U.S.
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Burden of Proof Case
in Weast v. Schaffer
February 22, 2005. Today, the U.
S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear Brian Schaffer's appeal
of an adverse ruling from the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit. This decision assigns the burden of proof to the party who
initiates a special education due process hearing.
Split Among Circuits
In
their decision in Weast
v. Schaffer, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
wrote, "Other circuits are split - and splintered in reasoning
- on this question. Three circuits assign the burden to the parents,
and four (perhaps five) assign it to the school system."
2-1 Decision
In
their 2-1 decision issued on July 29, 2004, the majority held that:
"In sum, the IDEA does not allocate the burden of proof, and
we see no reason to depart from the general rule that a party initiating
a proceeding bears that burden. Congress was aware that school systems
might have an advantage in administrative proceedings brought by parents
to challenge IEPs. To avoid this problem, Congress provided a number
of procedural safeguards for parents, but assignment of the burden
of proof to school systems was not one of them. Because Congress took
care in specifying specific procedural protections necessary to implement
the policy goals of the Act, we decline to go further, at least insofar
as the burden of proof is concerned. Accordingly, we hold that parents
who challenge an IEP have the burden of proof in the administrative
hearing. We reverse the judgment of the district court and remand
for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."
Judge Luttig, in his dissent, wrote:
"I fear that, in reaching the contrary conclusion, the majority
has been unduly influenced by the fact that the parents of the disabled
student in this case have proven to be knowledgeable about the educational
resources available to their son and sophisticated (if yet unsuccessful)
in their pursuit of these resources. If so, it is regrettable. These
parents are not typical, and any choice regarding the burden of proof
should not be made in the belief that they are. For the vast majority
of parents whose children require the benefits and protections provided
in the IDEA, the specialized language and technical educational analysis
with which they must familiarize themselves as a consequence of their
child's disability will likely be obscure, if not bewildering. By
the same token, most of these parents will find the educational program
proposed by the school district resistant to challenge: the school
district will have better information about the resources available
to it, as well as the benefit of its experience with other disabled
children. With the full mix of parents in mind, I believe that the
proper course is to assign the burden of proof in due process hearings
to the school district."
"I
respectfully dissent."
In
html: The decision in Weast
v. Schaffer, 377 F.3d 449 (4th Cir. 2004) is available at: https://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/04/4th.schaffer.weast.md.htm
In PDF:
The decision in Weast
v. Schaffer is also available at:
https://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/04/4th.schaffer.weast.md.pdf
Petition for Certiorari
Brian Schaffer's Petition for Certiorari, prepared by his attorney
William Hurd, is available at: https://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/05/ussupct.schaffer.petition.hurd.pdf
More
Special Education
Caselaw
More
news.
