In Maysonet v. New York City Department of Education, No. 22 Civ. 1685 (LGS), 2023 WL 2537851, 123 LRP 9965 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2023), the court addressed the scope of equitable relief available in a tuition reimbursement case where a denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) was undisputed, but the parents failed to meaningfully participate in the IEP development process.
The case involved an eight-year-old student with a brain injury affecting mobility and communication. The student attended a private school, iHope, during the 2017–18 school year. Although an impartial hearing officer initially ruled against the parents in June 2018, the matter was resolved on appeal through settlement, with the district agreeing to fund the iHope placement.
In preparation for the 2018–19 school year, the district’s Committee on Special Education (CSE) notified the parents in February 2018 of its intent to convene an IEP meeting. The meeting was rescheduled twice—once at the request of iHope and once at the parents’ request. In April, the parents requested that the meeting be held on a Monday at iHope, with participation by iHope staff and a district physician. The parents also represented that they would provide progress reports and other relevant materials.
The CSE declined to hold the meeting at iHope but agreed to hold it on a Monday and arranged for the physician to participate by telephone. The district also invited iHope staff to attend. The meeting was scheduled for June 4, 2018, and the parents were notified approximately one month in advance, with several follow-up confirmations. Neither the parents nor iHope staff attended the meeting, and the promised progress reports were not provided.
The CSE proceeded in the parents’ absence and developed an IEP that recommended a larger class size than the student’s prior placement, eliminated one-on-one paraprofessional support, and reduced related services. The parents filed a due process complaint and unilaterally placed the student at another private school, iBrain, for the 2018–19 school year.
The district conceded that the IEP failed to offer FAPE for the 2018–19 school year, and the impartial hearing officer found iBrain to be an appropriate placement. The IHO ordered reimbursement or direct payment for most of the school year, reducing the award to account for a period at the beginning of the year when iBrain did not provide all services contemplated by a revised IEP.
On administrative appeal, the state review officer disagreed with the IHO’s reduction based on incomplete services at iBrain but imposed a 20 percent across-the-board reduction in reimbursement due to the parents’ lack of cooperation with the June 2018 CSE meeting. The SRO also concluded that the parents had not demonstrated an inability to pay tuition and transportation costs and therefore modified the relief to reimbursement of actual expenditures rather than direct payment to the school.
The parents sought judicial review. The district court upheld the 20 percent reduction, citing 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(C)(iii), which expressly authorizes reductions in reimbursement based on parental unreasonableness. The court concluded that the parents’ failure to attend the IEP meeting and failure to provide promised progress reports constituted unreasonable conduct supporting a reduction in reimbursement, regardless of the conceded denial of FAPE. The court rejected the parents’ explanations for their nonattendance as vague and unpersuasive.
The court, however, reversed the SRO’s limitation of relief to reimbursement of expenses already paid. The court held that direct payment to the private school may be an appropriate remedy and accepted additional evidence demonstrating that the parents were unable to pay the full costs while awaiting reimbursement. Emphasizing the equitable purposes of IDEA remedies, the court ordered direct payment in this case but declined to adopt a categorical rule requiring proof of financial inability in all cases.
The decision provides guidance to hearing officers regarding the reduction of tuition reimbursement awards based on parental unreasonableness and confirms that direct payment to a private school may be an appropriate form of relief under certain circumstances.