2d Circuit sets fast deadline for Connecticut student-disability cases

Deadline cases are scary because the Court of Appeals may issue a ruling that changes the rules and kills off cases that were filed too late. This is one of them.

The case is PMB v. Ridgefield Board of Education, issued on December 16. This case is brought under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act, a federal student-rights statute that requires the parent to first file an internal grievance with the school district over the educational plan devised for their disabled child. If the parents are not satisfied with the district's Individualized Education Plan (IEP), they can request a hearing. If they lose the hearing, the parents have to appeal to the State Commissioner of Education. If that fails, the parents can file suit in federal court. That's a lot of deadlines. This case concerns the deadline for filing in federal court.

After the parents lost their appeal to the State Education Department on July 20, 2018, they filed this lawsuit on October 18, 2018, 90 days after the mailing of the state agency ruling. Under Connecticut law, after the final agency decision is mailed out, the parents have 45 days to "file the appeal with the clerk of the superior courts for the judicial district of New Britian or for the judicial district wherein the person appealing resides . . . " So the Connecticut statute provides for deadlines in filing in state court. But plaintiffs in this case filed in federal court, where they claim the 90 deadline still applies.

The Court of Appeals (Bianco, Chin and Sack) agrees with the school district that this case was filed untimely. Under the IDEA, aggrieved parents may file their lawsuits in state or federal court. The statute says they can commence the action either within 90 days or, "if the State has an explicit time limitation . . . , in such time as the state allows." I can see the confusion here. But the Second Circuit says that district courts in Connecticut have routinely applied the 45-day limitation to appeals to federal court, The one Connecticut district court that supports the parents' argument may not be good law anymore because of more recent legislative developments on the issue.

Apart from the statutory interpretation, the Court of Appeals notes that its holding in this case is consistent with the underlying purposes of the IDEA, which is that "the public has a strong interest in expedient resolution of these claims," and "the longer these proceedings are permitted to drag on, the longer we risk keeping a child in an educational program that is ultimately found to be inadequate. And this need for efficiency outweighs any disadvantage an aggrieved parent may face from a shorter limitations period."