A short delay in assistive technology and disputes over accommodations did not amount to a denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in Pfershy v. O’Fallon Twp. High Sch. Dist. 203, No. 23-CV-3515-RJD, 2026 WL 2253444 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 5, 2026). The case involved a ninth-grade student eligible for special education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) based on hypothyroidism, Graves’ disease, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), anxiety, hearing loss, and chronic lung problems. Her individualized education program (IEP) included accommodations for physical education, hearing loss, and anxiety. To address her hearing loss, the IEP provided for assistive technology known as a Digital Modulation (DM) system. Although the equipment was ordered in July, it was not available when school began on August 11. It was fitted to the student and in use by August 22. The student also alleged that her Advanced Algebra teacher used the DM system inconsistently. She received a C minus in that class and later moved to a lower-level class that the district had originally recommended, where the teacher described her as a solid B student. After she lost participation points in gym for not jogging, those points were restored following an amendment to her IEP.
The hearing officer found that the district had not denied the student FAPE under IDEA by failing to implement the IEP, and the district court affirmed. On the DM system, the court focused on the student’s performance before the equipment was available. The court stated, “It is difficult to say that O.P. was denied an appropriate education because she did not have [the] DM System during the first seven days of school when she received perfect grades in Advanced Algebra (the only class in which Plaintiffs contend she regressed) during that time.” 2026 WL 2253444, at *5. The court also concluded that the district did not need to notify the parents that the DM system was unavailable before it was put into use. As for the claim that the Advanced Algebra teacher used the system inconsistently, the court gave weight to the hearing officer’s determination that the student did not like the teacher or her teaching methods.
The court also rejected the claim involving anxiety accommodations, finding it underdeveloped and directed more toward the IEP itself, which was not challenged, than its implementation. It likewise rejected the physical education claim. When the IEP was modified, the participation points deducted for not jogging were restored, and the court found that causation had not been established between the assigned physical education activities and the student overheating. The court therefore dismissed the claims alleging a denial of FAPE based on a material failure to implement the student’s IEP.
The decision is significant because the court did not treat every alleged implementation problem as a material failure to implement the IEP. In affirming the hearing officer, the court relied on the student’s performance during the brief period without the DM system, the hearing officer’s findings concerning the Advanced Algebra dispute, the restoration of physical education points, and the lack of established causation for the overheating claim.