Lexplug logoLexplug

Burlington School Comm. v. Mass. Dept. of Ed.

Supreme Court of United States
471 U.S. 359 (1985)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A court's authority under the Education of the Handicapped Act to grant "appropriate" relief includes the power to order retroactive reimbursement for private school expenses to parents. A parental violation of the Act's "stay-put" provision does not bar reimbursement, but the parents assume the financial risk that they will not be reimbursed if their chosen placement is ultimately found to be inappropriate.


Facts:

  • Michael Panico, a student in the Town of Burlington's public schools, was identified as having 'specific learning disabilities,' qualifying him as 'handicapped' under the Education of the Handicapped Act (the Act).
  • For the 1979-1980 school year, the Town of Burlington proposed an Individualized Education Program (IEP) that would place Michael in a special class at the Pine Glen School, a public school.
  • The Panicos, believing the public school placement was inappropriate for Michael's needs, rejected the Town's proposed IEP in July 1979.
  • Based on an expert evaluation from Massachusetts General Hospital recommending a specialized setting, the Panicos unilaterally enrolled Michael in the Carroll School, a private special education school, at their own expense in August 1979.
  • The Panicos and the Town disagreed on the source of Michael's learning difficulties; the Town believed the source to be emotional, while the parents believed it to be neurological.

Procedural Posture:

  • Robert Panico rejected the Town of Burlington's proposed IEP and sought administrative review from the Massachusetts Department of Education’s Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA).
  • In January 1980, the BSEA hearing officer ruled the Town's IEP was inappropriate and the private placement was appropriate, ordering the Town to reimburse the Panicos.
  • The Town sought judicial review of the BSEA decision in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
  • The District Court overturned the BSEA decision after a trial, concluding the Town's IEP was appropriate and the Town was not responsible for the private school costs.
  • In a subsequent ruling, the District Court ordered the Panicos to reimburse the Town for certain payments it had made toward the private school tuition during the proceedings.
  • The Panicos (appellants) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
  • The Court of Appeals held that a unilateral parental placement does not bar reimbursement if that placement is ultimately found to be appropriate, and it remanded the case to the district court.
  • The Town of Burlington (petitioner) sought and was granted a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the Education of the Handicapped Act authorize courts to order reimbursement to parents for private school tuition if their placement is ultimately deemed appropriate, even if the parents unilaterally placed their child there in violation of the Act's 'stay-put' provision?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Rehnquist

Yes. The Education of the Handicapped Act authorizes reimbursement for private school tuition, and a parental violation of the Act's 'stay-put' provision does not act as a bar to that relief. The Act's directive that a court may 'grant such relief as the court determines is appropriate' confers broad discretion. Interpreting this in light of the Act's purpose—to provide a free appropriate public education—requires that retroactive reimbursement be an available remedy. Otherwise, parents who correctly identify an IEP as inappropriate would be forced to choose between their child's educational welfare and their statutory right to a free education, rendering the Act's procedural safeguards an 'empty victory.' Reimbursement is not 'damages,' but rather a belated payment of expenses the school district should have borne initially. The 'stay-put' provision (§ 1415(e)(3)) does not mention financial responsibility or waiver. Its purpose is not to punish parents, but to prevent schools from removing children from placements over parental objection. Therefore, parents who unilaterally change their child's placement do so at their own financial risk; if a court ultimately determines the school's proposed IEP was appropriate, the parents are barred from reimbursement.



Analysis:

This decision empowers parents by affirming that judicial review under the Act has meaningful consequences, ensuring procedural safeguards are not merely symbolic. It establishes that retroactive tuition reimbursement is a form of 'appropriate' equitable relief, creating a significant financial incentive for school districts to propose and implement proper IEPs from the start. The ruling clarifies the 'stay-put' provision, framing it not as an absolute bar but as a risk-allocation mechanism: parents may act in what they believe is their child's best interest, but they bear the financial risk if their judgment is ultimately deemed incorrect by the courts.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Burlington School Comm. v. Mass. Dept. of Ed. (1985) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Burlington School Comm. v. Mass. Dept. of Ed.