Our Results

Our attorneys have achieved significant victories for School Districts and Municipalities in every Court in the State of New Jersey and present the below cases as a sampling of our successes.

N.W. v Princeton Public Schools, et. al., 23-1442 (August 7, 2023).
In perhaps the only instance of this in the history of the IDEA, Brett successfully petitioned the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to sanction a parent who had harassed the school district with a frivolous appeal. The Third Circuit ordered the parent to pay part of the school district’s legal fees, something that had no precedent.

A.W. o/b/o N.W. v Princeton Public Schools, et. al., 20-2433 and 21-1502 (March 15, 2022).
In the companion case to the above matter, Brett successfully defended the school district from the Office of Administrative Law through the District Court of New Jersey and the Third Circuit Cout of Appeals (certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court was denied) and obtained the dismissal with prejudice of a federal court complaint which sought damages related to the education of a disabled student. Through years of motion practice, Brett successfully argued before the Third Circuit who affirmed the dismissal with prejudice.

J.D. and O.D. o/b/o v. Medford Township Board of Education, EDS 11208-19 and 11455-19 (August 11, 2021).
In a unique matter involving twins, both of whom were disabled and had not received any special education services prior to enrolling in the school district in Kindergarten, Brett successfully defended the district’s IEP for an in-district program for both students. This was a complicated multi-day hearing that required the separate examination of all witnesses as to both students.  Ultimately, the district prevailed on all issues and the due process petitions were dismissed with prejudice.

C.F. o/b/o G.F. v East Windsor Regional Board of Education, EDS 05541-19 (April 27, 2020)
Brett defended several years of educational programming for the district during a hearing that included the testimony of multiple district employees, representatives of a therapeutic out of district school, and outside evaluators presented by the parent. After nearly ten hearing dates, Brett successfully articulated that the district's program was appropriate and distinguished the district's programming of a student with a cognitive impairment with the erroneous position of the out of district placement that the student required programming for a language based learning disability. This hearing required extensive analysis of the student's evaluations and a deep understanding of both the underlying disabilities and the applicable law due to the underlying disagreement between the parties. Ultimately, the district prevailed on all issues and the due process petition was denied in its entirety.

N.P. and A.P. o/b/o S.P. v. Princeton Reg. BOE, EDS 8581-17 (April 20, 2018).
After a multi-day hearing, Brett successfully defended a school district's Individualized Education Program which placed the student in an in-district program. The parents had unilaterally placed their child and sought reimbursement for that out of district placement which exceeded more than $100,000 per year.

J.L., minor, individually and by her Parents K.L. and J.L. v. Harrison Twp. Bd. of Educ., No. 14-2666 (RMB/JS), 2016 WL 4430929, (D.N.J. Aug. 19, 2016), appeal dismissed sub nom. J.L. v. Harrison Twp. Bd. of Edu, No. 16-3863, 2017 WL 4844197 (3d Cir. Aug. 3, 2017).
In a novel case, Brett successfully argued before the District Court of New Jersey that the conduct of the parent's attorney was so egregious that, pursuant to a rarely litigated provision of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, a reduction in attorney fees of more than $100,000 was necessary. The Federal District Court also commended Mr. Gorman for his professionalism and restraint.

D.V. by & through B.V. v. Pennsauken Sch. Dist., 247 F. Supp. 3d 464, 468 (D.N.J. 2017).
After representing the school district through discovery on a lengthy and contentious matter that involved multiple motions and applications before the District Court of New Jersey, Brett successfully obtained the dismissal of the entirety of the complaint that alleged a retaliation claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1213 ("ADA"), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794 ("Section 504"), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (First Amendment claim), and New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("NJLAD"), N. J.S.A. 10:5-1. The Complaint also alleged sex discrimination under the NJLAD and a Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 ("Title IX") discrimination claim as well as another bullying claim under the NJLAD. After hearing arguments on this application, the District Court of New Jersey dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

Alloway Twp. Bd. of Educ. v. C.Q. and R.Q. o/b/o C.Q., Alloway Twp. Bd. of Educ. v. C.Q., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33328 (D.N.J. Mar. 14, 2014).
In an appeal of a decision from the Office of Administrative Law, Brett successfully argued a Motion for Summary Judgment before the District Court of New Jersey that reversed the Office of Administrative Law's finding that the School District did not provide a Free and Appropriate Public Education pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

E.M. o/b/o M.M s v. Sterling Reg'l High School Bd. of Educ., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43236 (D.N.J. Mar. 31, 2014).
Brett obtained, before the District Court of New Jersey, the dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint, which included claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, Title VI, and Title IX.

M.S. and B.S., Individually and as Guardian ad litem of L.S., v. East Windsor Regional School District and A.G., Individually, and as Guardian ad litem of S.P. v. East Windsor Regional School District, Civil Action No.: 3:11-cv-04386 (D.N.J. Feb. 21, 2012).
Brett successfully brought and argued a Motion for Summary Judgment before the District Court of New Jersey that resulted in Dismissal of Plaintiff's Entire Complaint under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.