Winkelman v. Parma City School District (2007)
- Sam Shepherd
- Nov 23, 2024
- 5 min read
By Andrew Dawson
Overview
In Winkelman v. Parma City School District, the U.S. Supreme Court Ruled that non-lawyer parents are permitted to file lawsuits under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act pro se or on behalf of their children in federal court. However, the Supreme Court declined whether non-lawyer parents can ligate the case without legal representation in federal court.
Summary
In October 1990, President George H. W. Bush signed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) into law. The purpose of this legislation was to ensure all students with disabilities were provided with a “Free Appropriate Public Education” (FAPE).
In 2004, Jeff and Sandree Winkelman’s son Jacob had been diagnosed on the autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The Winkelmans (the plaintiff) were residents of Parma City, Ohio and claimed the Parma City School District (the respondent) had failed to provide a FAPE. The school district had made attempts to do so, by developing an individualized education plan (IEP) and placed Jacob in a public elementary school.
The Winkelmans dispute challenged the adequacy of the IEP under the provisions established by FAPE and claimed the school violated procedures under IDEA. The Winkelmans, without attorney representation, first challenged Jacob’s placement in a public elementary school through an administrative review. This was expressly allowed under IDEA, which established parents could represent their children pro se in administrative proceedings. However, the administrative review affirmed the school district’s decision to place Jacob in a public elementary school, citing the IEP did provide a FAPE (Cornell).
After the administrative hearing, the Winkelmans placed Jacob in a private school at their own expense and appealed to the federal U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio for reimbursement. In this appeal to the District Court, the Winkelmans claimed “that the School District had violated Jacob’s substantive rights and their own procedural rights during the hearings.” Yet, on June 2, 2005, the District Court reaffirmed the administrative findings, again citing the school’s IEP in a public school setting did provide Jacob with a FAPE (Cornell).
The Winkelmans appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and argued that under IDEA, “any party aggrieved by the findings” of the administrative review can appeal to a federal court. Further, the Winkelmans pointed out that because IDEA requires “active parental involvement” in enforcing proper child placement, that the parents should be able to appear in court pro se and without counsel representation. The Sixth Circuit of Appeals still rejected both of these claims, citing IDEA protects the rights of the student/child, not the parents (Oyez).
The Sixth Circuit of Appeals still rejected both of these claims, citing IDEA protects the rights of the student/child, not the parents (Oyez). The Sixth Circuit cited several precedents including Cavanaugh v. Cardinal Local School District, where the same Court ruled that parents could not bring claims under IDEA without counsel (Cornell).
The Winkelmans requested and were granted a stay of the Sixth Circuit’s ruling, pending a certiorari (review) by the U.S. Supreme Court (Cornell). The Supreme Court sought to answer whether non-lawyer parents of a disabled child could argue in federal court pro se. In a 7-2 ruling, the Court ruled in favor of the Winkelmans. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority, stating “parents enjoy rights under IDEA; and they are, as a result, entitled to prosecute IDEA claims on their own behalf.” Meaning, the Supreme Court ruled that parents have both substantive and procedural rights under IDEA, and therefore essentially have standing in federal court (Oyez). But the Supreme Court declined to answer whether IDEA enables non-lawyer parents to litigate their child’s claims pro se in federal court (Cleveland Memory).
Justices Scalia and Thomas wrote partial concurring and partial dissenting opinions. In their opinions, Justices Scalia and Thomas would have held that IDEA allows non-lawyer parents to represent themselves in federal court to seek reimbursement for alternative education or challenge violations of their own procedural rights, but not to challenge the adequacy of their child’s FAPE (Oyez). Further, Justice Scalia and the Parma City School District argued that allowing parents to proceed in court pro se would impose high (litigation) costs only on the school district. Consequently, this would take funding away from educational spending, which would be detrimental to the quality of education. Justice Scalia added, allowing parents to proceed in court pro se would impose burdens on the court system through a significant increase in the amount of unmeritorious claims (Paredes, 2008).
Impact
The Supreme Court’s decision on Winkelman abrogated (repealed) the Cavanaugh v. Cardinal Local School District, and several other precedents by the Sixth Circuit of Appeals, and reprimanded the Appellate Court for its decision. As a result, the Sixth Circuit of Appeals heard the Winkelman v. Parma City School District case to determine the issue of Jacob’s educational placement and potential reimbursement from the School District. On October 2, 2008, the Sixth Circuit of Appeals reaffirmed the educational administrative review and District Court’s rulings, declining to write a full opinion and deferring to the District Court’s opinion, which cited the school’s IEP did provide Jacob with a FAPE (Cleveland Memory).
There were several key impacts from the Winkelman v. Parma City School District case. First, the Supreme Court’s decision clarified parental rights under IDEA and the scope of pro se litigation in federal courts (Cornell). Second, the Supreme Court decision, and more broadly, the case as a whole was a significant victory for special education as it ensured children with disabilities have a voice, can be represented pro se, and will be heard in federal court. These points were still highly impactful for special education rights, even though the Parma City School District was not legally obligated to reimburse the Winkelmans for Jacob’s private education (Cleveland Memory).
Nidya Aldana Paredes of Pepperdine School of Law added the Supreme Court decision in Winkelman v. Parma City School District allows parents without the financial resources to have attorney representation with an avenue to asserting their children’s educational rights. She writes “So long as they take an interest in their child’s disability and education, parents can become some of the most passionate advocates on behalf of their children” (Paredes, 2008).
Court Documents
Citations
Paredes, Nidya Aldana. “The Scales Tip in Favor of Parents in Winkelman v. Parma City School District.” Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary, Pepperdine University, 15 Mar. 2008, digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1067&context=naalj.
“Winkelman v. Parma City School Dist.” Studicata, studicata.com/case-briefs/case/winkelman-v-parma-city-school-dist/. Accessed 23 Sept. 2024.
“Winkelman v. Parma City School District (05-983).” Winkelman v. Parma City School District (05-983): The Cleveland Memory Project, www.clevelandmemory.org/legallandmarks/winkelman/index.html. Accessed 23 Sept. 2024.
Winkelman v. Parma City School District, www.oyez.org/cases/2006/05-983. Accessed 23 Sept. 2024.
“Winkelman v. Parma City School District.” Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/05-983. Accessed 23 Sept. 2024.
