S.S. v. Cobb County School District (2021)

By Davina Haggar

Overview

S.S. v Cobb County School District (2021) is a federal case in which S.S., a disabled student, alleged that the Cobb County School District violated her rights. The Cobb County School District in Georgia provided her with an inadequate individualized education plan (IEP) that did not sufficiently meet her needs. Her parents argued that the school district could not supply S.S. with free and appropriate public education (FAPE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). 

Summary

S.S. was a young girl diagnosed with cerebral palsy, developmental delay, and a speech-language disorder that severely affected her motor skills and functional communication (S.S. v. Cobb County School District). S.S. has consistently received special education services since 2000. Throughout those years, Cobb County School District developed individualized education plans for S.S.; however, her mother, A.S., observed minimal progress, compelling her to challenge the appropriateness of these education plans. In 2015, A.S. filed a due process hearing request with the Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings (OSAH), alleging that the Cobb County School District failed to provide her daughter with free and appropriate public education under IDEA (S.S. v. Cobb County School District).

In the administrative complaint, S.S. claimed that the school district violated her rights as they failed to provide her with a free and appropriate education to meet her needs. She specified that the school district's program could not accommodate her with disability services, related services, and modifications recommended by the evaluator who evaluated her. However, the school district rejected these recommendations without providing a justification or an alternative program that met her needs (S.S. v. Cobb County School District). S.S. alleged that the school district's individualized education plan failed to provide her with educational benefits as she showed minimal academic progress.

The school district filed a legal motion requesting that the court resolve this case without a full trial, arguing that S.S. had not raised any dispute over material facts that would prompt further action (S.S. v. Cobb County School District). According to the school district, her family's undisputed actions demonstrated that the school district provided S.S. with a free and appropriate education and complied with the law to meet her designated requirements. The judge agreed with the school district and proceeded with summary determination, rejecting S.S.'s request for a due process hearing. The judge concluded there was insufficient evidence to prove that S.S. was not provided with a free and appropriate education by the school district before 2016. The judge also argued that the school district accurately established S.S.'s individualized education plan to ensure it satisfied her needs to meet her goals. The school district even reported that S.S.'s disabilities were more severe than her parents believed, contradicting S.S.'s claim that they failed to recognize her as a disabled student. The school district evaluated her needs and was not required to implement all recommendations made by the evaluator (S.S. v. Cobb County School District). 

S.S. appealed the denial of a due process hearing, claiming that the judge erred in claiming that the school district abided by the law and instead failed to provide her with tailored education programs (S.S. v. Cobb County School District). 

The school district then moved for summary judgment, claiming that S.S. could not prove that the programs they provided were insufficient for her needs. The school district refuted S.S.'s accusation that they did not provide her with a free and appropriate education "at all times." They claimed they offered her individualized programs to support her academic progress. The school district asserted that they had evaluated S.S. and confirmed she was a disabled student under the act. 

The district court rejected the school district's request for summary judgment and remanded the case to the administrative law judge for a due process hearing. The district court identified two issues regarding whether the school district's individualized educational programs ensured access to FAPE. The first issue was that S.S. and her family claimed she needed a dedicated paraprofessional to assist and guide her through school. However, the school district contested this, arguing that because they placed S.S. in small classes with a few students, she did not require an aide; instead, the teachers could work closely with her to monitor her progress. The school district provided an affidavit from the assistant director of special education, while S.S. countered this with expert testimony demonstrating her lack of academic progress without a paraprofessional. The second issue concerned whether her individualized education plan was "appropriately ambitious" (S.S. v. Cobb County School District). While the school district claimed that the plan was tailored to her and satisfied her needs, S.S. argued that these goals were inadequate and were not challenging her enough. Therefore, she was not able to progress. The school district provided the assistant director of special education's opinion "that [the programs] were appropriate." At the same time, S.S.'s expert countered this, explaining why the program goals were inadequate and did not satisfy her needs (S.S. v. Cobb County School District).

Since both parties presented conflicting evidence about the appropriateness of the individualized education plan, the district court ruled that a summary determination was inappropriate and that a due process hearing was necessary to evaluate whether the school district had violated S.S.'s rights. Unsatisfied with the district court's decisions, the school district appealed the remand order, arguing that the court should have dismissed the case by ruling in its favor. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals rejected their appeal since the remand order was not a final decision (S.S. v. Cobb Cnty. Sch. Dist., 43 F.4th 1165, 1169 (11th Cir. 2022)). The school district was legally obligated to participate in the remaining proceedings. S.S. v. Cobb County School District (2021) is pending remand before the administrative judge (S.S. v. Cobb Cnty. Sch. Dist., 21-11048 (11th Cir. 2022)). 

Court Documents 

S.S. v Cobb County School District

Citations

  GovInfo, www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-gand-1_18-cv-00313.  Accessed 15 Mar. 2025. 

“S.S. v. Cobb County School District, No. 21-11048 (11th Cir. 2022).” Justia Law, law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca11/21-11048/21-11048-2022-08-05.html. Accessed 15 Mar. 2025. 

VLex, justis.vlex.com/vid/914818899. Accessed 15 Mar. 2025.