## Facts

- T.K. was an elementary student eligible for special education and related services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
- During attendance at a New York City public school, T.K. allegedly experienced severe and persistent student-on-student bullying over an extended period.
- T.K.’s parents repeatedly notified school personnel of the bullying and sought responsive measures.
- The parents also requested that the IEP team address the bullying and consider its educational and emotional effects when developing T.K.’s IEP.
- The parents alleged the district’s response to bullying was inadequate and that the IEP process did not meaningfully account for bullying’s impact on T.K.’s ability to access instruction and obtain educational benefit.
- After pursuing IDEA administrative procedures (impartial hearing and state-level review), the parents sought federal judicial review, contending that bullying-related failures resulted in a denial of FAPE and interfered with parental participation in IEP decisionmaking.

## Issues

1. Whether severe, persistent, and unaddressed peer bullying that interferes with a disabled child’s learning can support a claim that the district denied a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under the IDEA.
2. Whether a school’s refusal to discuss or consider bullying at an IEP meeting can significantly impede parental participation, constituting an actionable procedural IDEA violation.
3. What showing is required to link bullying and the district’s response to a deprivation of educational benefit sufficient to amount to a denial of FAPE.

## Decision

- The court recognized that severe peer bullying, when it materially interferes with a disabled student’s access to instruction and educational benefit, may be relevant to and support a denial-of-FAPE claim under the IDEA.
- The court rejected the view that bullying is categorically outside the IDEA because it may affect implementation and effectiveness of the IEP and the child’s ability to receive the education offered.
- The court concluded that allegations that school officials refused to address bullying concerns during the IEP process could constitute a procedural violation by significantly impeding parents’ meaningful participation.
- The court treated the parents’ IDEA theory as legally cognizable and sufficient to proceed based on the alleged bullying, the district’s knowledge and inadequate response, and the asserted educational harm.

## Legal Principles

- FAPE requires an IEP reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit in practice; a program that cannot be accessed because of severe bullying may fail this standard.
- Student-on-student bullying is not automatically separate from IDEA obligations; it is part of the FAPE analysis when it interferes with the child’s learning, the IEP’s implementation, or access to the educational program.
- A procedural IDEA violation is actionable when it (1) impedes the child’s right to FAPE, (2) significantly impedes parents’ opportunity to participate in decisionmaking, or (3) causes a deprivation of educational benefits.
- To establish a bullying-based denial of FAPE, the claim must connect (a) severe and persistent bullying, (b) district knowledge and an inadequate response, and (c) a material restriction on educational access or benefit.

## Conclusion

The court held that severe, unremedied peer bullying can be a basis for an IDEA denial-of-FAPE claim when it deprives a student with a disability of meaningful educational benefit, and that shutting down discussion of bullying at IEP meetings may constitute a serious procedural violation by significantly impeding parental participation.


T.K. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 779 F. Supp. 2d 289 (E.D.N.Y. 2011)