A. W., et al., Petitioners v. Princeton Public Schools Board of Education, et al.., 22-310, Petition for a writ of certiorari filed, Petition (U.S. Jul. 8, 2022) (2024)

`

`QUESTIONS PRESENTED
`
`1. May a school district condition its provision of
`special education and related services to a disabled
`child under the Individuals with Disabilities Educa­
`tion Act, 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (“IDEA”), on a parent’s
`agreement to prospectively waive the child’s federal
`statutory rights and civil rights?
`2. What steps must a parent take to invoke
`procedural safeguards under the IDEA, 20 U.S.C.
`1415(f)(l)(B)(iv), to void an educational placement
`and settlement agreement (EPSA), within three days
`of execution?
`3. When an EPSA between a school district and
`parent (on behalf of a disabled child) states it is gov­
`erned by state law, is a federal court bound to follow
`State Supreme Court precedent in deciding whether
`exculpatory provisions in the EPSA waiving the child’s
`prospective rights including state statutory and com­
`mon law rights, are enforceable?
`
`

`

`11
`
`PARTIES
`
`Petitioner A. W., appearing on behalf of herself and
`her minor daughter, N.W., was the plaintiff in the dis­
`trict court proceedings and appellant/cross-appellee in
`the court of appeals proceedings. Respondents, Prince­
`ton Public Schools Board of Education and Micki Cris-
`afulli, individually and as director of special education,
`were the defendants before the district court and ap­
`pellees/cross-appellants in the court of appeals pro­
`ceedings. Petitioner, N.W., turned 18 during the court
`of appeals proceedings and appears individually as
`well as by and through her parent A.W. There are no
`corporate parties.
`
`

`

`Ill
`
`RELATED CASES
`
`• A.W. o/b/o N.W. v. Princeton Public Schs. Bd. of
`Educ., Docket No. EDS 03738-17, Agency Docket
`No. 2017-25766, New Jersey Office of Administra­
`tive Law. Final decision entered May 17, 2018.
`• A.W. o/b/o N.W. v. Princeton Public Schs. Bd. of
`Educ., No. 3:17-cv-11432, U.S. District Court for
`the District of New Jersey (interlocutory appeal
`from agency decision of September 28, 2017 in
`Docket No. EDS 03738-17). Judgment entered De­
`cember 14, 2018.
`• A.W. o/b/o N.W. v. Princeton Public Schs. Bd. of
`Educ. and Micki Crisafulli, No. 3:18-cv-13973, U.S.
`District Court for the District of New Jersey. Judg­
`ment entered July 10, 2020.
`• A.W. o/b/o N.W. v. Princeton Public Schs. Bd. of
`Educ. and Micki Crisafulli, Case No. 20-2433. U.S.
`Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Judgment
`entered March 15, 2022.
`• A.W. o/b/o N.W. v. Princeton Public Schs. Bd. of
`Educ. and Micki Crisafulli, Case No. 21-1502. U.S.
`Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Judgment
`entered March 15, 2022.
`
`

`

`IV
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`QUESTIONS PRESENTED..................................
`PARTIES..................................................................
`RELATED CASES..................................................
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...................................
`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI.......
`OPINIONS BELOW................................................
`JURISDICTION......................................................
`RELEVANT CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATU­
`TORY PROVISIONS..........................................
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE................................
`A. Legal Background........................................
`B. Factual Background....................................
`C. Proceedings Below.......................................
`REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT............
`I. This Court Regularly Grants Review To
`Clarify The IDEA Which Has A Wide Im­
`pact On Students With Disabilities, Their
`Families, And Schools..................................
`II. The Third Circuit’s Decision Conflicts
`With Decisions Of This Court And Other
`Federal Appellate Decisions.......................
`
`10
`15
`17
`
`17
`
`19
`
`1 n
`
`in
`
`Vll
`
`1 1 1 2 4 7
`
`

