## Facts

- J.D. was a minor student who was academically gifted but had significant emotional and behavioral problems affecting relationships and school conduct.
- J.D. progressed rapidly in school, skipped sixth grade, entered a high school program in seventh grade, and took advanced coursework.
- Testing showed very high cognitive ability and achievement, including IQ results in the top two percent and standardized test scores at roughly tenth-to-twelfth grade levels while in eighth grade.
- At the parents’ request, a multidisciplinary evaluation found J.D. had an “emotional-behavioral disability” under Vermont’s special education rules, but concluded the disability did not have the required “adverse effect” on educational performance in specified basic skills; he was found ineligible for IDEA special education.
- A separate § 504 evaluation found J.D. qualified for protections and accommodations; the school proposed a § 504 plan including counseling and peer-relationship/social-skills interventions.
- The parents rejected the § 504 plan, placed J.D. unilaterally in an out-of-state residential gifted program, and sought public reimbursement.
- After unfavorable state administrative decisions, J.D. sued alleging IDEA substantive and procedural violations and discrimination under § 504; the district court granted summary judgment to all defendants.

## Issues

1. Whether J.D. was IDEA-eligible under Vermont’s regulations, including whether his emotional-behavioral disability had an “adverse effect” on educational performance as defined by those regulations.
2. Whether defendants committed IDEA procedural violations that denied J.D. a free appropriate public education (FAPE) or significantly impeded parental participation.
3. Whether defendants violated § 504 by denying meaningful access to education or failing to provide reasonable accommodations.
4. Whether the parents were entitled to reimbursement for the unilateral residential placement.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment for all defendants.
- J.D. was not eligible for IDEA services because he did not satisfy Vermont’s “adverse effect” requirement tied to performance in basic skills.
- The § 504 accommodations offered were reasonable; defendants did not discriminate against J.D. or deny him meaningful access to education.
- Alleged IDEA procedural defects, including delays, were not actionable because they caused no denial of FAPE or comparable prejudice.
- Because there was no IDEA eligibility and no § 504 violation, reimbursement for the unilateral private placement was denied.

## Legal Principles

- IDEA eligibility may require both a qualifying disability category and a state-defined showing that the disability adversely affects educational performance; high achievement can defeat an “adverse effect” showing when the state ties eligibility to basic skills performance.
- Emotional or behavioral impairment, without the required adverse educational impact under applicable regulations, does not establish IDEA entitlement.
- A student may be covered by § 504 even if IDEA-ineligible; § 504 liability generally turns on denial of meaningful access or failure to provide reasonable accommodations, not parental preference for a different program.
- IDEA procedural violations warrant relief only when they result in substantive educational harm or seriously interfere with parental participation rights.
- Reimbursement for unilateral placement is generally unavailable absent a failure by the public system to provide FAPE to a student entitled to special education services.

## Conclusion

The court held that Vermont’s “adverse effect” criterion controlled IDEA eligibility and was not met where the student’s academic performance in basic skills remained exceptionally high, upheld the school’s § 504 accommodations as reasonable, found no prejudicial procedural IDEA violations, and denied reimbursement for the parents’ unilateral residential placement.


J.D. ex rel. J.D. v. Pawlet Sch. Dist., 224 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2000)