SF vs. Tidioute Community Charter School

PENNSYLVANIA
SPECIAL EDUCATION HEARING OFFICER

DECISION

Child’s Name: S.F.

Date of Birth: [redacted]
Date of Hearing: August 19, 2014

CLOSED HEARING

ODR File No. 14872-1314AS

Parties to the Hearing: Parent[s]

Tidioute Community Charter School 241 Main Street
Tidioute, PA 16351

Representative:

Charles E. Steele, Esquire Christopher N. Elnicki, Esquire Steele Schneider
Lawyers Building

428 Forbes Avenue, Suite 700 Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Richard Winkler, Esquire Butcher & Winkler
123 North Franklin Street Titusville, PA 16354

Date Record Closed: September 8, 2014

Date of Decision: September 19, 2014

Hearing Officer: Cathy A. Skidmore, M.Ed., J.D.

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The student (hereafter Student)1 is a pre-teenaged student attending the Tidioute Community Charter School (hereafter School) who is eligible for special education pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).2 Student’s Parent filed a due process complaint against the School in April 2014, asserting that it violated the IDEA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,3 as well as the federal and state regulations implementing those statutes.

The case proceeded to a due process hearing which convened over a single session,4 at which the parties presented evidence in support of their respective positions. The Parent sought to establish that the School failed to provide Student with FAPE throughout the time period in question, and that it discriminated against Student on the basis of Student’s disability in contravention of Section 504. The School maintained that its special education program was appropriate for Student, and that it did not engage in prohibited discrimination.

For the reasons set forth below, I find in favor of the Parent and Student on some of their claims, and in favor of the School on one of the claims.

ISSUES

  1. Whether the School denied Student FAPE during the 2012-13 and 2013-14 school years;
  2. Whether the actions of the School against Student on February 27, 2014 amounted to discrimination on the basis of, and deliberate indifference to, Student’s disability; and
  3. If either of the above are answered in the affirmative, is Student entitled to compensatory education and/or declaratory or other relief.
S-F-Tidioute-Community-Charter-ODRNo-14872-1314AS

Leave a Reply

Pennsylvania

Montgomery Law, LLC
1420 Locust Street, Suite 420
Philadelphia, PA 19102
T/F. 215-650-7563

Rate By
SUPER LAWYERS
Joseph W Montgomery, II

New Jersey

Historic Smithville, Suite 1
1 N. New York Road
Galloway, NJ 08205
(all mail to Phila. office)
T. 856-282-5550

Disclaimer: Montgomery Law, LLC does not give legal advice until after it has entered into an attorney-client relationship. No part of this website creates an attorney-client relationship. All Parts of this website are Attorney Advertising. The photos and videos on this website contain portrayals of clients by non-clients, re-enactment of scenes, pictures and persons which are not actual or authentic and depictions which are a dramatization.