`

`V
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued
`
`Page
`III. The United States Court Of Appeals For
`The Third Circuit Is Exceptional As The
`Only Federal Appeals Court Condoning
`Prospective Waivers Of Minors’ Federal
`Statutory Rights Which Other Courts And
`Jurists Disagree With..................................
`IV. The Third Circuit’s Decision Rendered The
`IDEA’S Procedural Safeguard Provided
`Under 20 U.S.C. 1415(f)(iv) A Nullity........
`V. The Third Circuit’s Opinion Contravenes
`Klaxon u. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S.
`487 (1941) Which Requires Federal Courts
`To Apply State Law In Deciding State Law
`Issues............................................................
`CONCLUSION........................................................
`
`22
`
`27
`
`29
`33
`
`APPENDICES
`Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals
`for the Third Circuit, dated March 15, 2022... App. 1
`Order of the United States Court of Appeals for
`the Third Circuit denying rehearing, dated
`App. 15
`April 11, 2022
`
`SEPARATE SEALED APPENDIX
`Memorandum Opinion of the U.S. District Court
`for the District of New Jersey, Filed Under
`S. App. 1
`Seal, July 10, 2020
`New Jersey Office of Administrative Law, Order
`S. App. 36
`Granting Motion, May 17, 2018
`
`

`

`VI
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued
`
`Letter to Mr. Gorman, March 6, 2018..........
`Stipulation of Settlement and General Re­
`lease............................................................. S. App. 48
`
`Page
`S. App. 47
`
`

`

`Vll
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`19
`
`17
`
`25
`
`24
`
`7, 8,10,17
`
`25, 26
`
`Cases
`14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett,
`556 U.S. 247 (2009)....................
`Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co.,
`19, 20, 25, 26
`415 U.S. 36 (1974)......................
`Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. ofEduc. v. Murphy,
`548 U.S. 291 (2006)..............................................
`Berardelli v. Allied Servs. Inst, of Rehab. Med.,
`900 F.3d 104 (3d Cir. 2018).......................
`Blunt v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist.,
`767 F.3d 247 (3d Cir. 2014).......................
`Board ofEduc. v. Rowley,
`458 U.S. 176 (1982).....................................
`CG v. Commonwealth,
`734 F.3d 229 (3d Cir. 2013).......................
`Carvalho v. Toll Bros. & Developers,
`675 A.2d 209,143 N.J. 565 (1996)...........
`Cedar Rapids Crnty. Sch. Dist. v. Garret F.,
`526 U.S. 66 (1999).......................................
`Charlene R. v. Solomon Charter Sch.,
`63 F. Supp. 3d 510 (E.D. Pa. 2014)..........
`D.R. by M.R. v. East Brunswick Bd. ofEduc.,
`838 F. Supp. 184 (D.N.J. 1993).......
`D.R. v. East Brunswick Bd. ofEduc.,
`109 F.3d 896 (3d Cir. 1997)
`
`31
`
`17
`
`24
`
`24
`
`22, 23, 24, 25, 26
`
`

`

`VIII
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued
`
`Page
`
`20
`
`18
`
`18
`
`, 137
`
`6,18, 22
`
`24
`
`30
`20
`
`Dillon v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A.,
`856 F.3d 330 (4th Cir. 2017)..............................
`Endrew v. Douglas County Sch. Dist. RE-1, 580
`U.S.
`, 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017)..........
`6, 7,18, 21, 22
`Florence Cty. Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter,
`510 U.S. 7 (1993).................................
`Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A.,
`557 U.S. 230 (2009).............................
`Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Schs., 580 U.S.
`S. Ct. 743 (2017)................................ ~
`Gaskin v. Commonwealth,
`389 F. Supp. 2d 628 (E.D. Pa. 2005).
`Geis v. Board ofEduc. of Par sippany-Troy Hills,
`774 F.2d 575 (3d Cir. 1985)................................
`Hengle v. Treppa, 19 F.4th 324 (4th Cir. 2021)....
`Hojnowski v. Vans Skate Park,
`901 A.2d 381,187 N.J. 323 (2006).....................
`Honig v. Doe,
`484 U.S. 305 (1988)..............................................
`Klaxon v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co.,
`313 U.S. 487 (1941)...............................................
`L.R. v. Camden City Pub. Sch. Dist.,
`213 A.3d 912, 238 N.J. 547 (2019).....................
`McCarthy v. NASCAR, Inc.,
`226 A.2d 713, 48 N.J. 539 (1967).......................
`
`30,31
`
`17
`
`29, 30
`
`21
`
`31
`
`

