## Facts

- T.A. attended public school in an Oregon district through part of high school and struggled academically and behaviorally.
- The district evaluated T.A. for a learning disability in 2001 but did not evaluate him for ADHD, despite staff concerns; the parents were not informed of those concerns.
- In 2003, a private specialist diagnosed T.A. with ADHD and learning disabilities.
- The parents withdrew T.A. and enrolled him in a private school specializing in educating students with disabilities.
- The parents sought an administrative hearing under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), requesting a determination of eligibility and tuition reimbursement.
- The district determined T.A. was not eligible for special-education services and did not offer an individualized education program (IEP).
- A hearing officer found the district failed to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) and that the private placement was appropriate, and ordered reimbursement.
- The federal district court set aside the reimbursement award, concluding IDEA barred reimbursement because T.A. had not previously received special education and related services from the public agency.
- The court of appeals reversed, holding IDEA preserved authority to award reimbursement as “appropriate” relief.
- The Supreme Court affirmed and remanded for further proceedings on whether reimbursement was warranted on the facts.

## Issues

1. Whether IDEA permits tuition reimbursement for a unilateral private placement when the child had not previously received special education and related services from the public school district.
2. Whether IDEA’s 1997 amendments impose a categorical bar to reimbursement in the absence of prior public special-education services.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held that IDEA authorizes tuition reimbursement when a district fails to provide a FAPE and the private placement is appropriate, even if the child never previously received public special-education services.
- The Court rejected the argument that IDEA § 1412(a)(10)(C)(ii) limits reimbursement only to children who previously received public special-education services.
- The Court reaffirmed that reimbursement is an equitable remedy under IDEA § 1415(i)(2)(C)(iii) and is not automatic.
- The Court affirmed the judgment below and remanded for a determination, under equitable principles, whether reimbursement should be awarded in this case.

## Legal Principles

- Under IDEA § 1415(i)(2)(C)(iii), courts may grant relief deemed “appropriate,” which can include reimbursement for the cost of private special-education services when a district fails to provide a FAPE and the private placement is appropriate.
- IDEA § 1412(a)(10)(C)(ii) describes one circumstance in which reimbursement may be ordered and does not, by implication, bar reimbursement in other circumstances.
- Reimbursement turns on equitable considerations; parents must show both an IDEA violation by the public agency and the appropriateness of the private placement.
- Interpreting IDEA to deny reimbursement solely because a child lacked prior public special-education services would weaken the statute’s FAPE guarantee and reduce incentives for districts to identify and evaluate eligible students.

## Conclusion

IDEA permits tuition reimbursement for a unilateral private placement when the public school fails to provide a FAPE and the private placement is appropriate, regardless of whether the child previously received special-education services from the public school, with reimbursement determined through equitable discretion on remand.


Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230 (2009)