Yamen ex rel. Yamen v. Board of Education of the Arlington Central School District
Docket: No. 95 CV 0454 (BDP)
Court: District Court, S.D. New York; January 2, 1996; Federal District Court
The case involves a lawsuit alleging violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), the Civil Rights Act, and the Fourteenth Amendment. The New York State Department of Education and Thomas Sobol, the Commissioner, are seeking to dismiss the claims against them, asserting procedural grounds under various Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Michael Yamen, a 20-year-old with multiple disabilities, is represented by his parents, William and Nancy Yamen, in a claim against the Arlington School District and its officials. Michael attended North Campus High School from 1991 to 1993, where the plaintiffs contend that the individualized educational programs (IEPs) developed for him were inadequate. Key allegations include the absence of a transition plan and failure to consider diagnostic vocational evaluations prior to making significant changes to his educational placement.
In 1993, after observing improvements in Michael's skills at a summer program, the Yamens enrolled him at Maplebrook School, which the District refused to recognize as an appropriate placement, denying tuition and transportation support. Following a request for an impartial hearing regarding the inadequacies of the IEPs and the refusal for appropriate placement, a hearing officer ruled in favor of the District's placement decision. The Yamens' subsequent appeal to the State Review Officer resulted in a finding that the District's placement was inappropriate, yet the request for tuition reimbursement for Maplebrook School was denied due to a lack of demonstrated appropriateness.
The Yamens filed their complaint on January 23, 1995, asserting they had exhausted administrative remedies and seeking monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief. The Board of Education and Rothman responded on March 20, 1995, with an answer and counterclaim challenging the State Review Officer's decision regarding the District's recommended program.
The State defendants seek dismissal of the claims against them based on three main arguments: lack of standing by the Yamens, improper party status, and Eleventh Amendment immunity which limits the court's jurisdiction over certain claims. The Yamens contend that the District's denial of reimbursement for their child's placement at Maplebrook was due to a State memorandum asserting that reimbursement would not occur for nonapproved school placements. The State defendants counter that the Yamens lack standing, as they have not demonstrated that their alleged injury is directly traceable to the State's actions. They highlight that the impartial hearing officer and the State Review Officer's decisions did not reference the nonapproved status of Maplebrook when denying reimbursement, indicating that the denial was based on the appropriateness of the placement rather than the State's policy.
Additionally, the State defendants argue they are not proper parties to the action, claiming that the remaining causes of action (Tenth, Eleventh, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth) do not state claims against them. These claims include allegations regarding the hearing officer's conduct and discrimination due to Michael's disability. The Yamens assert that the State defendants are indeed proper parties because of their involvement in the District’s program and procedures, citing instances such as the State's referral for evaluation, the appointment of the hearing officer, and the State Review Officer's notice regarding Michael's educational rights.
The State defendants did not meet their obligations to monitor Local Education Agencies under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Section 504. In the case Dorian G. v. Sobol, the plaintiff sought reimbursement for expenses related to private schooling for emotional disturbances, alleging that Commissioner Sobol failed in his supervisory duties. The court dismissed the case, distinguishing it from Jose P. v. Ambach, where the Commissioner was held liable for systemic violations due to a class action context and his acknowledgment of failure to meet duties. In Dorian G., the lawsuit stemmed from an individual appeal without claims of systemic violations, and the Commissioner was no longer part of the relevant administrative appeals process following changes in New York State law. The plaintiff's allegations were deemed conclusory and insufficient to demonstrate how the State defendants violated their rights, leading to the dismissal of their claims. The court did not address the Eleventh Amendment issue as the defendants were found not to be proper parties, and the counterclaims against the State defendants were rendered moot. The motion to dismiss against the New York State Department of Education and Commissioner Sobol was granted.