`

`IX
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued
`
`Page
`
`Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v.
`Soler Chrysler-Plymouth,
`473 U.S. 614 (1985)...............................
`Rodriguez v. Raymours Furniture Co.,
`138 A.3d 528, 225 N.J. 343 (2016)....
`Schafer ex rel. Schafer v. Weast,
`546 U.S. 49 (2005)................................
`Thomas v. Carnival Corp.,
`573 F.3d 1113 (11th Cir. 2009)...........
`Vitale v. Schering-Plough Corp.,
`174 A.3d 973, 231 N.J. 234 (2017)....
`Williams v. Medley Opportunity Fund,
`965 F.3d 229 (3d Cir. 2020).................
`Winkelman ex rel. Winkelman v.
`Parma Cty. Sch. Dist.,
`550 U.S. 516 (2007)..............................
`Woods v. New Jersey Dept. ofEduc.,
`796 F. Supp. 767 (D.N.J. 1992)...........
`Y.G. v. Riverside Unified Sch. Dist.,
`774 F. Supp. 2d 1055 (C.D. Ca. 2011)
`Zedner v. United States,
`19, 20
`547 U.S. 489 (2006).......................
`
`19, 20
`
`31
`
`17, 30
`
`20
`
`31
`
`19
`
`17
`
`23,24
`
`24
`
`Constitutional Provisions
`U.S. Const. Amend. XIV......
`
`2,20
`
`

`

`X
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued
`
`Page
`
`13
`2
`10
`3
`3,21
`
`3 8
`
`10
`3, 9, 27
`
`9 9 9
`
`3,4
`3, 10, 27, 28
`......... 14, 27
`
`9 1
`
`13
`2, 14, 20, 26
`......... 14,26
`13
`30
`
`Statutes
`20U.S.C. 1232g........................
`20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq................
`20 U.S.C. 1400(c)(1)..................
`20 U.S.C. 1401(9)......................
`20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(1)(A)............
`20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(3).................
`20 U.S.C. 1414(b)(4).................
`20 U.S.C. 1414(d)(l)(A)(i)(VIII)
`20 U.S.C. 1415...........................
`20 U.S.C. 1415(b)(6).................
`20 U.S.C. 1415(e)......................
`20 U.S.C. 1415(f)(1)(A)............
`20 U.S.C. 1415(f)(l)(B)(iii).......
`20 U.S.C. 1415(f)(l)(B)(iv).......
`20 U.S.C. 1415(f )(iv)................
`20 U.S.C. 1415(j)......................
`28 U.S.C. 1254(1).......................
`29 U.S.C. 794 et seq...................
`42 U.S.C. 1983...........................
`42 U.S.C. 1988...........................
`42 U.S.C. 2000 et seq.................
`N.J.A.C. 18A: 46-1.1..................
`
`

`

`XI
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued
`
`Page
`
`3 8 8
`
`5 7
`
`4
`
`32
`
`5,9
`
`Regulations
`34 C.F.R. 300.111(i)....
`34 C.F.R. 300.323.......
`34 C.F.R. 330.324(b)(i)
`
`Other Authorities
`Death Rates Due to Suicide and Homicide
`Among Persons Aged 10-24: United States,
`2000-2017 (available at www.cdc.gov/nchs/
`products/databriefs/db352.htm) (last visited
`June 28, 2022)....................................................
`Education for All Handicapped Children Act in
`1975. Pub. L. No. 94-142, 89 Stat. 773 (1975)...
`New CDC data illuminate youth mental health
`threats during the COVID-19 pandemic, www.
`cdc.gov/media/releases/2022/p0331-youth-mental-
`health-covid-19..................................................
`NJDOE Broadcast, “Parental Waivers for the De­
`livery of Remote or Virtual Special Education
`and Related Services,” April 30, 2020 (availa­
`ble at nj.gov/education/broadcasts/2020) (last
`visited July 12, 2021)........................................
`OSEP Releases Fast Facts: Children Identified
`with Emotional Disturbance, U.S. Dept, of
`Ed. (May 6, 2020) (available at /sites.ed.gov/
`osers/2020/05/osep-releases-fast-facts-children-
`identified-with-emotional-disturbance/) (last
`visited June 28, 2022).......................................
`
`

