Urban V. Jefferson County School District Case Summary

Case Briefing #6-Andre Williams

1 Name & citation of case: Urban v. Jefferson County School District R-1, 870 F. Supp. 1558 (D. CO 1994)

2.Facts: This case was originally presented before the district court of Colorado in 1993 on behalf of the parents of Gregory Urban, a seventeen-year-old teen with severe mental disabilities. Gregory and his parents moved to Evergreen, Colorado in 1991. The parents wanted Gregory to go to Evergreen High School but the school district placed him at Golden High School where he participated in support services for children with severe disabilities. The support services at Golden High School were not available at Evergreen High. After the development of Gregory’s IEP his parents voiced objections to what they believed constituted violations of Gregory’s right to a free and appropriate public education. These violations included placement of Gregory outside his neighborhood school and failure to stipulate transition services in his IEP. After initially participating in the IDEA administrative process the parents filed a case with the district court claiming the school district violated Gregory’s rights under IDEA and ADA. The court ruled in favor of the school district by rejecting

Gregory’s claim and the parents appealed.

3. Decision in administrative hearings and the lower courts: According to the U.S. Court of Appeals some of the administrative rulings were ambiguous. An Impartial Hearing Officer found that the district failed to provide Gregory with a free appropriate public education because his IEP lacked a transition services statement. However, the same IHO determined that Gregory was receiving a free appropriate education because of his participation in support services at Golden High. An administrative Law Judge ordered the district to hold another IEP meeting to include Gregory’s parents but did not support the parent’s claim that Gregory was entitled to an education at his neighborhood school. The lower court denied all of Gregory’s claims and his request for attorney fees. The lower court ruled that Gregory was receiving FAPE at Golden High and that he has no right under law to be placed in a neighborhood school.

4. Rationale: The U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s ruling. Their rationale was based on precedent and the family’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court ruled that the parents had an obligation to continue and follow procedures as outlined in IDEA. By choosing not to participate further in the administrative process the court had a limited amount of evidence, which could have been used to support the plaintiff’s argument. In regard to the parents’ claim that the district failed to include transition services in the IEP the court cited Doe v. Defendant I, 898 F.2d 1186, 1190 (6th Cir.1990). The court stated, “Technical deviations from the requirements of section 1401(a)(20), such as the failure to include a statement of transition services, do not render an IEP entirely invalid;  to hold otherwise would “exalt form over substance. To support their rationale in ruling against the placement of Gregory in his neighborhood school the court stated the following, “As we held in Murray, the IDEA does not give him a right to a placement at a neighborhood school.   51 F.3d at 928-30 (citing with approval the district court opinion in this case for the proposition that “the statutory preference for placement at a neighborhood school is only that-and it does not amount to a mandate”).” The rationale for upholding the dismissal of the ADA claim was based on Southeastern Community College v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397, 410-11, 99 S.Ct. 2361, 2369, 60 L.Ed.2d 980 (1979). In that case the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that school districts don’t have to adapt programs to ensure neighborhood placement under 504. The court stated, “Thus we analyze Gregory's ADA claim by reference to section 504's standards, and Gregory's claim is valid only if he is entitled to a placement at Evergreen High School under section 504.” Therefore the ADA claim was correctly dismissed according to the court. In addition the court denied compensation for attorney fees on the grounds that the plaintiff wasn’t successful enough in administrative hearings and court.

Holding: The U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s ruling. The court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal on grounds of the lack of subject matter jurisdiction (administrative process). The denial of IDEA, ADA claims, and the request for attorney fees was also upheld.

Scope of the holding: The jurisdiction of the court extends to all U.S. states and territories because it was a federal case in the second highest court in the U.S. The population that will be affected by the court’s decision includes parents and students who disagree with school districts on the placement of students who are disabled. The court’s ruling also affects cases where there is an argument based on the technical aspects of an IEP.

Significance of the case: In reviewing the case I went to wrightslaw.com, which clarified the concept of inclusion and a districts’ obligation under IDEA.

This case is significant because of the courts’ strict interpretation of the law. A summary reading of IDEA would lead many parents to believe that a school must accommodate each child who is disabled by all means necessary. However, alternative placements can also be considered free appropriate pubic education. The court stated that the Urbans never argued against the quality of education Gregory received at Golden High. This is significant because if quality had been considered then FAPE could have come into play. As it stands now the court’s ruling and interpretation of the law further defines

IDEA.

Contextually how does this case fit into the time line of when it happened? One year before the Urbans moved into Evergreen the EAHCA was amended (1990) and became IDEA. A provision for transition services was added to the law. This case therefore could be considered a test case in regard to the new stipulation. ADA was also enacted in the same year.

5. I believe that the current field of education is one where parents and educators have slowly come to a consensus on the meaning of FAPE and inclusion. Two-story schools with elevators and ramps are some of the accommodations that come to mind when I think of compliance with federal law. But the current dearth of qualified special educators could lead to future incidents where there aren’t enough teachers to ensure compliance with IDEA and its stipulation of FAPE.