UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

AT CHATTANOOGA

L.H., a Minor Student, et al.,

Plaintiffs,
v.
HAMILTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:14-CV-00126

Judge Curtis L. Collier
Magistrate Judge Susan K. Lee

ORDER
Before the Court is a motion for judgment by Plaintiffs, L.H., a thirteen-year-old boy
with Down Syndrome, and his parents, G.H. and D.H., on their claims that Defendant Hamilton
County Department of Education (HCDE) committed a substantive violation of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (the IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1415 et seq., by proposing an
educational placement for L.H. for the 20132014 school year that was not his least restrictive
environment and committed a procedural violation of the IDEA by altering L.H.s Individual
Education Plan (IEP) without an IEP meeting.1 (See Docs. 73, 148 at 11.) By way of relief,
Plaintiffs seek reimbursement for the cost of educating L.H. in a private school. (Id.)

Plaintiffs original motion for judgment also included a claim HCDE violated the IDEA
by predetermining L.H.s placement without input from L.H.s parents, (see Doc. 74 at 3435;
148 at 11), but the Court has already disposed of this claim (see Docs. 149, 150).
The Court also notes the parties have both moved for partial summary judgment on
Plaintiffs claims under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 794, and the
Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., and HCDE has also moved for
summary judgment on Plaintiffs claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983. (See Docs. 69, 73.) As the
Court has severed these claims from Plaintiffs claims under the IDEA (Doc. 121), the Court will
only address the IDEA claims at this time.

Case 1:14-cv-00126-CLC-SKL Document 173 Filed 11/04/16 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 6227

The Court has thoroughly reviewed the record, and has also held a seven-day hearing to
receive additional evidence. Based on the totality of the evidence, and as explained in the
accompanying memorandum, the Court concludes that although Plaintiffs procedural claim is
without merit, Plaintiffs have met their burden of establishing by a preponderance of the
evidence that the educational placement HCDE proposed for L.H. was not his least restrictive
environment. Because the alternative placement Plaintiffs chose is not reasonably calculated to
provide L.H. with a meaningful educational benefit, however, the Court holds Plaintiffs are not
entitled to reimbursement under the IDEA.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART

Plaintiffs motion for judgment as to the least-restrictive-environment claim (Doc. 73) but
declines to order reimbursement. The Court will set a schedule for resolution of Plaintiffs
remaining claims in a separate order.
SO ORDERED.
ENTER:

/s/
CURTIS L. COLLIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2
Case 1:14-cv-00126-CLC-SKL Document 173 Filed 11/04/16 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 6228