`

`Xll
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued
`
`Pub. L. No. 101-476 (1990)...................................
`Pub. L. No. 105-17, 111 Stat. 37 (1997).......... .
`Pub. L. No. 108-446,118 Stat. 2647 (2004).........
`The Condition of Education, 2022, Chapter 2,
`Students with Disabilities (available at nces.
`ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/2022/cgg_508.pdf)
`(last visited June 28, 2022)...............................
`The Crisis of Youth Mental Health (available at
`www.nami.org/Blogs/From-the-CEO/April-2022/
`The-Crisis-of-Youth-Mental-Health) (last vis­
`ited June 28, 2022)............................................
`U.S. Dept, of Educ., FY 2021 Agency Financial
`Report, Financial Highlights Section (Nov. 19,
`2021) (available at www.ed.gov/about/reports/
`annual/202lreport, Fig. 10, p. 20) (last visited
`June 28, 2022)...................................................
`
`Page
`7
`10
`10
`
`5,18
`
`4
`
`8
`
`

`

`1
`
`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`Petitioners, A.W., a single adoptive parent for
`N.W., and N.W., individually, a psychiatrically disabled
`student, respectfully petition this Court for a writ of
`certiorari to review the judgment of the United States
`Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
`
`OPINIONS BELOW
`The opinion of the United States Court of Appeals
`for the Third Circuit (Pet. App. la), is unpublished but
`available at A.W. ex rel. N.W. v. Princeton Pub. Schs. Bd.
`ofEduc., 2022 U.S. App. Lexis 8885. The opinions of the
`United States District Court for the District of New
`Jersey (S. App. 1), and the New Jersey Office of Admin­
`istrative Law (NJOAL) (S. App. 36), are unpublished.
`
`JURISDICTION
`The judgment of the United States Court of Ap­
`peals for the Third Circuit was entered on March 15,
`2015. (Pet. App. 1). Petitioners’ timely request for panel
`rehearing and rehearing en banc was denied on April
`11,2022. (Pet. App. 15). This Court has jurisdiction un­
`der 28 U.S.C. 1254(1).
`
`

`

`2
`
`RELEVANT CONSTITUTIONAL
`AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS
`I. U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV
`All persons born or naturalized in the United
`States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citi­
`zens of the United States and of the State wherein they
`reside. No State shall make or endorse any law which
`shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of
`the United States; nor shall any State deprive any per­
`son of life, liberty or property, without due process of
`law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
`equal protection of the laws.
`
`II. 42 U.S.C. 1983 - Civil action for deprivation
`of rights (Section 1983)
`Every person who, under color of any statute, or­
`dinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or
`Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or
`causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States
`or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the
`deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities se­
`cured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to
`the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or
`other proper proceeding for redress. . . .
`
`HI. Relevant IDEA provisions
`The IDEA, 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq., requires that
`public schools receiving federal funds for special edu­
`cation services provide each child having a disability
`with a “free and appropriate public education” (FAPE).
`
`

`

`3
`
`20 U.S.C. 1401(9). The special education services must
`be “provided in conformity with the individualized ed­
`ucation program [IEP] required under” the IDEA. Id.
`A school district’s obligation to provide a FAPE
`continues until the student reaches the age of twenty-
`one. 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(1)(A).
`Under the IDEA, public schools are required to
`have “policies and procedures in place to ensure that
`all children residing within the State who are in need
`of special education and related services, are identified,
`located and evaluated, including children who attend
`private and public schools, highly mobile children, mi­
`grant children, and children who are wards of the
`state. 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(3); 34 C.F.R. 300.111(i).
`The IDEA includes a procedural safeguards sec­
`tion, 20 U.S.C. 1415, which contains provisions pertain­
`ing to settlement of due process_ petitions. 20 U.S.C.
`1415(f)(l)(B)(iii). These include the following:
`(iv) Review period
`If the parties execute an agreement pursuant
`to clause (iii), a party may void such agree­
`ment within 3 business days of the agree­
`ment’s execution.
`20 U.S.C. 1415(f)(l)(B)(iv).
`In turn, clause (iii) of this section 1415(f) states:
`(iii) Written settlement agreement
`In the case that a resolution is reached to re­
`solve the complaint at a [resolution] meeting
`
`

