene Almazan, Catherine Reisman, Ellen Saideman, and David Grey drafted and filed the brief on behalf of COPAA. In this case, the parents filed a due process request alleging claims on behalf of their daughter for violation of IDEA and discrimination under Section 504 and ADA. Prior to the due process hearing commencing, the Administrative Law Judge issued a preliminary decision which stated, “the Hearing Officer has no jurisdiction regarding ADA or Section 504, and consequently will not be an issue at the Hearing.” On the third day of the due process hearing, the parties entered into a settlement agreement on the parents’ IDEA claims. The parents then filed their Section 504 and ADA claims in the U.S. District Court of Nevada but the district court dismissed the parents’ discrimination claims
|
|
Bd. of Educ. of the North Rockland (2nd Cir, 2017)
PDF (96.24 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
11/28/2017
|
|
COPAA submitted an amicus curiae brief in the Second Circuit, Bd. of Educ. of the North Rockland Central Sch. Dist. v. C.M., et al.,on November 22, 2017. Selene Almazan, Catherine Merino Reisman and Ellen Saideman drafted the brief on behalf of COPAA, Catherine Merino Reisman filed the brief on behalf of COPAA. The parent is represented by Marion Walsh, Littman Krooks, LLP. Amicus supports the parents and urges the Court to reverse the district court’s ruling calculating the parents’ statute of limitations to bar all the Section 504 claims, even those that occurred within the three years prior (three years is New York statute specific) to the filing of the request for a due process hearing on January 9, 2015.
|
|
F.C., et al. v. Tennessee DOE (6th Cir, 2017)
PDF (271.32 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
11/21/2017
|
|
COPAA submitted an amicus curiae brief in the Sixth Circuit, F.C., et al. v. Tennessee Department of Education on November 16, 2017. Selene Almazan, Jessica Salonus, and Ellen Saideman assisted in the drafting along with fellow COPAA member, Judith Gran, who filed the brief in the Sixth Circuit. Amicus supports the parents and urges the Court to reverse the district court’s ruling that parents who obtained a final order dismissing their due process complaint did not satisfy IDEA’s exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement and remand the case to the district court for a decision on the merits. COPAA further urges the Court to adopt the Third Circuit’s Ligonier approach to calculating the statute of limitations and apply the “discovery rule” to parents’ IDEA claims rather than simply time-barring claims that preceded two years prior to the date of the parents’ due process complaint filing.
|
|
T.B., S.R. and F.B. v. PG County (4th Cir, 2017)
PDF (199.17 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
11/14/2017
|
|
COPAA submitted a Motion to file an amici curiae brief in the Fourth Circuit, T.B., J.R., by and through his Parents, T.B., S.R. and F.B. v. Prince George’s County Board of Education, et. al., on November 7, 2017. Selene Almazan and Catherine Merino Reisman drafted and filed the brief on behalf of COPAA and Disability Rights Maryland. Amici supports the parents and urges the Court to reverse the district court’s ruling regarding the application of the “discovery rule” in calculating the parents’ statute of limitations on child find violations under IDEA.
|
|
Ashley Krawietz v. Galveston (5th Cir, 2017)
PDF (244.86 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
11/14/2017
|
|
COPAA filed a Motion to file an amicus brief in the Fifth Circuit, Ashely Kraweitz, an individual with disabilities, by and with and through her parent/guardian/next friend, Amanda Parker v. Galveston Independent School District on November 8, 2017. Selene Almazan and Roy T. Atwood drafted and filed the brief for COPAA. The brief supports the parents and urges the Court to uphold the district court’s ruling that the parents are entitled to attorneys’ fees for the work done to secure the favorable ruling that Ashley was denied a FAPE and entitled to transition services to prepare her for adulthood.
|
|
R.M. v. Gilbert Unified SD (9th Cir, 2017)
PDF (3.25 MB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
11/14/2017
|
|
COPAA filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit, R.M. v. Gilbert Unified School District. COPAA member, Amy Langerman, began representing the family on their appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The central issue is the least restrictive environment for a student with Down Syndrome. Essentially, COPAA, and our fellow amici Disability Rights Montana and The National Down Syndrome Society argued that Congress made clear that one of its overriding priorities was giving students with disabilities access to the general education curriculum and education in the regular classroom to the maximum extent possible. This requirement has been strengthened in subsequent reauthorizations of the IDEA. Moreover, abundant quantitative and qualitative research demonstrates that students with disabilities can achieve considerable educational benefit from access to the general education curriculum and placement in general education classes with supplementary aids and services, such as resource rooms and itineran
|
|
A.D.and R.D. v. Haddon Heights BOE (3rd Cir, 2017)
PDF (236.14 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
8/1/2017
|
|
COPAA, along with amici Education Law Center (ELC) filed an amicus brief in support of the parents/Appellants in A.D. and R.D. Individually and on behalf of their son, S.D. v. Haddon Heights Board of Education on July 19, 2017. The procedural history of this case is as follows: The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed SD’s claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under IDEA. The Third Court affirmed the dismissal in S.D. v. Haddon Heights Bd. of Educ., 833 F.3d 389 (3d Cir. 2016) (S.D. I). The Supreme Court vacated S.D. I and remanded for reconsideration in light of Fry, which was decided several months after S.D. I. See S.D. v. Haddon Heights Bd. of Educ., 2017 U.S. LEXIS 3107 (May 15, 2017). Catherine Merino Reisman, Sarah Zuba and Judith Gran represent the family, Ellen Saideman was co-counsel on the petition for certiorari to the US Supreme Court.
