On May 16, 2003, two developmentally delayed preschool students, through their parents, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The action was filed under the civil rights act 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), the ...
read more >
On May 16, 2003, two developmentally delayed preschool students, through their parents, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The action was filed under the civil rights act 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 against the New York City Board of Education. The plaintiff, represented by public interest attorneys asked the court for injunctive relief to provide the necessary education to the plaintiffs and also for compensatory relief for costs of remedial instruction necessitated by defendant's failure to provide the necessary education services to plaintiffs.
Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that the school district had identified the plaintiffs as developmentally delayed and had created for them Individual Education Plans or "IEPs" which detailed the additional services to be provided to the plaintiffs by the school district. This procedure is in place to comply with the mandate in IDEA, which provides federal funding for special education to states who implement such plans. Plaintiff D.D. specifically was supposed to receive half day integrated classes with speech and occupational therapy as related services. The staffing ratio in the class was to be eight students to one teacher. The plan was to take effect on December 6, 2002, within two weeks of the IEP meeting. As of the date of the complaint, despite plaintiff's mother's repeated requests, D.D had not received any of the services listed in the IEP. Instead he was kept on a wait-list due to a lack of capacity by the school district.
After the initial complaint was filed, a third plaintiff was added with an amended complaint. This complaint was sealed, however, the new plaintiff brought the action individually and on behalf of those similarly situated. After this plaintiff was added, class certification was sought.
On March 30, 2007, the District Court (Judge David G. Trager) entered an order provding notice to the plaintiff class regarding an injunctive settlement. The settlement involved various steps the school district would take to expand special education programs at schools and training for staff.
On December 28, 2007, the first two plaintiffs reached a monetary settlement with the district. The case was terminated at that time. Patrick Branson - 10/09/2014