The United States Supreme Court ruled that whichever party brings suit under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is responsible for demonstrating that there was error in how the child’s special education was handled. The case arose because lower courts had split on whether the parents or the schools were responsible for proving their point; in law, the tie-breaking rule is that the plaintiff is usually responsible for proving that an action—an Individualized education Program (IEP)—is appropriate or inappropriate.
Representing the Court, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote:
To ensure disabled children a “free appropriate public education,” 20 U.S.C. A. §1400(d)(1)(A), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA or Act) requires school districts to create an “individualized education program” (IEP) for each disabled child, §1414(d), and authorizes parents challenging their child’s IEP to request an “impartial due process hearing,” §1415(f), but does not specify which party bears the burden of persuasion at that hearing. After an IDEA hearing initiated by petitioners, the Administrative Law Judge held that they bore the burden of persuasion and ruled in favor of respondents. The District Court reversed, concluding that the burden of persuasion is on the school district. The Fourth Circuit reversed the District Court, concluding that petitioners had offered no persuasive reason to depart from the normal rule of allocating the burden to the party seeking relief.
Held: The burden of persuasion in an administrative hearing challenging an IEP is properly placed upon the party seeking relief, whether that is the disabled child or the school district.
The parents of Brian Shaffer sought relief from their local education agency (LEA; Weast was the superintendent) when a dispute about Brian’s Individualized Education Plan (IEP) arose. They challenged the IEP and that challenge took the course described in the excerpt. The case does not turn on the merits of the IEP, but on who has legal responsibility for proving the point.
Will this decision permit LEAs greater chances of promoting the IEPs they consider better? Will parents be less likely to seek relief? Or will it reduce the number of unncessary intrusions in educational processes by parents? I do not know, but I anticipate that many advocates with greater expertise than I will argue this decision from both points of view? Let the analysis begin!
Is it appropriate or ironic that this case was decided just about the same time that the U.S. Congress is considering a resolution lauding IDEA?
Links:
- Legal Information Institute syllabus
- Pete and Pam Wright’s Wrightslaw coverage
- My article when the case was argued earlier.
Latest Comments