S.T. v. Howard County Public School System , 627 F. App'x 255 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 15-1031
    S.T.; S.J.P.T.; I.T.,
    Plaintiffs – Appellants,
    v.
    HOWARD COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM; RENEE A. FOOSE, officially,
    Defendants – Appellees.
    ---------------------------
    COUNCIL OF PARENT ATTORNEYS AND ADVOCATES,
    Amicus Supporting Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore.     J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
    Judge. (1:14-cv-00701-JFM; 1:15-cv-00100-JFM)
    Argued:   December 8, 2015                  Decided:   January 5, 2016
    Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, SHEDD, Circuit Judge, and Elizabeth
    K. DILLON, United States District Judge for the Western District
    of Virginia, sitting by designation.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    ARGUED:   Wayne  D.  Steedman,   CALLEGARY   &  STEEDMAN,  P.A.,
    Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants.    Jeffrey A. Krew, JEFFREY
    A. KREW, LLC, Ellicott City, Maryland, for Appellees. ON BRIEF:
    James F. Silver, CALLEGARY & STEEDMAN, P.A., Baltimore,
    Maryland, for Appellants.    Caroline Heller, GREENBERG TRAURIG,
    LLP, New York, New York, for Amicus Curiae.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    S.T.,    through   his   parents,      appeals    the    district   court’s
    grant    of   summary   judgment   for      Howard    County    Public   School
    System. We affirm.
    S.T. is a nine year old boy in the Howard County Public
    School   System.   Diagnosed    with    autism   spectrum       disorder,   S.T.
    qualifies as disabled under the Individuals with Disabilities in
    Education Act (“IDEA”). He receives special-education services
    through an Individualized Educational Program (“IEP”) developed
    by an IEP team which includes both school system personnel and
    S.T.’s parents.
    On October 21, 2013, the school system conducted an annual
    review of S.T.’s IEP. At this meeting, the IEP team developed a
    new IEP which included a new placement, transferring S.T. from
    The Trellis School, a private institution, to the Cornerstone
    Program at Cedar Lane, a school in the Howard County Public
    School   System.   S.T.’s     parents    filed   a    Due    Process   Complaint
    challenging the new placement. After a five-day hearing, the
    administrative law judge found that the IEP provides S.T. a free
    appropriate education (“FAPE”) as required by the law. S.T.’s
    parents appealed to the district court, which granted summary
    judgment for the school system. The district court found that
    the ALJ used the correct methodology to reach a decision and
    3
    that her factual findings indicate that administering the IEP at
    the Cornerstone Program will provide S.T. with a FAPE.
    We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de
    novo. Lee Graham Shopping Ctr., LLC v. Estate of Kirsch, 
    777 F.3d 678
    , 681 (4th Cir. 2015). On a motion for summary judgment,
    we view “all facts and reasonable inferences in the light most
    favorable to the non-moving party.” Dulaney v. Packaging Corp.
    of America, 
    673 F.3d 323
    , 330 (4th Cir. 2012). Whether an IEP is
    sufficient to provide a FAPE is a question of fact that we
    review for clear error. County School Bd. of Henrico County, Va.
    v. Z.P. ex rel. R.P., 
    399 F.3d 298
    , 309 (4th Cir. 2005).
    On appeal, S.T.’s parents argue that the IEP utilizing the
    Cornerstone Program did not offer S.T. a FAPE at the time it was
    developed    and    that   the   ALJ   and   the   district    court    erred   in
    relying on “retrospective evidence” to show that the Cornerstone
    Program     meets    the   IEP    requirements.       They    argue    that     the
    Cornerstone Program was a 36-week program at the time the IEP
    was created, not a 46-week program as required by the IEP. Since
    the   evidence      that   the    program     could    meet    the     durational
    requirements of the IEP was offered for the first time at the
    ALJ hearing (rather than at the IEP meeting), they argue, it was
    improper retrospective evidence.
    The district court held that the ALJ’s determination that
    the Cornerstone Program can meet the requirements of S.T.’s IEP
    4
    is supported by the testimony of Howard County Public School
    System       employees,      autism     specialist        Shannon    Majoros    and
    instructional facilitator Janet Zimmerman. Testimony before the
    ALJ indicated that bridge services are available to lengthen the
    program to 46 weeks. The court held, therefore, that the ALJ did
    not err when she determined that the Cornerstone Program can
    meet any IEP requirement for 46 weeks of services.
    The      district     court    further      held     that    Mojoros’    and
    Zimmerman’s testimony about the current duration of available
    services at the Cornerstone Program was not improper evidence
    because the dispute here is not over the services required to be
    provided to S.T., but the ability of the school placement to
    provide those services. Further, the court noted that even if
    offering new testimony about the duration of the Cornerstone
    Program were a procedural violation of the IDEA, it is subject
    to a harmlessness analysis and there is no evidence of actual
    harm to S.T.’s education because he will receive all necessary
    services under his IEP at the Cornerstone Program. See MM ex
    rel. DM v. School Dist. of Greenville County, 
    303 F.3d 523
    , 534
    (4th     Cir.     2002)(a    school     district     fulfills       its   statutory
    obligation       where   a   disabled   child   received      or    was   offered   a
    FAPE, even if there was a technical violation of the IDEA).
    5
    Having   reviewed   the   record   and   the   applicable   law,   and
    having had the benefit of oral argument, we affirm the judgment
    based substantially on the reasoning of the district court.
    AFFIRMED
    6
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-1031

Citation Numbers: 627 F. App'x 255

Judges: Traxler, Shedd, Dillon, Western, Virginia

Filed Date: 1/5/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024