A legal battle has emerged over the educational rights of a child with disabilities, as her parent accuses a major city education department of failing to provide necessary services. The case raises significant questions about the obligations of public school districts under federal and state laws to provide appropriate educational services to students with disabilities.
On January 27, A.H. filed a complaint against the New York City Department of Education (DOE) on behalf of her daughter A.H. The lawsuit alleges that the DOE failed to offer A.H., a student with disabilities residing in Brooklyn, NY, an adequate Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) as mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to M.H., despite requests for increased support, the DOE did not convene necessary meetings or develop an Individualized Education Program (IEP) that would address A.H.'s unique educational needs. Instead, M.H. claims she was forced to contract privately for special education services at her own expense.
M.H.'s complaint highlights several instances where she believes the DOE's actions were insufficient or negligent. She asserts that no Committee on Special Education (CSE) meeting was held for A.H.'s fifth-grade year and alleges that even when meetings were conducted later, they resulted in recommendations identical to those made years prior, ignoring updated assessments and recommendations from educators familiar with A.H.'s progress. Furthermore, M.H. argues that this lack of action left her no choice but to engage private providers at high costs—a financial burden she believes should be borne by the DOE.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs argue that these failures constitute violations not only under IDEA but also under broader civil rights protections afforded by Section 504 and ADA.
The plaintiffs are requesting a declaratory judgment reversing previous administrative decisions that upheld reduced service levels and rates set by DOE rather than those agreed upon privately. Additionally, they seek compensatory education for missed services and demand that future services be provided at enhanced rates reflecting market conditions rather than those unilaterally determined by DOE's implementation unit.
Representing M.H. and A.H., attorneys David R. Gronbach and Vanessa M. Gronbach from Gronbach Law Offices. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York under Case No.: 1:25-cv-439.