Rogich et al v. Clark County School District (2021)
- Sam Shepherd
- Feb 26
- 4 min read
By Davina Haggar
Overview
In Rogich et al v. Clark County School District (2021), the U.S. District Court of Nevada addressed a case in which the plaintiffs, Sig and Lori Rogich, sued the defendant, Clark County School District (CCSD), for failing to provide their disabled daughter with a Free Appropriate Education (FAPE). The lawsuit challenged the adequacy of the 2014 and 2016 Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) and their failure to meet their daughter’s needs, specifically by not providing her with a tailored literacy program to suit her educational needs. They alleged statutory violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, arguing that CCSD failed to provide reasonable accommodations as required under federal disability law. Demanding reimbursement for private school tuition and transportation, the Rogich family prevailed, with the court ruling in favor of their daughter’s rights under federal law.
Summary
Sig and Lori’s daughter, O.R., was diagnosed with severe disabilities including Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Executive Function Deficit (EFD), Developmental Dyslexia (DD), Developmental Mathematics Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder as well as additional disorders that significantly impaired her learning abilities (Big Win in Dyslexia Case!). In 2007, before O.R. started kindergarten, a Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) assessed her eligibility and concluded that O.R. qualified for special education services under “Other Health Impairment” (OHI) classification, which applies to students who have “limited strength, vitality, or alertness…” (Other Health Impaired). Professionals on the team recommended that her parents enroll her in a self-contained preschool program, which she attended until her parents placed her in a private institution.
O.R. underwent private evaluations in 2009 and 2013 where experts assessed her abilities through standardized tests. They recommended a tailored educational program in order for her to receive proper and appropriate education (Big Win in Dyslexia Case!). In the following year, O.R.’s parents contacted the school district and provided the results of her private evaluations, demanding that they reassess O.R. for eligibility in their special education program. The school responded by accepting O.R. to services under OHI, but claimed that there was insufficient data to determine if she was eligible for the “Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD).” SLDs are “neurodevelopmental disorders that are typically diagnosed in early school-aged children, although may not be recognized until adulthood” (What is Specific Learning Disorder).
Her parents, frustrated with the school district’s decision, argued that the school district failed to evaluate O.R.’s needs based on recent assessments and did not adjust her education accordingly (Big Win in Dyslexia Case!). O.R. was re-evaluated in 2015 by a neuropsychologist, who advised an Orton-Gillingham” approach, “a direct, explicit, multisensory, structured, sequential, diagnostic, and prescriptive way to teach literacy when reading, writing, and spelling does not come easily to individuals, such as those with dyslexia” for all school subjects (What is the Orton-Gillingham Approach?).
The following year, O.R.’s parents met with school district officials to discuss and develop an IEP to properly satisfy their daughter's particular needs. In May 2016, her parents initiated a due process complaint against the school district, claiming that the 2014 IEP failed to properly adjust her educational programs based on recent evaluations. In September 2016, they modified their request to also dispute the 2016 IEP, claiming that the district failed to implement updated information from recent evaluations and denied her FAPE under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
In November 2016, an Independent Hearing Officer (IHO) ruled in favor of the Rogich family, determining that the school district failed to provide O.R. with free appropriate education to meet her needs. The officer held that the witnesses for the defendant provided contradictory evidence, undermining their credibility, and they failed to consider O.R.’s recent evaluations (Big Win in Dyslexia Case!).
The school district appealed the IHO’s decision. In March 2017, a State Reviewer Officer (SRO) overturned the IHO’s decision, ruling in favor of the school district. The SRO explained that the IHO erred in assessing the credibility of the witnesses and misunderstood the legal standards for FAPE under IDEA.
The Rogich family appealed the SRO’s decision to the U.S. District Court of Nevada in 2017, asserting “violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act" (Big Win in Dyslexia Case!). The court sided with the initial decision from the IHO and overturned the SRO’s ruling. It found that CCSD had violated Section 504, ADA, and IDEA by failing to provide O.R. with an appropriate tailored program to meet her needs. They also determined that CCSD dismissed more recent private evaluations of O.R. and rejected a methodology in the IEPs.
As a result, the court ordered CCSD to reimburse the family for tuition and transportation exceeding $450,000. Sig Rogich, O.R.’s father, expressed his long fight for justice for his daughter, stating: “This is an historical victory, I think, for special needs children and their families, … we’re actually very proud of the fact that it made its way through the courts” (Rogich et al v. Clark County School District).
Impact
Following Rogich et al. v. Clark County School District, the court required school districts to appropriately accommodate disabled students who needed specific methodologies rather than dismissing them. This case also emphasized that the IEP members should have assessed cases, like O.R.’s more holistically, carefully considering private evaluations and directly explaining why they accepted or rejected their recommendations. This places greater accountability on IEP officials, ensuring that they treat each case carefully and explain the reasons behind their decisions.
Court Documents
Citations
“Other Health Impaired (OHI).” Colorado Department of Education, www.cde.state.co.us/cdesped/sd-other. Accessed 17 Feb. 2025.
Peter W.D. Wright and Pamela Darr Wright. “Big Win in Dyslexia Case! Court Orders District to Reimburse Parents $456,990!” Wrightslaw Special Education Law and Advocacy, www.wrightslaw.com/law/art/nv.or.clark.county.dyslexia.htm. Accessed 17 Feb. 2025.
“Rogich et al v. Clark County School District.” Justia Law, law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/2:2017cv01541/123276/39/. Accessed 17 Feb. 2025.
“Rogich v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist.” Casetext, casetext.com/case/or-v-clark-cnty-sch-dist. Accessed 18 Feb. 2025.
Valley, Jackie. “Judge Rules Clark County School District ‘Substantially’ Violated Federal Education Disability Law.” The Nevada Independent, 18 Oct. 2021, thenevadaindependent.com/article/judge-rules-clark-county-school-district-substantially-violated-federal-education-disability-law.
“What Are Specific Learning Disorders?” American Psychiatric Association , www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/specific-learning-disorder/what-is-specific-learning-disorder. Accessed 17 Feb. 2025.
“What Is Early Childhood Education and Why Is It Essential?” American Public University, 2 Dec. 2024, www.apu.apus.edu/area-of-study/education/resources/what-is-early-childhood-education-and-why-is-it-essential/.
“What Is the Orton-Gillingham Approach?” Academy of Orton-Gillingham Practitioners and Educators, 19 Feb. 2019, www.ortonacademy.org/resources/what-is-the-orton-gillingham-approach/.
