In Peter G. v. Derry Township School District, No. 1:23-CV-00043, 2025 WL 270057, 125 LRP 2346 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 22, 2025), the district court addressed the application of the statute of limitations for due process hearing requests under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), focusing on when parents knew or should have known of the alleged denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE).
The case involved a sixteen-year-old student with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), learning disabilities, epilepsy, incomplete hippocampal inversion, and accommodative vision spasms. The parents first requested a special education evaluation in January 2017, when the student was in third grade. Rather than conduct an IDEA evaluation, the district developed a Section 504 service agreement, which was revised multiple times. In August 2020, the district again proposed a Section 504 agreement, but the parents disagreed.
During the 2017–18 school year, the student was moved to a different reading class. When the parents asked about the change, the district advised that accommodations might be adjusted but did not recommend a special education evaluation. At the end of fourth grade, a district reading specialist recommended summer tutoring, which the parents obtained privately. At the end of fifth grade, the student was told he could not pursue foreign language instruction due to his reading needs.
In October 2019, the parents formally requested an evaluation for learning disabilities. The district issued an evaluation report on January 10, 2020, finding the student ineligible under IDEA despite very low scores in several areas, including reading comprehension. The parents disagreed with the district’s recommendations and requested mediation, which did not occur. During remote instruction related to the COVID-19 pandemic, the parents continued to request additional support. In March 2021, they sought reevaluation, and the district then found the student eligible under IDEA based on ADHD. An individualized education program (IEP) was issued in May 2021, but the parents enrolled the student in a private school.
The parents filed a due process complaint on January 10, 2022, seeking compensatory education, tuition reimbursement, and funding for an independent educational evaluation (IEE). The district raised a statute of limitations defense, and the hearing officer limited the scope of the claims to events occurring on or after January 10, 2020. After ruling against the parents under that restriction, the hearing officer’s decision was appealed to federal court.
The district court resolved only the limitations issue. It concluded that the hearing officer erred by treating the statute of limitations as a remedy cap without making findings as to when the parents knew or should have known of the alleged denial of FAPE. Citing G.L. v. Ligonier Valley School District Authority, 802 F.3d 601, 66 IDELR 91 (3d Cir. 2015), the court explained that the relevant inquiry is not whether parents were concerned about a child’s educational progress, but whether they knew or should have known that the district would not provide the supports necessary to deliver FAPE. On de novo review, the court concluded that issuance of the January 10, 2020, evaluation report constituted the clear action sufficient to trigger the limitations period.
The court held that the parents’ complaint was timely and that the hearing officer improperly limited the scope of claims. It remanded the matter for consideration of events preceding January 10, 2020, and stayed the federal action pending completion of administrative proceedings.
The decision reflects that application of IDEA’s statute of limitations requires factual findings as to when parents were on notice of a denial of FAPE, that knowledge of programming concerns alone does not trigger the limitations period, and that evaluation decisions may mark the point at which a reasonable parent is alerted to a district’s failure to provide appropriate educational supports.