Tina Salata, parent on behalf of E.D., a minor student v. Mesa Unified School District

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Arizona reviews an administrative decision under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act concerning a student’s individualized education program, free appropriate public education, least restrictive environment, and parental participation. The court affirms in part and reverses in part, concluding that the school district violated procedural requirements by unilaterally implementing a modified IEP and that the administrative decision failed to address an appropriate remedy for the resulting denial of a free appropriate public education.

Holdings

1. The District's unilateral implementation of the Modified IEP, which substantially increased pull-out instruction and reduced the least-restrictive-environment requirement without meaningful parental participation, constituted a procedural violation of the IDEA that denied E.D. a FAPE. The ALJ erred by failing to analyze an appropriate remedy for that denial.
2. The District materially failed to implement the Legacy IEP's required reading-comprehension and sight-word services, and that material failure denied E.D. a FAPE and entitled her to compensatory relief.
3. The District materially failed to provide the direct physical-therapy and occupational-therapy services required by the Legacy IEP, thereby denying E.D. a FAPE. The court deferred the amount of compensatory relief pending clarification of the services actually provided.
4. The court declined to decide separately whether the Modified IEP's location of services violated E.D.'s right to education in the least restrictive environment because resolving that issue would not change the result.
5. Parents were not entitled to reimbursement for tuition, tutoring, inclusion-consultation, or transportation expenses associated with E.D.'s unilateral placement at Tempe Montessori.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the District's unilateral implementation of the Modified IEP, including increased pull-out services and reduced least-restrictive-environment participation, denied parental participation and thereby denied E.D. a FAPE.
2. Whether the District materially failed to implement the Legacy IEP's reading-comprehension and sight-word services.
3. Whether the District materially failed to implement the Legacy IEP's physical-therapy and occupational-therapy services.
4. Whether the Modified IEP's location of services violated E.D.'s right to education in the least restrictive environment.
5. Whether Parents were entitled to reimbursement for E.D.'s unilateral placement at Tempe Montessori and related expenses.

Disposition

other