## Facts

- A learning-disabled student (“John”) attended public school in the Town of Burlington and, after third grade, was offered an IEP for the 1979–1980 school year.
- John’s parents challenged the proposed IEP and placement through Massachusetts’s special-education administrative process.
- While administrative proceedings were pending, the parents placed John in a private school not specified in the IEP and paid the costs themselves.
- The state hearing body (BSEA) found the Town’s proposed program inappropriate, found the private program more suitable, and ordered public funding and reimbursement.
- Federal litigation followed, addressing the IEP’s validity, later-year placements, the weight due the administrative record, and whether reimbursement could be ordered despite the parents’ unilateral placement.
- The district court resolved multiple issues after trial; all parties appealed, producing this second First Circuit appeal under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA).

## Issues

1. What substantive law governs state due process hearings under the EAHCA, and how do state standards interact with federal requirements?
2. Do procedural or regulatory violations automatically invalidate an IEP, or must the challenger show educational harm or impaired parental participation?
3. Under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2), what level of deference (“due weight”) is owed to state administrative findings, and what does “additional evidence” permit in court?
4. How should burdens of proof be allocated in disputes over placements in school years after the originally contested IEP?
5. When, if ever, may parents obtain reimbursement for unilateral private placement, including where they relied on an administrative decision, and may inequitable conduct bar reimbursement?

## Decision

- The First Circuit held that federal EAHCA standards supply the controlling substantive baseline in state hearings, while consistent state rules may be applied if not more restrictive than federal requirements.
- The court rejected a per se rule that procedural or regulatory defects automatically invalidate an IEP; relief depends on whether violations impaired parental participation or deprived the child of educational benefits.
- The court ruled that judicial review under § 1415(e)(2) is not a trial de novo: district courts must give “due weight” to the administrative proceedings.
- The court construed “additional evidence” narrowly, permitting supplementation to fill legitimate gaps or address matters not adequately developed administratively, not unrestricted relitigation.
- The court concluded that unilateral private placement does not categorically bar reimbursement; reimbursement turns on whether the private program is ultimately appropriate under the Act and on equitable considerations, including reliance on administrative orders and absence of bad faith.

## Legal Principles

- The EAHCA establishes federal substantive standards for a free appropriate public education; state procedures and protections may be used only insofar as they are consistent with federal requirements.
- Procedural violations affect an IEP’s validity only when they compromise the child’s educational rights, significantly impede parents’ participation, or cause loss of educational benefit.
- In § 1415(e)(2) review, courts must make an independent decision based on the preponderance of the evidence while giving “due weight” to administrative findings.
- “Additional evidence” in court is limited and functional (e.g., completing an incomplete record or addressing later developments), not a license for unrestricted new trials.
- Reimbursement for private placement is an equitable remedy that may be awarded when the public program is inappropriate and the private placement is appropriate; inequitable conduct, including bad faith, can justify denial or reduction.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit clarified core EAHCA review and remedy rules: federal standards control state hearings; procedural errors require a showing of educational or participatory harm; district courts must defer appropriately to administrative proceedings and admit only limited supplemental proof; and reimbursement for unilateral private placement may be ordered when the placement is appropriate and equity favors the parents.


Town of Burlington v. Dep’t of Educ. for the Commonwealth of Mass., 736 F.2d 773 (1st Cir. 1984)