University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
HOME
ABOUT
FOR TEACHERS
SEARCH
QUESTIONS
RECENT ADDITIONS
feedback/
suggestions
log in/
register
Case Profile
new search
page permalink
Case Name
Schmelzer v. New York
ED-NY-0003
Docket / Court
01–CV–1864JSARL ( E.D.N.Y. )
State/Territory
New York
Case Type(s)
Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Education
Case Summary
On March 27, 2001, several children with disabilities, by and through their parents, filed a lawsuit under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The ...
read more >
On March 27, 2001, several children with disabilities, by and through their parents, filed a lawsuit under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The Plaintiffs, represented by the Long Island Advocacy Center and private counsel, sought declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that the Defendants' delay in evaluating and assigning students with disabilities to proper classrooms caused these students irreparable harm with regards to their education. Specifically, the Plaintiffs claimed that although the Defendants had been in compliance with IDEA in years past, they had fallen behind in giving timely decisions for appeals cases. While the Defendants had given timely decisions in over 90% of all appeals cases during the 1990s, by 2001, they were only giving timely decisions in 2% of all such cases.
On October 1, 2003, the Court (Judge Joanna Seybert) issued an opinion granting the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the § 1983 and IDEA claims, and dismissing the Rehabilitation Act claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Judge Seybert noted that although the number of appeals cases had increased by over 20% in recent years, the Defendants were still required to comply with the terms of IDEA. She then entered an injunction certifying the class and requiring the Defendants to comply with the 30 day requirement for decisions of appeals. In order to assure the Defendants' compliance, the injunction also provided for 60 months of monitoring, during which the Court would retain jurisdiction for complaints of noncompliance. The Defendants were also required to pay the monitor's fee, and over $75,000 in attorney's fees and costs.
On January 16, 2009, the monitor submitted her final report, which recommended that the Court should not extend the monitoring period for this case. The Court agreed with her recommendation and closed the case on March 13, 2009.
Joshua Arocho - 07/27/2012
compress summary
- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Federalism (including 10th Amendment)
Content of Injunction
Goals (e.g., for hiring, admissions)
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Monitoring
Defendant-type
Elementary/Secondary School
Disability
disability, unspecified
General
Individualized planning
Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)
Medical/Mental Health
Intellectual/Developmental Disability
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action
Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701
Indv. w/ Disab. Educ. Act (IDEA), Educ. of All Handcpd. Children Act , 20 U.S.C. § 1400
42 U.S.C. § 1983
Case Details
click to show/hide detail
Defendant(s)
Commissioner of Education of the State of New York
Half Hollow Hills Central School District
New York City Board of Education
Smithtown Central School District
State Board of Education
State of New York
Plaintiff Description
All children living in New York State who meet the following dual criteria: (1) they are or will be parties to an appeal from the determination of an impartial hearing officer to the New York State Education Department, and (2) their appeals have not or will not be decided by the SRO within thirty days following the State Education Department's receipt of the request for review of the IHO decision.
Class action status sought
Yes
Class action status granted
Yes
Filed Pro Se
No
Prevailing Party
Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer
Yes
Nature of Relief
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief
Litigation
Order Duration
2003 - 2008
Filed
03/27/2001
Case Closing Year
2009
Case Ongoing
No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
See this case
at CourtListener.com
(May provide additional documents and, for active cases, real-time alerts)
Documents
click to show/hide detail
Court
Docket(s)
E.D.N.Y.
03/13/2009
2:01−cv−01864
ED-NY-0003-9000.pdf
|
Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
E.D.N.Y.
10/01/2003
Memorandum and Order
(363 F.Supp.2d 453)
ED-NY-0003-0003.pdf
|
WESTLAW
|
LEXIS
|
Detail
E.D.N.Y.
05/31/2006
Judgment for Attorney Fees and Costs [ECF# 129]
ED-NY-0003-0001.pdf
|
Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
E.D.N.Y.
03/13/2009
Order [ECF# 154]
ED-NY-0003-0002.pdf
|
Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
People
click to show/hide detail
show all people docs
Judges
Seybert, Joanna
(E.D.N.Y.)
show/hide docs
ED-NY-0003-0002 | ED-NY-0003-0003 | ED-NY-0003-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers
Berger, Deborah R.
(New York)
show/hide docs
ED-NY-0003-9000
Steen, Pamela L.
(New York)
show/hide docs
ED-NY-0003-9000
Defendant's Lawyers
Feldman, Jacob S.
(New York)
show/hide docs
ED-NY-0003-9000
Grumet, Lisa Fleming
(New York)
show/hide docs
ED-NY-0003-9000
Pernick, Ralph
(New York)
show/hide docs
ED-NY-0003-9000
- click to show/hide ALL -
new search
page permalink
- top of page -
Contact
Report an Error
Privacy Policy