## Facts

- J.L. was diagnosed with an autism-spectrum disorder at approximately age two.
- J.L. attended a mainstream preschool for nondisabled children.
- The Springfield Board of Education (Springfield) determined that J.L. was eligible for special-education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
- J.L.’s parents, D.L. and K.L., participated in developing an individualized education program (IEP) for J.L.
- The final IEP offered placement in a Springfield “preschool disabled class.”
- The parents believed that moving J.L. from his mainstream preschool to a segregated disabled class would negate the progress he had made.
- The parents provided Springfield written notice rejecting the proposed IEP and stating their intent to obtain additional special-education services for J.L.
- The parents also provided Springfield written notice of their intent to seek reimbursement for privately obtained special-education services.
- The parents requested an IDEA due-process hearing, alleging the IEP was inadequate and seeking reimbursement of their expenses.
- J.L. did not receive special-education or related services from Springfield under the disputed IEP.
- Springfield filed a motion to dismiss the parents’ reimbursement claim before any evidentiary hearing occurred.
- A New Jersey administrative-law judge (ALJ) granted the motion and dismissed the case without conducting a due-process hearing.
- The parents filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey challenging the ALJ’s dismissal and seeking to pursue reimbursement.

## Issues

1. May parents seek IDEA reimbursement for unilateral private special-education services when they rejected the district’s IEP and the child had not previously received special-education services from the public agency?
2. Did the ALJ err by dismissing the parents’ reimbursement claim on a threshold legal ground without holding a due-process hearing to develop the record on FAPE and appropriateness?

## Decision

- The district court reversed the ALJ’s dismissal.
- The court held the parents were not categorically barred from seeking reimbursement solely because J.L. had not previously received special-education or related services from Springfield.
- The court held that resolving the reimbursement dispute required fact development on whether Springfield offered a FAPE and whether the parents’ privately obtained services were appropriate, which could not be decided through a pre-hearing dismissal on the asserted categorical bar.
- The case was remanded for further administrative proceedings consistent with the parents’ right to a due-process hearing.

## Legal Principles

- IDEA requires participating states and districts to make a free appropriate public education (FAPE) available to eligible children through an IEP reasonably calculated to confer educational benefit.
- Courts may order reimbursement as equitable relief when (1) the public agency failed to offer a FAPE and (2) the parents’ unilateral private placement or services were appropriate; equitable considerations may affect the amount awarded.
- The IDEA’s reimbursement framework, read in light of Supreme Court authority recognizing reimbursement as an equitable remedy (including Burlington and Carter), does not impose an absolute prerequisite that the child must first receive public special-education services before parents can pursue reimbursement.
- Parents challenging an IEP are entitled to IDEA’s procedural safeguards, including an impartial due-process hearing for disputes concerning identification, evaluation, educational placement, or FAPE.
- When parents plausibly allege that an offered IEP denied FAPE and seek reimbursement, an ALJ generally must allow development of a factual record rather than disposing of the claim solely on a broad, threshold legal rule that forecloses relief.

## Conclusion

The district court set aside the ALJ’s pre-hearing dismissal and ruled that the parents could pursue IDEA reimbursement even though J.L. had not previously received district-provided special-education services; the matter required further administrative proceedings, including a due-process hearing to determine whether Springfield’s IEP offered FAPE, whether the parents’ private services were appropriate, and whether equitable factors support reimbursement.


D.L. and K.L., o/b/o J.L. v. Springfield Board of Education, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17727 (2008)