A Colorado family challenging efforts to move their autistic son to a different school can seek attorneys’ fees and tuition reimbursement, but their substantive claims under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act are moot, the Tenth Circuit ruled Tuesday.
The family’s IDEA claims against Harrison School District No. 2 were rendered moot by the expiration of their 17-year-old son’s individualized education plan (IEP), the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held. The family failed to show how the specific IDEA violations they alleged—all of which stemmed from the now-expired IEP covering their son, Patrick G.—will be repeated in the future, the court said.
“Vague assertions that a school district and a student’s parents will continue to ‘lock horns’ over a student’s placement cannot, on their own, make out a reasonable probability that the same legal controversy will repeat itself,” the court said.
The opinion, written by Judge Jerome A. Holmes, builds off the court’s two recent rulings under the IDEA: Steven R.F. v. Harrison Sch. Dist. No. 2 and Nathan M. v. Harrison Sch. Dist. No. 2, Both decisions, issued in 2019, rejected as moot IDEA claims brought by families of children with autism against the same Colorado school district at issue here.
In Patrick G.'s case, the court also considered questions not present in Steven R.F. or Nathan M.:...
IBM reached a settlement with the federal government on Friday, agreeing to pay roughly $17 million to resolve allegations of illegal diversity, equity and inclusion practices. Acting Attorney Gen...