Susan C. Freedman

Plaintiff sued the West Hartford, Connecticut Board of Education for funding of a residential placement for plaintiff's son in order to receive an appropriate education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). At the administrative hearing, the Hearing Officer found for the Board, holding that the Board's offer of a program in the high school the student would otherwise attend with special education and regular education services was an appropriate program for the student in the least restrictive environment. The plaintiff appealed the hearing officer's decision to the United States District Court of Connecticut in which the decision for the Board of Education was upheld. The plaintiff sought judgment in the United States 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals which upheld the lower courts' rulings. A.S. v. Board of Education of West Hartford, 35 IDELR 179 (D. Conn 2001) 2d Cir. 2002.

Connecticut Legal Services brought a class-action lawsuit in the United States District Court of Connecticut against the Bridgeport, Board of Education alleging violations of the students' civil rights of disabled students under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The class action allegations were of overidentifying students as learning disabled, and other procedural violations. Judge Droney, for the court, dismissed the class-action complaint of plaintiffs citing that the plaintiffs needed to, and did not, exercise an exhaustion all administrative remedies. Mrs. M v. Bridgeport Board of Education 96 F. Supp. 2d 124 (D. Conn 2000).

In the first decision in Connecticut, and one of the only decisions in the country, a federal judge recently awarded a Connecticut school district attorneys’ fees under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”). The case, E.K. by and through his Parents and Next of Friends, Mr. and Mrs. K. v. Stamford Board of Education, No. 07cv800 (Mar. 31, 2009), stemmed from a student’s challenge to his expulsion for making racial threats toward another student. In the spring of 2007, the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut denied the student’s request for a preliminary injunction to require the district to readmit the student to his high school and allow him to participate in graduation ceremonies. After this denial, the student, through his attorney, essentially ignored the prosecution of his IDEA claim -- although he did not officially withdraw the claim for several months -- but maintained his other claims, due process and constitutional vagueness. The district moved for summary judgment; the student opposed this motion and filed his own motion for summary judgment.