Describe your image

Describe your image

Describe your image

Describe your image

1/7

NH and MH: After the Due Process, a Section 504 damages action was eventually settled for $4,400,000.00 as compensation for the school's deliberate indifference toward 2 siblings with autism.

    

MD v. School: This case was settled at the Resolution Meeting a week or so after being filed. The claims were based upon flaws in the IEP development process. The private school program cost $81,000.00 per month and 'Stay-Put' was retained.

     

AA v. School: This was another case settled during the Resolution process within weeks of filing the case. Parents were given over $500,000.00 to use to pay for a private program when the school failed to make a public program available to him. 

   

Private Placement: This is a very typical remedy that families seek for violations of their rights. In the bus case, the student had won private school placement that was retained for 11 years.

CLASS ACTIONS

The AdvocacyProject has filed or participated in 3 Class Actions 

 

Felix v. Cayetano, was a class action filed in 1994 against the Hawaii Department of Education alleging systematic denial of educational rights of children with disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Keith Peck was a Plaintiffs' attorney on this case. In 2003 the State of Hawaii spent $284,037,140.00 on maintenance of services for disabled children based upon the consent Decree established by the class action.

Makin v. Chandler, Keith Peck was the original lead counsel on this case that sought to make the State of Hawaii provide adult, disabled residents, home, and community access to mental health-related services under the Olmstead Act.

W.G., et al, v. Kishimoto, The AdvocacyProject filed this class action on April 13, 2020, against the Hawaii Department of Education. This was the first of its kind legal action related to the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020. Plaintiffs alleged that the state’s Department of Education provided non-disabled students educational-related services but failed to provide students eligible for federal protection under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1974 and students eligible under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act access to educational-related services. Plaintiffs sought an “equitable" means to determine the amount of compensatory education” for which students were entitled.  National Public Radio segment.

Keith Peck Special Education Lawyer AdvocacyProject

Honolulu Hawaii Special education Lawyer

Keith Peck Special Education Lawyer AdvocacyProject

1/30

Select Cases

 Past success does not guarantee future results*. 

     

The AdvocacyProject has represented families in approximately 800 IDEA cases. Some seminal cases follow.

     

ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

       

  • NH and MH: 24/7 Comp. Ed & 4.4 Million Damages action.

  • MD v. School: 81k monthly private placement (settlement).

  • AA v. School: 500k+ for multi-year placement (settlement).

  • Numerous Cases: Private placements. In one such case, after 11 years of transportation to a private school from Hana, Maui to Haiku, Maui (on the Hana Highway), and back, the bus company gave the bus to the family when the student graduated.

  • Numerous Case: Reimbursement for Tutoring.

  • Multiple Case: Funding for Out-of-State private placement.

  • Multiple Cases: Funding for private ABA clinical placement.

  • LR v. School: ABA services for DD students in public school.

  • Other Wins/Settlements

   

NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

The AdvocacyProject has participated in approximately 15, 9th Circuit Court cases.

Natalie and Michelle H., et al v. Lemahieu, et al, 01-16582, 05-16236, 09-15754. ​The AdvocacyProject’s Keith Peck is cited as a lead counsel in this series of cases. This case began as an administrative hearing under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.  In 2003 a claim was filed alleging deliberate indifference by the state education agency against 2 siblings with autism. After 2 interlocutory appeals to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and 12 years of litigation, the case was settled providing Plaintiffs 4.4 million dollars, 2 months before a scheduled jury trial. This case is widely credited with establishing a right to money damages under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1974, in the 9th Circuit federal court jurisdiction. 

Doug C. v. Department of Education, 720 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2013). The AdvocacyProject’s Keith Peck was lead counsel for parents and their autistic child challenging the federal court’s determination that holding an IEP without the parents when the school did not want to reschedule the meeting and the annual deadline was approaching was not a significant denial of parental participation. Mr. Peck reversed this ruling and also made law defining the role of private providers as necessary participants in certain situations and clarifying when an IEP team denies a family their rights under the doctrine of ‘lost educational opportunity’. Over 45 federal courts have cited and relied upon this decision as support for their decisions in later cases.  

C.B. v. Department of Education, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43961, Civ. No. 11- 00576 SOM/RLP (2012). AdvocacyProject’s Keith Peck was lead counsel for parents of an autistic child who sought to require the Department to fund a private placement for the child under the “stay put” provision of the IDEA, which requires that placements not change during the pendency of a hearing or appeal. 

L.A.S. v. Department of Education, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21232 (2013). The AdvocacyProject’s Keith Peck was lead counsel and secured a reversal and remand of a hearing officer’s conclusion that a parent’s request for reimbursement of private placement tuition was time-barred, and for the hearing officer’s failure to address the issue the parent presented, relating to the Department’s offer of a FAPE on the condition that the student receives services in a public school. L.A.S. 

REB v. Hawaii DOE,  Plaintiff objected to an individualized education plan for the student’s transition from a private school into public kindergarten. The panel held that the case was not moot because it could still grant effectual relief. On the merits, reversing in part, the panel held that transition services under the IDEA are not limited to students exiting the public school system. Rather, where transition services become necessary for disabled children to be educated and participate in new academic environments, these services must be included in individualized education programs in order to satisfy the IDEA’s “supplementary aids and services” requirement. The panel held that the Department of Education violated the IDEA by failing to address transition services in the proposed IEP. The panel held that the Department of Education also violated the IDEA by failing to specify in the IEP the least restrictive environment during the regular and extended R.E.B. V. STATE OF HAWAII DEP’T OF EDUC. 3 school year. This infringed the parent’s opportunity to participate in the IEP process and was, therefore, a denial of a free appropriate public education. Affirming in part, the panel held that the IEP was not required to specify the qualifications of a one-on-one aide. Finally, the panel held that the Department of Education violated the IDEA by failing to specify Applied Behavioral Analysis as a teaching methodology in the IEP because this methodology was integral to the student’s education. The panel remanded the case to the district court for a determination of the proper remedy. Dissenting in part, Judge Bea agreed that the case was not moot, and he agreed with the portions of the majority opinion affirming the district court. Dissenting from the holdings that found error, Judge Bea wrote that the Department of Education responded to the plaintiff’s concerns about the student’s transition, did not violate the IDEA’s least restrictive environment requirement, and was not required to specify the particular teaching methodology. 4 R.E.B. V. STATE OF HAWAII DEP’T OF EDUC. 

H. G., et al v. EDU-HI, et al, The AdvocacyProject’s Keith Peck was lead counsel through appeal to the 9th Circuit stage of this case. It started as an administrative hearing in 2009, was appealed to the United States District Court, was remanded back down to the administrative tribunal and then again to the District Court after which it was appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of appeals before being remanded and won at the District Court in May of 2018. The verdict resulted in a ruling that Hawaii’s Department of Education materially failed to implement a student with PDD-NOS Individualized Education Program and ordered a monetary award to the family of $441,622 plus $99,041 in interest.

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

    

The AdvocacyProject has filed or participated in approximately 100 USDC cases. 

   

      

Reviews Special Education Lawyer Maui Honolulu Hawaii
 

Who we are, Where we work and What we believe.

These testimonials do not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter.

Watch Our Volg!

Advocacy%20final_edited.jpg