`

`4
`
`described in clause (i), the parties shall exe­
`cute a legally binding agreement that is
`(I) signed by both the parent and a repre­
`sentative of the agency who has the au­
`thority to bind such agency; and
`(II) enforceable in any State court of compe­
`tent jurisdiction or in a district court of
`the United States.
`20 U.S.C. 1415(f )(l)(B)(iii).
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`In the wake of the Uvalde tragedy, youth mental
`health concerns have emerged as a top priority in our
`country. The death tolls from Uvalde and previous
`school shootings are unfathomable. Yet those tolls pale,
`in comparison, to the number of adolescents who die
`each year by suicide, the second leading cause of death
`for adolescents.1 Our country is experiencing a youth
`mental health crisis.2
`
`1 Even before COVID-19, suicide was reported as the second-
`leading cause of death among people aged 10-34 and the CDC
`reported that youth mental health was already declining. New
`CDC data illuminate youth mental health threats increasing
`further during the COVID-19 pandemic (available at www.cdc.
`gov/media/releases/2022/p0331-youth-mental-health-covid-19) (last
`visited June 28, 2022).
`2 The Crisis of Youth Mental Health (available at
`WWW.
`nami.org/Blogs/From-the-CEO/April-2022/The-Crisis-of-Youth-
`Mental-Health) (last visited June 28, 2022).
`
`

`

`5
`
`The socio-emotional development of the nation’s
`youth happens in our schools. Public school districts
`required under the IDEA to identify emotionally
`are
`disturbed students and provide them with special ed­
`ucation and related services to promote their devel­
`opment and transition to life as adults. The U.S.
`Department of Education reports, however, that the
`percentage of students classified as eligible for special
`education as emotionally disturbed has been steadily
`declining every year since 2008, for example, from
`7.10% of students in 2008 to 5.45% in 2018.3
`Conversely, the Center for Disease Control reports
`that mental health concerns have been steadily in­
`creasing among youth, with the number of adolescent
`suicides nearly tripling between 2007 and 2017.4 Sta­
`tistics also reflect that the percentage of students who
`drop out of school is highest for children with emo­
`tional disturbance (27%), as compared with any other
`disability category.5 These statistics speak to a strong
`
`3 OSEP Releases Fast Facts: Children Identified with Emo­
`tional Disturbance, U.S. Dept, of Educ. (May 6, 2020) (available at
`/sites.ed.gov/osers/2020/05/osep-releases-fast-facts-children-
`identified-with-emotional-disturbance/) (last visited June 28,
`2022).
`4 Death Rates Due to Suicide and Homicide Among Persons
`Aged 10-24: United States, 2000-2017 (available at www.cdc.
`gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db352.htm) (last visited June 28,
`2022).
`5 The Condition of Education, 2022, Chapter 2, Students
`with Disabilities, at p. 5 (available at nces.ed.gov/programs/
`coe/pdf/2022/cgg_508.pdf) (last visited June 28, 2022).
`
`

`

`6
`
`need for change and increased levels of educational
`services for emotionally disturbed children.
`This Court furthered these prospects in 2017,
`when it heightened the bar on the level of educational
`benefit the IDEA demands in Endrew u. Douglas
`County School Dist. RE-1, 580 U.S.
`, 137 S. Ct. 988
`(2017). That same year, in Fry v. Napoleon Community
`Schools, 580 U.S.__ , 137 S. Ct. 743 (2017), this Court
`opened the doors of the federal courts to discrimination
`and civil rights claims of emotionally fragile youth,
`holding exhaustion of administrative remedies is not
`necessarily required for such claims, for example, as in
`Fry, where the youth asserted a need for a service dog
`in school.
`The same year this Court decided Endrew and Fry,
`this case arose. The paradigm arising here shows how
`the progress of Endrew and Fry can be subverted as a
`practical matter. As here, public school districts may
`withhold special education services for emotionally
`disturbed children and then invoke their power and
`control over these services, as a carrot suspended be­
`fore desperate parents, to extract unconscionable waiv­
`ers of the child’s future federal statutory rights and
`civil rights, rendering Endrew and Fry irrelevant.
`The United States Court of Appeals for the Third
`Circuit endorsed this practice: it upheld as enforceable
`an EPSA with terms blanketly waiving all future
`rights of an emotionally disturbed youth even when
`enrolled in the public school district. Public school dis­
`tricts now have a Third Circuit-approved template
`
`

`

`7
`
`that they may use to demand unconscionable waivers
`of minor’s future statutory rights, civil rights, and
`common law rights, as a pre-condition to providing
`educational services - a big step backwards for disa­
`bled students and their families at a time when more
`support and adherence to Endrew’s standards are
`needed.
`
`A. Legal Background
`In 1972, Congress conducted an investigation into
`how disabled children were faring in our public
`schools. It found that most children with disabilities
`“were either totally excluded from schools or [were]
`sitting idly in regular classrooms awaiting the time
`when they were old enough to ‘drop out.’” Board of
`Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176,179 (1982) (quoting H.R.
`Rep. No. 94-332 at 2 (1975)).
`In response, Congress passed the Education for All
`Handicapped Children Act in 1975. Rub. L. No. 94-142,
`89 Stat. 773 (1975). In 1990, this law was amended and
`renamed as the Individuals with Disabilities Act. Pub.
`L. No. 101-476 (1990).
`Under the Act, states are required to provide chil­
`dren with disabilities a free appropriate public educa­
`tion (FAPE) in exchange for receiving federal funds for
`special education programs. Rowley, 458 U.S. at 775.
`The IDEA is one of the federal government’s largest
`
`

`

`8
`
`grant programs, with states receiving over $12 billion
`in funds annually.6
`To provide a FAPE, public schools are expected to
`collaborate with parents to develop IEP’s detailing the
`special education and related services the school will
`provide tailored to each disabled child’s unique needs.
`Rowley, 458 U.S. at 181; 20 U.S.C. 1414(b)(4). Public
`schools are required to review a child’s IEP “periodi­
`cally, but not less than annually, to determine whether
`the annual goals for the child are being achieved.” 34
`C.F.R. 330.324(b)(i). Under the Act, an IEP must be in
`effect, for each child with a disability, “[a]t the begin­
`ning of each school year.” 34 C.F.R. 300.323.
`In some cases, due to the severity or nature of the
`child’s disability, the IEP may call for a placement
`other than in public school, for example, in a private
`school or special school for children with disabilities, if
`such a placement is warranted to provide a FAPE. The
`U.S. Department of Education has reported that, for
`the school year 2018-2019, the percentage of emotion­
`ally disturbed students placed in separate schools
`(12%), was four times higher than any other disability
`
`6 The U.S. Department of Education reported 12.8 billion
`dollars in grants to states under the IDEA for fiscal year 2021
`and another 16.2 billion dollars toward education for the dis­
`advantaged. U.S. Dept, of Ed., FY 2021 Agency Financial Re­
`port, Financial Highlights Section (Nov. 19, 2021) (available at
`www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/2021report, Fig. 10, p. 20) (last
`visited June 28, 2022).
`
`

`

`9
`
`category (3%)7 illustrating the heightened needs of this
`student population.
`As disagreements may arise as to how the IDEA
`is implemented in each case, Congress provided a pro­
`cedural mechanism, i.e., the due process petition, to
`resolve them. 20 U.S.C. 1415(f)(1)(A). When a due pro­
`petition is filed, a state administrative hearing of-
`cess
`ficer is charged with deciding whether the school
`district has met the Act’s requirements. 20 U.S.C.
`1415(b)(6).
`The IDEA sets forth detailed procedural safe­
`guards that govern the IDEA process including as to
`IEP’s, changes in placement, and the handling of due
`process petitions. 20 U.S.C. 1415 (“Procedural Safe­
`guards” Section). One protection involves stay put; un­
`der the stay-put provision, the IDEA requires that,
`when a due process petition is filed and remains pend­
`ing, the child must remain placed - or “stay put” - in
`4.1, ^ ^.1
`-Jof
`firnn fr»o nofitlAn WpQ
`Lilt? UltlUtJlllClll All Client a is IsJLXO Islliil/ tills pwuiwwii \ t
`filed. 20 U.S.C. 1415(j).
`Mediation and informal resolution procedures are
`also laid out in the Procedural Safeguards section of
`the Act. 20 U.S.C. 1415(e). The IDEA states that, if the
`parties reach agreement and settle a due process peti­
`tion, both the parent and authorized school district
`representative are required to sign, and then there is
`a Review Period of three business days after execution
`
`7 OSEP Fast Facts, ante, footnote 3.
`
`

`

`10
`
`during which either party may void the agreement. 20
`U.S.C. 1415(f)(l)(B)(iv).
`The IDEA was amended and reauthorized twice
`since Rowley, in 1997 and in 2004. Pub. L. No. 105-17,
`111 Stat. 37 (1997); Pub. L. No. 108-446,118 Stat. 2647
`(2004).
`In 1997, Congress declared a higher goal for the
`IDEA, toward “ensuring equality of opportunity, full
`participation, independent living, and economic self-
`sufficiency for individuals with disabilities.” 20 U.S.C.
`1400(c)(1). The 2004 amendments further increased
`these goals by requiring, for example, that IEPs de­
`scribe services for children over age fifteen that assist
`them in transitioning to post-secondary education, em­
`ployment, and as appropriate, independent living. 20
`U.S.C. 1414(dXlXA)(i)(VTII).
`
`B. Factual Background
`Petitioner, N.W. experienced significant early life
`trauma as an adopted child and was classified under
`the IDEA as emotionally disturbed in August 2015,
`when 11 years old. In August 2015, A.W. filed her first
`due process petition seeking a special placement for
`N.W., and in November 2015, the Princeton Public
`Schools District (PPS), placed N.W. in a private school
`(i.e., “Fusion”), but did not provide N.W. with an IEP.
`(S. App. 37-38).
`In February 2017, A.W. filed a subsequent due pro­
`cess petition asking for an IEP to be in place by the
`
`

`

`11
`
`start of the next (2017-2018) school year. It was estab­
`lished in June 2017 that Fusion was N.W.’s stay-put
`placement during the proceedings. (S. App. 3).
`By September 2017, A.W. had neither a hearing
`date nor an IEP for N.W., and PPS refused to pay for
`the classes Fusion had selected for N.W. (S. App. 3).
`A.W. asked for an IEP meeting to resolve the conflict,
`but PPS was unwilling to have a meeting. (S. App. 3).
`Having no viable placement at the start of the school
`year, N.W. was traumatized, and though financially
`constrained, A.W. enrolled N.W. in another private
`school for children with disabilities at her own ex­
`pense. (S. App. 5).
`Two attempts were made to settle this conflict in
`the fall of 2017. Both failed because A.W. did not agree
`to PPS’s terms which required: as a condition of sup­
`porting N.W.’s special education placement, PPS in­
`sisted that A.W. needed to prospectively waive N.W.’s
`statutory rights to an IEP, to a FAPE, and to file for
`due process should A.W. disagree with PPS regarding
`N.W.’s placement the following year. (S. App. 5-6). After
`those attempts failed, a hearing was scheduled for
`March 2, 2018. (S. App. 7).
`On March 2, 2018, the parties appeared before the
`NJOAL. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) re­
`quested further settlement attempts. (S. App. 9). At
`this point, A.W. had carried the entire cost of N.W.’s
`special education placement for the 2017-2018 school
`year and N.W. still had no IEP or special education
`services provided by the school district. (S. App. 8).
`
`

`

`12
`
`At this time, PPS agreed to reimburse A.W. for
`N.W.’s past tuition costs but also sought to negotiate
`its future obligations to N.W. as well, asking again that
`A.W. “disenroll” N.W. from the school district and pro­
`spectively waive her rights. (S. App. 9). When A.W. ob­
`jected to prospective waivers, PPS offered a “savings
`clause”; specifically, PPS insisted that A.W. had to
`waive N.W.’s prospective rights while N.W. was en­
`rolled in the special education school, but it assured
`A.W. that she could re-enroll N.W. in the public school
`district at any time and upon doing so, PPS would offer
`an IEP and the agreement would be void. (S. App. 9).
`On March 2, 2018, PPS then prepared an EPSA
`with the following terms. Paragraph 1 set forth the
`payment terms, requiring that PPS reimburse A.W. for
`N.W.’s tuition costs for the past school year and provide
`special education tuition payments in monthly install­
`ments totaling up to $45,000 over the next school year.
`(S. App. 50).
`Next, paragraph 2 was drafted to state:
`It is understood that all of the District’s ob­
`ligations under any law; including but not
`limited to the [IDEA], Section 504, the New
`Jersey Law Against Discrimination [NJLAD],
`and the American with Disabilities Act [ADA];
`shall terminate on June 30, 2019 and the Dis­
`trict’s sole financial and educational obliga­
`tions are the financial terms set forth in this
`agreement. [Pet. App. 50].
`
`

`

`13
`
`The parties had discussed that the savings clause
`would be in paragraph 4; however, paragraph 4 was
`written as follows:
`During the course of this agreement, N.W.
`shall be dis-enrolled from the District and the
`District will not offer an IEP or supervise
`N.W.’s placement at [the special education
`school]. However, during the course of this
`agreement, should [said school] no longer be
`appropriate and N.W. seeks to return to the
`District, the District will provide evaluations
`and an IEP for placement at a program within
`the District. But the District’s sole financial
`obligations to N.W. shall be what is set forth
`in paragraph 1. [S. App. 50-51].
`The last phrase of the savings clause that had
`been promised to A.W. (i.e., that the agreement would
`be void upon reenrollment), was missing; this para­
`graph” also" was revised over the parties’ oral discus­
`sions to limit alternative placements to “within the
`District” and to cross-reference PPS’s “sole financial
`obligations” to paragraph 1. (S. App. 9, 26, 51).
`Paragraph six then states that, “in consideration
`of the above,” N.W. prospectively releases PPS and all
`its agents, employees, etc., through the next sixteen
`months (June 30, 2019), under any law including the
`IDEA, the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
`of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794 et seq. (“Section 504” or “RA”),
`the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20
`U.S.C. 1232g (“FERPA”), Title VII of the Civil Rights
`Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000 et seq. (“Title VII”), 42
`
`

`

`14
`
`U.S.C. 1983 (“Section 1983”), 42 U.S.C. 1988, and any
`New Jersey statute or regulation. (S. App. 51).
`Continuing, paragraph 6 states that Petitioners
`were prospectively waiving, through June 30, 2019,
`“their right to institute any actions against [PPS]” in­
`cluding due process petitions or civil rights complaints.
`(S. App. 52).
`Paragraph 20 of the EPSA states that it “shall be
`interpreted, enforced, and governed under the laws of
`the State of New Jersey.” (S. App. 55). When this
`agreement was drafted, N.W. was fourteen years old.
`(S. App. 2).
`Three copies of this document were printed and
`presented for A.W. to sign on March 2, 2028, while she
`was simultaneously, expressly assured of the statutory,
`three-day review period. (S. App. 56). No representa­
`tive from PPS signed that day. (S. App. 56).
`Within three business days, A.W. wrote to PPS and
`asked that PPS correct paragraph 4 (z.e., the savings
`clause), to reflect the assurances made to her on March
`2, 2018, i.e., that upon re-enrollment in the public
`school district, the agreement would be void. (S. App.
`47-48). A.W. concluded her letter by stating:
`To preserve our rights, we are invoking 20
`U.S.C. 1415(f)(iv), to void the stipulation of
`settlement dated 3/2/2018 subject to these
`very limited requests for clarification. [S. App.
`48].
`
`

`

`15
`
`On March 22, 2018 and March 26, 2018, PPS rep­
`resentatives signed the EPSA without A.W.’s correc­
`tions. (S. App. 56). Thereafter, PPS enforced the EPSA
`against N.W. “as written.” (S. App. 15).
`AT TX7
`-i n/-»
`f navooffoiv nof DV1 n.
`1^,'VV. O UOy
`WiiUlliUii uu^ivuiuw/* uv iv
`rated; she had panic attacks and repeatedly passed out
`at school followed by suicide attempts and several psy­
`chiatric hospitalizations, and she dropped out of school
`in February 2020, in eleventh grade. In April 2020,
`N.W. was placed in a psychiatric residential treatment
`cen