Burden of Proof in Due Process Hearings: Schaffer v. Weast (2005)
Schaffer v. Weast (2005) U.S. Supreme Court case focused on who had the burden of proof in due process hearings – the parents or the school. Brian Schaffer had learning disabilities and speech-language impairments. From kindergarten through seventh grade, he attended a private school. When school officials advised Brian’s parents that he needed a different school to meet his needs, his parents contacted their local public school system. When the school district offered a program that was not sufficiently intensive, the parents enrolled Brian in a private special education school and requested a due process hearing. After a due process hearing, the Administrative Law Judge held that the parents bore the burden of persuasion
and ruled for the school district (Wrightslaw, 2021).
The parents appealed to the U. S. District Court. The Court reversed and remanded, concluding that the burden of persuasion is on the school district. During this time, the public school offered Brian a placement in a high school that had a special learning center. The parents accepted, and Brian attended this program until he graduated from high school.
The case bounced between the U. S. District Court, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and the Administrative Law Judge on the burden of proof issue. Finally, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (2021).
Which party bears the burden of proof at an administrative hearing, the parents or the school district?
In a 6-2 ruling, the Supreme Court held that the party that seeks relief (the one that wants to change the IEP) bears the burden of proof.
In the majority opinion, Justice O’Connor wrote:
If parents believe their child’s IEP is inappropriate, they may request an impartial due process hearing. The Act is silent, however, as to which party bears the burden of persuasion at such a hearing. The U.S. Supreme court held that the burden lies on the party seeking relief.
The case does not adversely affect States that already place the burden of proof on one party or the other.
Justice O’Connor emphasized the limited nature of this decision:
The burden of proof in an administrative hearing challenging an IEP is properly placed upon the party seeking relief. In this case, the party is Brian, as represented by his parents. But the rule applies with equal effect to school districts: If they seek to challenge an IEP, they will bear the burden of persuasion before an ALJ. Two Justices dissented from the majority. Justice Breyer believed that the case should be remanded back to Maryland to determine the issue (2021).
Justice Ginsburg dissented because she believed that policy consideration, convenience, and fairness call for assigning the burden of proof to the school district in this case. Citing the infamous Deal v. Hamilton County Bd. of Ed. case, in which a Tennessee school district spent over 2 million dollars on attorneys fees in an effort to avoid providing services to a child with autism, she recited that school districts striving to balance their budgets, if left to make these decisions, will favor educational options that enable them to conserve resources (Deal v. Hamilton County Bd. of Ed., 392 F. 3d 840, 864-865; 6th Cir. 2004).
This case brought about legal clarification in the burden of proof for due process hearings. These findings provided families, schools, and state agencies the knowledge needed in knowing the responsibility of the burden of proof; which in turn, has led to more positive resolutions, as parties recognize that they may have difficulty providing the necessary burden of proof.
Figure 4
Jackson