top of page

EM ex rel. EM v. Pajaro Valley Unified School District Office of Administrative Hearings (2011)

  • 4 hours ago
  • 3 min read

By Abigail Lentine and Leah O’Donohue




Overview


This case was heard in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. It involved a dispute over eligibility for special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). The plaintiffs in this case were the parents of a child with an auditory processing disorder. They alleged that the defendants, the Pajaro Valley Unified School District (PVUSD), had erred in originally determining that their child did not qualify for special education services, and therefore had not complied with the IDEA. The Ninth Circuit reviewed whether the lower court applied the proper legal standards in evaluating the district’s compliance and ultimately affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings [1][2].



Summary


E.M., the child in this case, was represented by his parents and attended a PVUSD school. Although E.M. was noticeably intellectually capable, his teacher and parents began to notice signs of ADD/ADHD and issues with processing information, which eventually led E.M. to fall behind his grade expectations [1]. E.M.’s parents got him an independent psychological evaluation, which eventually diagnosed him with a learning disorder. They brought this to PVUSD’s attention, stating that they believe E.M. required special education services [2]. 


After reviewing the concerns raised by E.M.’s parents, PVUSD conducted its own evaluations to determine whether E.M. qualified for special education services. Although one subsequent assessment revealed that E.M. had an auditory processing disorder, the district still did not find him eligible for services [2]. The district concluded that E.M. did not meet the eligibility requirements under the IDEA. While PVUSD found that E.M. struggled academically, the district maintained that its evaluations were appropriate and that an individualized education program was neither necessary nor warranted under the IDEA. PVUSD believed that E.M. did not require special education services and could continue to improve in school through general education support [1][2]. 


E.M.’s parents argued that PVUSD failed to properly identify and evaluate E.M. for special education services. They claimed that the district overlooked signs of a learning disability and auditory processing issues, which they believed affected E.M.’s ability to perform well in school [2]. E.M.’s parents also argued that by refusing to find him eligible for services, the district denied him a free appropriate public education (FAPE). The district court upheld PVUSD’s determination that E.M. was not eligible for special education services. E.M.’s parents disagreed with that ruling and appealed [1].


The Ninth Circuit upheld some aspects of the lower (district) court’s ruling but overturned other parts and eventually sent the case back for additional review [1]. The court agreed that PVUSD did not violate IDEA with respect to E.M.’s ADD/ADHD claim and that school districts have discretion in selecting appropriate evaluation methods. However, the court determined that the lower court did not adequately assess whether E.M.’s auditory processing disorder and learning disability might make him eligible for special education services under IDEA. Instead of deciding if E.M. was qualified for special education services, the Ninth Circuit told the district court to examine the case again using the proper legal standards [2]. 



Impact


The decision in this case clarified the standard for admitting additional evidence in cases involving IDEA review. It sets a precedent allowing federal courts to be flexible when considering evidence that may impact eligibility and compliance with IDEA standards. This case also reinforces that the child-find requirements in the IDEA are not simply fulfilled by following a procedure, but must be given genuine thought and effort to ensure all children are provided with equitable access to educational services. 



Court Documents 


[1] E.M. v. Pajaro Valley Unified School District, No. 09-17084, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (July 14, 2011), court opinion.


Citations






 
 
Donate
bottom of page