 Burden
of proof: It's not
just for lawyers anymore
by V. Wayne Young, Executive Director
Any first-year law student who has attended more than one class
can speak with authority (or so he thinks) about the concept of “burden
of proof.” Of course, no one would want to listen, but he could
still do it.
But this legal term may take on a very critical and practical meaning
for educators, especially those who deal with special education,
depending on the ultimate decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in
a case argued earlier this month.
First, a brief lesson in the law. It is a fundamental principle
of American law that the actions of government agencies are given
the
presumption of reasonableness. As the Supreme Court has said previously, “Courts
presume that public officials have properly discharged their official
duties.” Thus, anyone wishing to challenge the correctness
of the action taken by a government agency bears the “burden
of proof” in establishing that the action was in error or
otherwise legally defective.
In the case of Schaffer v. Weast, the Supreme Court is considering
the notion of burden of proof in due process hearings conducted
pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
Under
the provisions of IDEA, school districts follow specific procedures
in developing an Individualized Education Program (IEP) for any
student covered by the law. It is then the right of the student's
parent
or guardian to challenge the content of the IEP through a due process
hearing.
It has been historically- in fact, universally--understood that
the parent bears the burden of proof in establishing that the IEP
is
defective or inadequate. This process is consistent with volumes
of law from all areas of judicial history. As one court described
this concept more than 30 years ago, “In most litigation, from
time immemorial, the burden of proof . . . is on the plaintiff.” Although
IDEA does not specifically allocate the burden of proof, it has never
been suggested (until now) that it lies anywhere but with the parent.
One judge found his way to disagree, however, and it has landed
the issue in the Supreme Court. In the Schaffer case, the parents
of
a student were unhappy with his IEP and filed suit in federal court.
The trial judge ruled that the burden of proof for upholding the
IEP fell to the school district.
The school district appealed this unprecedented departure from
well-settled law. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court,
holding that,
even though IDEA contained no specific assignment of burden of
proof, there was no evidence that Congress intended to “depart from
the normal rule.” The parents appealed to the Supreme Court,
which agreed to hear the case. A ruling is expected in early spring.
If the court overturns the decision, the entire IEP process and due
process procedures contained in IDEA will be overturned as well.
School districts will be placed in the awkward and unenviable position
of proving a negative; that is, proving that an IEP is not inadequate
or inappropriate. Such a decision could only be undone by congressional
action, amending IDEA to restore the process to that which now is
in place, and has been since the inception of that law.
The decision of the court will be reported here when it occurs.
-11/16/2005
|
More
Benefits
