Adjudication under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Explicitly Plentiful Rights but Inequitably Paltry Remedies

This article proposes an invigoration in the exercise of the broad equitable authority of hearing officers under the Individuals with Disabilities Act. Providing a higher priority on, and an affirmative presumption for, remedying violations of the Act is in the interest of all parties, extending from the individual child to the child’s parents, the school district, the broader stakeholders, and the systemic improvements that is the statutory purpose. The task is not an easy one, especially given the rather tight timeline for completion of hearing officer proceedings, but it is doable with well-tailored creativity and efficiency. Part I of this article reviews the remedial authority of hearing officers under the IDEA. Part II identifies the problematic trend of insufficient exercise of remedial authority at both the hearing officer and court levels. Part III proposes a more affirmative exercise of this authority, starting at the hearing officer level, and including supportive judicial rulings. The author asserts that in light of the IDEA’s particularly accessible private right of action and its extensive reliance on procedures, hearing officers have the presumed expertise and the broad authority to do equity in an impartial and balanced resolution of the individual interests of the child and the school district. An integral and relatively neglected part of this crucial responsibility should be for hearing officers to provide more extensive, creative, and affirmative exercise of their remedial authority upon determining that the district has invaded one or more of the child’s or parent’s rights under the IDEA.