115.
Plaintiff #1, J.T. [1] is a parent/guardian of D.T. who is classified as a student with a disability as per the IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3), and a resident of Middletown, New Jersey. As such, the LEA, Middletown Township Public School District, is obligated to provide D.T. a Free Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”) pursuant to IDEA for every school year. Pursuant to both Section 504 and the ADA, D.T. is a qualified individual with a disability who was denied benefits as per their IEP from the LEA solely because of their disability. Such denial of educational benefits was in bad faith or a gross misjudgment. The Plaintiff-Student’s most recently agreed upon IEP is attached in Appendix G.
[1] Pursuant to the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”), 20 U.S.C. §1232g (and 34 C.F.R. Part 99), Counsel is using the initials of the parent/guardian and student to protect the student’s privacy.
116.
Plaintiff #2, K.M. is a parent/guardian of M.M. and S.M., both of whom are classified as a student with a disability as per the IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3), and a resident of Staten Island, New York. As such, the LEA, the NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, is obligated to provide both M.M. and S.M. a Free Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”) pursuant to IDEA for every school year. Pursuant to both Section 504 and the ADA, both M.M. and S.M. are qualified individuals with a disability who were denied benefits as per their IEP from the LEA solely because of their disability. Such denial of educational benefits was in bad faith or a gross misjudgment. The Plaintiff-Students’ most recently agreed upon IEPs are attached in Appendix G.
117.
Plaintiff #3, J.J. is a parent/guardian of Z.J. who is classified as a student with a disability as per the IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3), and a resident of Meriden, Connecticut. As such, the LEA, Meriden School District, is obligated to provide Z.J. a Free Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”) pursuant to IDEA for every school year. Pursuant to both Section 504 and the ADA, Z.J. is a qualified individual with a disability who was denied benefits as per their IEP from the LEA solely because of their disability. Such denial of educational benefits was in bad faith or a gross misjudgment. The Plaintiff-Student’s most recently agreed upon IEP is attached in Appendix G.
118.
Plaintiff #4, C.N. is a parent/guardian of V.N. who is classified as a student with a disability as per the IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3), and a resident of Leander, Texas. As such, the LEA, Leander Independent School District, is obligated to provide V.N. a Free Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”) pursuant to IDEA for every school year. Pursuant to both Section 504 and the ADA, V.N. is a qualified individual with a disability who was denied benefits as per their IEP from the LEA solely because of their disability. Such denial of educational benefits was in bad faith or a gross misjudgment. The Plaintiff-Student’s most recently agreed upon IEP is attached in Appendix G.
119.
The complete list of Plaintiffs herein is attached as Appendix A.
120.
Defendant BILL de BLASIO (“Mayor de Blasio”) in his official capacity as Mayor of the City of New York, directs the New York City Department of Education through the appointment of the Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education. Mayor DeBlasio’s principal place of business is located at City Hall, New York, New York 10007.
121.
Defendant NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (“NYC DOE”) is the official body (local educational agency, “LEA”) charged with the responsibility of developing and enforcing policies with respect to the administration and operation of the public schools in the City of New York, including programs and services for students with disabilities. See 20 U.S.C. § 1401(19), 34 C.F.R. § 300.28 and N.Y. Educ. Law § 2590, 2590-g. NYC DOE’s principal place of business is located at 52 Chambers Street, New York, New York 10007.
122.
Defendant RICHARD CARRANZA (“Chancellor Carranza”) is the Chancellor of the NYC DOE, and as such is entrusted with the specific powers and duties set forth in N.Y. Educ. Law § 2590-h, including oversight of the DOE’s provision of education and services to students with disabilities under the IDEA. The Chancellor’s principal place of business is located at 52 Chambers Street, New York, New York 10007.
123.
Defendant SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN THE UNITED STATES (See Appendix B) are the official bodies charged with the responsibility of developing and enforcing policies with respect to the administration and operation of the public schools in their respective geographic areas, including programs and services for students with disabilities, as defined as the “local educational agency” (“LEA”) in 20 U.S.C. § 1401(19) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.28.
124.
Upon information and belief, all States and Territories of the United States are the recipient of funding under the IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1400-1487, and as such, have the responsibility to “establish and maintain procedures . . . to ensure that children with disabilities and their parents are guaranteed procedural safeguards with respect to the provision of free appropriate education.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(a). Defendant STATE DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES (See Appendix C) are the State Educational Agencies (“SEA”) which exercise general supervision over all programs in the State that provide educational services to disabled students, and must ensure that all such meet State education standards. Michael C. ex rel. Stephen C. v. Radnor Tp. School Dist., 202 F.3d 642, 648 (3d Cir. 2000).
125.
One of the most important procedural safeguards provided to parents under the IDEA is the opportunity for an impartial due process hearing to present complaints with respect to any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such child. The administrative hearing shall be conducted by the SEA or by the LEA, as determined by State law. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f).
