|
Sussan & Greenwald
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Practice limited to special education and related matters
Law Library
UPDATED WEEKLY-REFRESH YOUR BROWSER!
Search N.J. Administrative Law Cases
U.S. Constitution **** Official U.S. Supreme Court Web Site **** N.J. Constitution****U.S. Code-Title 20****Brief Reporter****Searchable U.S.C.****N.J. Supreme and Appellate Court Decisions****Searchable C.F.R.****Federal Register****N.J. Court Rules****N.J. Rules of Evidence****N.J. Government and Legal Resources****N.J. Office of Administrative Law****N.J. Legislative Histories***County Governments
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure****Federal Rules of Evidence****Legal Dictionary****Federal Web Locator****LexisONE®****
*new case
U.S. Courts of Appeal
1st - ME, MA, NH, PR, RI
2nd - NY, VT, CT
3rd - PA, NJ, DE, VI
4th - MD, NC, SC, VA, WV
5th - LA, TX, MS
6th - MI, OH, KY TN
7th - IL, IN, WI
8th - ND, SD, MN, NE, IA, MO AR
9th - CA, OR, WA, AZ, MT, ID, NV, AK, HI
10th - CO, KS, NM, OK, UT, WY
11th - AL, GA, FL
New Jersey Administrative Law, State, & District Court Cases
*J.B. v. WATCHUNG HILLS REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION Reimbursement permitted parent even though child has not previously received special education and related services from Defendant Board of Education. Plaintiff's represented by Sussan & Greenwald, Esqs., Defendant represented by Barger & Bolger, Esqs.
*R.S v. SOUTH RIVER BOARD OF EDUCATION In this case the parents contested the manifest determination review; sought a full time aide; compensatory education; and other services from the school district.
*DD. v. WARREN HILLS REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION Reimbursement for unilateral residential placement ordered.
*JR v. METUCHEN BOARD OF EDUCATION Impartial hearings are required to resolve Section 504 disputes in the same fashion as those brought under the IDEA, and the Office of Administrative Law has been designated by the Commissioner of Education as the independent tribunal to dispose of such matters. The same free and appropriate education (FAPE) and special education with related aides designed to meet individual educational needs of handicapped persons are required under the applicable regulations, 34 C.F.R. 104.31 to -104.39, as are compelled by the IDEA. These regulations compare to those implementing the IDEA, and, as petitioner has argued, the procedural safeguards envisioned under the Section 504 should comply with safeguards of the IDEA. See also 34 C.F.R. 104.36.
A.B. v. BRANCHBURG BOARD OF EDUCATION Case deals with the issue of classification as it relates to placement decisions.
*PR v. SOUTH BRUNSWICK BOARD OF EDUCATION NJ administrative law case ruling in favor of parent seeking residential placement for autistic 17 year old child. The ALJ found that "more than 75% of J.R.'s IEP goals and objectives were repeated year after year...The District's proposal to substitute one out of district day school placement (Midland) for another (High Roads) where over 8 years he has made minimal progress in some areas and he has regressed in others is a risk both the CST and J.R. can ill afford to take."
*J.O. v. CALDWELL-WEST CALDWELL BOARD OF EDUCATION NJ administrative law case ruling in favor of parents seeking residential placement for their emotionally disabled child.
J.S. v. LIVINGSTON BOE Private school ordered for child.
S.G. v. EAST WINDSOR TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION NJ administrative law case ruling in favor of parents seeking continued placement in Montessori school pursuant to §504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
E.C. v. TOMS RIVER BOARD OF EDUCATION NJ administrative law case ruling in favor of parents seeking out of district placement in private school, and ruling that Board's proposed IEP was deficient.
EW v. MILLVILLE BOE Attorney fee awarded.
B.P. v. BRICK TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION NJ administrative law case ruling in favor of parents ruling that the atmosphere in the District's Vets Middle School (Vets) is harmful, that the proposed IEP is inadequate, and that B.P.'s education is not advancing, but instead, is regressing.
A.M .v. MEDFORD LAKES BOARD OF EDUCATION NJ administrative law case ordering an IEE, since BOE failed to justify its denial of the parental requests for the assessments in the earlier scheduled due process case and instead withdrew its request for due process.
ABBOTT v. BURKE The N.J. Supreme court once again found that during the school year 2000-2001 the DOE did not timely complete its review of certain pre-school program and budget proposals; more time given to come into compliance with prior orders of the Court. See appeal, decision aff'd.
*Board of Education of the Borough of Englewood Cliffs v. Board of Education of the City of Englewood The issue on appeal is the appropriate allocation of responsibilities between the Commissioner of Education and the Englewood School District in the development and implementation of a voluntary plan designed to achieve an appropriate racial balance and educational quality at Dwight Morrow High School through the use of magnet and specialty schools.
K.W. v. HANOVER TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION NJ administrative law case ruling in favor of parent's application for emergent relief made on behalf of a thirteen-year-old child who was improperly excluded from public school. Court deals with issues of least restrictive environment, inclusion, and burden of proof.
M.D. v. FORT LEE BOE Residential placement awarded.
M.P. v. SUMMIT BOE Private school awarded parent.
*E.Y v. TENAFLY BOARD OF EDUCATION Without specifically so stating, the Tenafly Board invites us to imply a fraudulent design by P.B.K. in obtaining the letters of guardianship for E.Y. We decline to do so. The record does not support fraud or deception. With E.Y.'s parents over half a world away, ample reason existed for a formal guardianship aside from satisfying the conditions of N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(a).
*ML v. MERCHANTVILLE BOARD OF EDUCATION Placement in a Friends school consistent with Naples Act.
N.E. v. TINTON FALLS BOARD OF EDUCATION The issue in this case is whether respondent Board of Education has sustained its burden of proving that it can provide to N.E. a handicapped minor child, not yet five years old, a free and appropriate education, as required by the IDEA.
*P.H. v. BERGENFIELD BOARD OF EDUCATION An alternative education for an expelled high school student must be extended until he reaches his twentieth birthday.
*JP v. PEMBERTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION In this case the court deals with the issues of compensatory education and the time limit when such a claim must be made.
*JOYE v. HUNTERDON CENTRAL REGIONAL BOE NJ Appellate Division case upholding schools right to continue drug testing for students who park their cars on campus and for those students who take part in extra-curricular activities.
R.S. v. MOUNTAIN LAKES BOE Parental request for inclusion granted.
R.S. v. WEST ORANGE BOE Parental request for private school funding granted.
*S.C. v. DEPTFORD TWSP. BOE Federal District Court allows local school district to add other state agencies (DDD, DHS) as third party defendants.
*S.C. v. BERNARDS TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION Court determined that local school district did not offer FAPE to classified child; orders private placement.
S.O. v. EGG HARBOR TWSP BOE Residential school ordered for dyslexic child.
NEW JERSEY PROTECTION & ADVOCACY, INC.,v. NJ STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Eight sections of the New Jersey Administrative Code ruled invalid: 1. N.J.A.C. 6A:14-3.5(a) 2. N.J.A.C. 6A:14-3.7(d)(8) 3. N.J.A.C. 6A:14-4.7(f) 4. N.J.A.C. 6A:14-3.3(f) 5. N.J.A.C. 6A:14-2.3(e)(7) 6. N.J.A.C. 6A:14-2.2(d) 7. N.J.A.C. 6A:14-3.3 8. N.J.A.C. 6A:14-3.4(f)
*NEW JERSEY PROTECTION & ADVOCACY, INC., v. NJ STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Fees and costs awarded; discussion of applicability of Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. West Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res. (Link temporarily unavailable)
KOLB v. MANSFIELD TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION Does a child study team member have a cause of action against school district if she alleges that school's action against her was in retaliation for her testimony in a previous due process case that was detrimental to districts financial interests?
D.M. v. WARREN HILLS REGIONAL BOARD OF EDUCATION Respondent. Petitioner, D.M. is the mother of V.M., a fourteen-year-old special education student who completed eighth grade at an out of district public school, Long Valley Middle School in the Washington Township school district. Respondent, the Warren Hills Regional Board of Education, proposes to return V.M. to an in-district school, Warren Hills High School, for the upcoming school. Petitioner opposes this proposed placement, and instead seeks placement at West Morris High School, which is not within respondent's school district.
C. B. v. BOGOTA BOARD OF EDUCATION Respondent. Petitioner, C. B., is the mother of M. H., a 10 year-old special education student who completed fourth grade in June, 1999, at a regular elementary school within the Bogota Public School District (Respondent). M. H. is poised to enter fifth grade in September, 1999. Petitioner alleges that respondent failed to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the 1998-1999 school year and, therefore, seeks a change of placement to an out-of-district private school for children with special needs for the upcoming school year.
L.W. v. COLLIER HIGH SCHOOL AND BOROUGH OF SAYREVILLE BOARD OF EDUCATION Does "stay put" compel a private special education school to maintain the status quo when the student has been expelled from that facility? No.
E.W v. WAYNE TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION Respondent. Petitioner E.W. through her parents brought this action against the Wayne Township Board of Education (District) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §1400 to 1491, for reimbursement of private school tuition due to a unilateral placement in April 1998 in a private out-of-district school.
*FORSTROM v. FAIRLAWN BOARD OF EDUCATION Related services available to home-schooled child if parents agree to bring child to the public school for the related services.
B. H. v. PATERSON SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THE WINDSOR ACADEMY Respondents. Petitioner seeks an Order requiring the immediate reinstatement of R.B.H. to his “stay put” placement at Windsor Academy, until such time as his educational placement is changed in accordance with the procedures of IDEA or until petitioner's pending due process hearing is resolved. Petitioner also seeks an order enforcing R.B.H's right to “stay put” at Windsor Academy in accordance with N.J.A.C 6A:14-7.6(b) and N.J.A.C. 6A:14-2.7(j) and enjoining respondent Windsor Academy from violating R.B.H's right to “stay put” at Windsor Academy.
J.H.R. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EAST BRUNSWICK Attorneys fees reimbursable in domicile cases heard in N.J. Superior Court.
*SLOAN v. LEO F. KLAGHOLTZ, COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION, AND NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION The Wildwood Board of Education and six students who attend schools in Wildwood appeal from a final decision of the State Board of Education which rejected their challenge to the Department of Education's determinations of the amount of state school aid Wildwood was entitled to receive for the 1997-98 and 1998-99 school years. Appellants' primary argument is that the stabilization provisions of the Comprehensive Educational Improvement and Financing Act of 1996 (CEIFA), N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-1 to -36, under which certain school districts received less than the full amount of state school aid to which they would have been entitled under the basic CEIFA funding formula, are unconstitutional. We conclude that the stabilization provisions of CEIFA are constitutional, and affirm the State Board's final decision.
SOMERVILLE BOARD OF EDUCATION v. MANVILLE BOARD OF EDUCATION When the parents of a minor child live in different school districts and the child lives with each parent in alternate weeks under a joint custody arrangement; and the child requires out-of district special education; should one district or both be responsible for the expense of the child's special education? We hold that on the facts presented, both districts must share the child's education costs. * Affirmed by the NJ Supreme Court on 4/10/01.
*STUBAUS v. CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN Challenge to N.J. public school funding system denied.
T. G. v. B
1st Circuit Cases
*Mr. and Mrs. I, Plaintiffs v. MAINE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICT [N]eed for special education can exist in any area of educational performance adversely affected by the disability, not just academics. ... [For example,] attendance and behavior are educational performance that must be addressed despite good academic performance. They are not merely means to the end of academic achievement, but are themselves educational ends.
*FRAZIER v. FAIRHAVEN SCHOOL COMMITTEE This appeal requires us to decide three issues of first impression in this circuit. Answering a question that has divided our sister circuits, we hold that a plaintiff who alleges that local educational officials have flouted her right to a free and appropriate public education may not bring suit for money damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without first exhausting the administrative process established by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). We next conclude that same-sex discrimination is actionable under Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 (although, due to shortcomings in the amended complaint, the district court's dismissal of that claim nonetheless must stand). Finally, we hold that the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) does not confer a private right of action upon either an aggrieved student or her parents. The upshot is that we affirm the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' amended complaint. (NB: 3rd Circuit does not require exhaustion in these circumstances.)
2nd Circuit Cases
*BARTLETT v. NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS A person with a reading disability may be disabled under the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act if her impairment "substantially limits" her with respect to the major life activity of reading, and "substantially limits" her with respect to the major life activity of working only if it is her impairment that causes her to be excluded or significantly restricted in a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes.
*FRANK G. v BOARD OF EDUCATION OF HYDE PARK Where district argued that it was not required to reimburse the parents for their private school placement because the student had never received special education services from the district, the 2d Circuit ruled that it was well settled and unambiguous within the IDEA that the parents need only have requested special education and related services from the district. Once the district responded to such a request with an inappropriate program that denied FAPE, parents were entitled to reimbursement.
*JD v. PAWLET SCHOOL DISTRICT This case deals with whether or not an academically gifted child with an emotional-behavioral disability is eligible for special education under the IDEA and the corresponding Vermont regulations. The court determined that JD was not eligible.
MULLER v. EAST ISLIP UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT Case dealing with eligibility for special education based upon emotional disturbance. Ruling favorable to parents.
Federal Law and Codes
20 U.S.C.A.1400 IDEA
TITLE 34 EDUCATION REGULATIONS (The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is the codification of the general and permanent rules published in the Federal Register by the executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government. It is divided into 50 titles that represent broad areas subject to Federal regulation. Each volume of the CFR is updated once each calendar year and is issued on a quarterly basis.)
REGULATIONS Part 300
A.D.A. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
28 C.F.R. Part 35 28 C.F.R. Part 35 NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 SECTION 504
Family Education Rights & Privacy Act (FERPA)
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ASSISTANCE AND BILL OF RIGHTS ACT OF 2000
Federal rules of civil procedure
SEARCH THE N.J. DISTRICT COURT DECISIONS
N.J. GOVERNMENT AND LEGAL RESOURCES
State Board of Education Legal Decisions
New Jersey Law and Codes
N.J.S.A. NEW JERSEY STATUTES
N.J.A.C. 6A:14.1.1 NEW JERSEY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
N.J. Office of Administrative Law CASES
NEW JERSEY OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (OAL)
Annotated Law Library Page 2
Phone: 732-238-0900 620 Cranbury Road
Suite 212
Fax: 732-238-0970 East Brunswick, N.J. 08816
J. WESLER L. Laracuente L. GAINES
Email contact:
The information presented herein is intended to be informational, and not legal advice. Obtain competent legal representation for your particular matter. See full disclaimer.
| |