In Perez v. Banks, No. 1:23-CV-02966, 2024 WL 4307934, 124 LRP 28851 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2024), aff’d, 125 LRP 22327 (2d Cir. July 31, 2025), the district court addressed whether extended eligibility under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was an appropriate form of compensatory relief where a denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) had already been remedied through tuition reimbursement, and the Second Circuit affirmed.
The student was twenty-one years old and had quadriplegic cerebral palsy, muscle hypotonia, developmental delay, coxa valga, dystonia, chorea, impaired mobility, microcephaly, and an intellectual disability. He was non-ambulatory, nonverbal, and dependent on others for all aspects of daily living. The due process complaint alleged that the school district denied FAPE from the 2007–08 through the 2018–19 school years, that the parent’s unilateral placement of the student at iBrain beginning in 2019–20 provided appropriate educational programming, and that the student was entitled to compensatory relief including tuition, related services, and extended IDEA eligibility.
The impartial hearing officer (IHO) concluded that claims predating the 2018–19 school year were time-barred, but found that the district denied FAPE for the 2021–22 school year. As relief, the IHO ordered tuition and related services at iBrain for that year and awarded extended eligibility through age twenty-five. On administrative review, the state review officer (SRO) did not disturb the finding of a FAPE denial for the 2021–22 school year, which the district did not appeal, but reversed the award of extended eligibility.
The district court affirmed the SRO’s decision. It emphasized that the student had already received reimbursement for the services denied during the only school year within the applicable statute of limitations and that the IHO had not found a gross violation of IDEA. The court deferred to the SRO’s reasoning that compensatory education for students no longer eligible by age is appropriate only where a gross violation results in the denial of educational services for a substantial period of time.
The district court further agreed with the SRO’s distinction between traditional compensatory education—designed to remedy past deprivation through services or programs—and extended eligibility, which enlarges a district’s statutory obligations by requiring ongoing Committee on Special Education (CSE) meetings and individualized education program (IEP) development. It accepted the conclusion that awarding both tuition reimbursement and extended eligibility for the same FAPE violation would be duplicative and inconsistent with the remedial framework of IDEA. The court also noted that although the district did not dispute errors in classification and diagnosis, including reliance on the parent to identify a cortical visual impairment, those issues did not justify extended eligibility where the FAPE denial for the relevant school year had already been remedied through tuition funding.
On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed. It concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying extended eligibility and agreed that, where tuition reimbursement fully remedied the denial of FAPE for the only school year within the limitations period, additional relief was unwarranted. The court rejected arguments that the equities required a different outcome and affirmed the judgment in full.
Taken together, the decision reflects that extended eligibility is an extraordinary form of relief distinct from traditional compensatory education, that it is generally inappropriate where a denial of FAPE has already been fully remedied through tuition reimbursement, and that appellate review will uphold such limitations where the record supports the remedial determination.