to class and then went to his own class before a security guard arrived and escorted him to the assistant principal's office. away to continue walking to class and told him to calm down. Donnelly said he was not in physical contact with Z.B., but rather that Z.B. described his reaction as pulling his arm down and to Id. or R., ordered them to stop and told Z.B. and the friend pretended to fight R., then pushed her against a locker and pretended to hit her. was with his girlfriend, R., and another friend. was roughhousing in the school hallway while transitioning between early afternoon classes. The parties elected to dispose of these anonymizing features in their papers, and for clarity, the Court will as well. ¶¶ 4, 9.ġ The Hearing Officer, in keeping with privacy protocols, omitted Z and used gender-neutral terms to refer to the other students involved in the Maincident. is easily distracted, sometimes off-task, and was not engaged in the learning processĮarly in the year, but they also agree that he has good interpersonal skills and peer relationships and is generally good in the classroom, respectful of teachers, and compliant with academic demands. is a seventeen-year-old student who is eligible for special education services under and for which he receives therapy and medication. Factual History 1 We note where we have augmented the record from our own review of the transcript and other extrinsic documents.ġ. The School District postponed both the manifestation determination and the informal hearing, re- scheduling the manifestation determination to Maand the informal hearing to April 8, 2015. thought was an informal hearing and were informed that there would also be a manifestationĭetermination, they did not want to proceed because they had insufficient notice. HOD ¶¶ 36- ut March 23 about the informal hearing, but they were not told about the possibility of a simultaneous Hearing Offi But that letter was not mailed until had not received it by the time they arrived at the scheduled March 25 hearing. After the March 17 incident, the School District composed a letter, dated the next day,, if a manifestation determination hearing was necessary, it would be conducted at the same time. On August 14, 2015, the School District appealed that decision by filing a complaint in this Court. The expedited due process hearing requested On April 8, 2015, the School District conducted an informal hearing. On March 31, 2015, the School District held a manifestation determination hearing an expedited due process complaint regarding the manifestation determination. Procedural History The underlying incident in this case occurred on March 17, 2015. Procedural History and Factual Background A. Notwithstanding the due weight we give to the underlying proceedings under the modified de novo review standard, we will make our own findings under a preponderance of the evidence standard and grant such relief as we determine is appropriate. Put another way, although we must consider the administrative findings of fact, we are free to accept or reject them, but we must explain our rejection. Factual findings from the administrative proceedings are considered prima facie correct, and, if we decline to abide by those findings, we must explain why. Standard of Review The standard of review for state administrative proceedings under the IDEA is modified de novo review. and education, but that based on equitable principles, we preclude the School District fromĬonducting a second manifestation determination or any further disciplinary proceedings. The School District requests that we overturn the decision that the manifestation determination was deficient, reverse the order to conduct a second manifestation determination, and vacate the award of compensatory education. The School District appealed by filing the complaint before us now. for the days in excess of ten days he had been excluded from school. School District to conduct a second manifestation determination, and awarded compensatoryĮducation to Z.B. The School District determined that the incident constituted an assault and scheduled both disciplinary proceedings and the manifestation determination to which the result of the manifestation determination, they filed an expedited due process complaint, triggering an administrative hearing before a neutral party hearing officer. On March 17, 2015, an school in the hallway between classes. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. s this action under Section 615(i)(2) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. Introduction -motions for judgment on the administrative record. : : Z.B., : by and through his parents, K.B. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA BRISTOL TOWNSHIP : CIVIL ACTION SCHOOL DISTRICT : : v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |