Schaffer Ex Rel. Schaffer v. Weast

Facts of the Case

The original dispute in Schaffer concerned the appropriate program for a student with learning disabilities, language disabilities, and other health impairments who attended a private school. In spite of small classes, the student was not successful, and his parents contacted the public school district seeking special education services. The school board determined that the student was eligible for services and proposed an IEP, but the parents rejected the proposed IEP and requested a due process hearing. At the same time, the parents enrolled their son in a private school for students with disabilities.

Following a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that the school board offered the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE). In reaching that decision, the ALJ determined that the parents bore the burden of proof in establishing that the proposed IEP was inadequate. The parents appealed, and the federal district court in Maryland remanded to the ALJ, holding that the burden of proof should be placed on the board in any administrative hearing regarding an initial IEP (Brian S. v. Vance, 2000).

On remand, the ALJ reversed, concluding that the proposed IEP would not have provided the student with an appropriate education. In the meantime, the school board appealed the district court's ruling to the Fourth Circuit, which vacated the trial court's order and remanded with directions to consider the case on its merits (Schaffer v. Vance, 2001). On remand, the trial court again held that the school board bore the burden of proof at the administrative level. The court also decided that the board failed to offer the child a FAPE (Schaffer v. Vance, 2002).

Following another appeal, the Fourth Circuit reversed and placed the burden of proof back on the parents (Weast v. Schaffer, 2004). The court maintained that a school board should not have the burden of proof in an IEP challenge just because it has the statutory obligation to propose an appropriate educational program for a child. Further, the court did not see that the school board had an unfair information or resource advantage that would compel the court to reassign the burden of proof to the school board when the parents initiate the proceedings. Basically, the Fourth Circuit could not find any reason to depart from the general rule that a party initiating a proceeding bears the burden of proof.

The Court's Ruling

In a 6-to-2 decision, with newly appointed Chief Justice Roberts abstaining, the Supreme Court affirmed. Writing for the majority, Justice O'Connor, in her last education-related case on the Court, agreed with the Fourth Circuit that the ordinary default rule is that plaintiffs bear the risk of failing to prove their claims. Noting that assigning the burden of persuasion to school boards might encourage educators to put more resources into preparing IEPs and presenting evidence, she wrote that the IDEA is silent about whether marginal dollars should be allocated to litigation and administrative expenditures or to educational services.

...