|
|
Rena C. v. Colonial School Dist (3rd, 2017)
PDF (953.03 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
6/21/2017
|
COPAA filed an amicus brief on June 6, 2017 in support of reversal in the Third Circuit: Rena C. v. Colonial School District. David Berney, COPAA member, represented the family. In enacting the Handicapped Children’s Protection Act (HCPA) in 1986, Congress provided for attorneys’ fees for prevailing parents. Congress also sought to promote settlement by adopting a provision modeled on Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, encouraging schools to make written offers more than ten (10) days before the administrative hearing begins. Parents retain their right to fees after rejecting a settlement offer if the relief obtained is more favorable to the parent than the settlement offer or, even if not more favorable, if they were otherwise substantially justified in rejecting the offer. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(D)(i) & (E). The district court wrongfully denied Rena C. recovery of attorneys’ fees incurred after Colonial School District’s (Colonial) ten-day settlement offer expired.
|
|
J.M. v Matayoshi & Hawaii DOE (9th, 2017)
PDF (418.36 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
4/4/2017
|
|
COPAA submitted an amicus brief in the 9th Circuit, J.M. v. Kathryn S. Matayoshi & State of Hawaii Dep’t of Educ. on March 31, 2017. Pro bono counsel from Stroock & Stroock & Lavan wrote the brief for COPAA, Attorneys Bruce H. Schneider, Michele Palmer and Joel Dodge. Selene Almazan and Ellen Saideman assisted with drafting and editing. Robert C. Thurston, COPAA member, represents the family. The National Disability Rights Network (NDRN) joined COPAA as amici. Brief supports the parent and student urging reversal of the District Court’s decision because the school district failed in its obligation to provide the student with a free appropriate public education (FAPE) when it did not take adequate steps to prevent bullying of the student who had been subjected to severe bullying and was still suffering from that experience. COPAA’s amicus brief provided important background & academic information concerning the negative consequences from bullying of students with disabilities.
|
|
Jefferson v. Bryan M, Darcy M. (11th Cir., 2017)
PDF (418.38 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
4/4/2017
|
|
COPAA submitted an amicus brief in the Eleventh Circuit, Jefferson County Bd. of Educ. v. Bryan M., Darcy M., individually and as parents guardians, next friends and legal representative of R.M., a minor on March 23, 2017. Selene Almazan, Ellen Saideman, and Alice K. Nelson drafted and filed the brief for COPAA in support of the parents, Appellees. Gina Stivahtis Lowe, COPAA member, represents the family. The brief supports the parents and urges the Court to uphold the district court’s ruling that the parents are entitled to attorneys’ fees for the work done both to secure the favorable rulings in the final due process decision and also for the work entailed in obtaining an order requiring the Jefferson County Board of Education (Board) to comply with the mandate of 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j), known as the “stay-put” requirement.
|
|
J.K and J.C. v. Missoula County PS (9th Cir, 2017)
PDF (255.24 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
2/27/2017
|
|
COPAA filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit, J.K and J.C., and K.K.-R. v. Missoula County Public Schools, on February 17, 2017 in support of the Appellants (parents and the minor child). Joining COPAA in the filing was Disability Rights Montana (DRM) as amici. For nearly 30 years, the Supreme Court has interpreted the IDEA broadly and advanced the position that Congress, in enacting the statute, did not intend to create a right without a meaningful remedy. See Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230 (2009); Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 550 U.S. 516 (2007). Here the district court erred by failing to assess when the parents knew or should have known that K.K.-R. had a qualifying disability under IDEA and that she needed special education. These are the elements of K.K.-R's child find cause of action. The plain language of the statute makes clear that IDEA's statute of limitations starts to run when the parents knew or should have known about the facts which give rise
|
|
Philadelphia v. Robert Kirsch (3rd Cir., 1-4-17)
PDF (266.82 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
2/21/2017
|
|
COPAA filed an amicus brief in the Third Circuit, The School District of Philadelphia v. Robert Kirsch, Karen Misher, parents of A.K., a minor, on January 4, 2017 in support of the Defendants-Appellees/Cross Appellants (parents and the minor child). COPAA offers a unique perspective on an issue raised by an Opinion and Order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, District Judge Thomas N. O’Neill, Jr., dated June 1, 2016 (Order), because the Order affects all parties to proceedings under the Act. The issue is whether, pursuant to the Act and longstanding precedent, the District Court (1) applied the proper standard of review and deference in the consideration of the Hearing Officer (IHO) and (2) whether the reimbursement remedy ordered by the hearing officer was appropriate under the Act and Supreme Court precedent.
|
|
