David C. Shaw was graduated from Union College in 1966 and the University of Connecticut School of Law in 1973. He practiced law as an attorney with the Hartford Legal Aid Society from 1973 through 1984. He has been engaged in the private practice of law from 1984 to the present. He established The Law Office of David C. Shaw, LLC in 1991. He is a member of the Connecticut Bar and has been admitted to practice before the Connecticut Courts, the United States District Court in the District of Connecticut, the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second and Fifth Circuits and the United States Supreme Court.
Attorney Shaw has been the lead counsel in many hearings and lawsuits that have improved the lives of children and adults with disabilities. Some recent examples include:
Summary of a Sample of Individual Special Education Cases:
In A. v. Hartford Bd. of Educ, et al. (Due Process Hearing Case No. 11-0154) he obtained an order from a special education hearing officer requiring the New Britain and Hartford Boards of Education to provide a free appropriate public education to a child with autism using the services of a private agency within the New Britain Public Schools. Compensatory education was also ordered.
In M. v. Greenwich Bd. of Educ, 2:11cv00514(JCH), a lawsuit has been filed seeking an order from a federal court requiring the board to comply with Mediation agreements signed by the Parents and Board.
In Doe v. Bd. of Educ., 3:11cv01581 (JBA), a lawsuit has been filed seeking money damages for the alleged sexual abuse of a student with severe disabilities.
In F. v. East Hartford Bd. of Educ. (Due Process Hearing Case No. 07-378 ), he obtained an order from a special education hearing officer requiring the East Hartford Board of Education to provide two years of compensatory education to a student with intellectual disabilities for failing to address his need for transitional services under the IDEIA. Final Decision and Order >
In M. v. Greenwich Bd. of Educ. (Due Process Hearing Case No. 07-396), he obtained an order from a special education hearing officer requiring the Greenwich Board of Education to provide two years of compensatory education to a nineteen year old with severe learning disabilities who had limited reading skills. Final Decision and Order >
In R.F. v. Regional School District No. 9 (Due Process Hearing Case No. 07-139), he obtained an order requiring two years of compensatory education for the failure to identify and provide special education to a child with learning disabilities. Final Decision and Order >
He secured an order from a hearing officer requiring the Granby Public Schools District to place a child with learning disabilities in the Lindamood-Bell Program followed by a structured program in Granby in C. v. Granby, Due Process Hearing No. 04-368. Final Decision and Order >
In P. v. Newington Board of Education, 2007 WL 2821359 (D.Conn. 2007), he obtained an order requiring compensatory education and the hiring of a mutually acceptable independent consultant to develop a program for a child with intellectual disabilities in regular classes. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's opinion at P. v. Newington Board of Education, 546 F.3d 111 (2nd Cir. 2008).
In C. v. Voluntown, 226 F.3d 60 (2nd Cir. 2000), he obtained an order from a federal court, and the United States Court of Appeals requiring the Board to place the child in a private school. Final Decision and Order >
In H. v. Wallingford, Due Process Hearing No. 02-233, he obtained an order requiring proper classroom accommodations, curriculum modifications and supports for a child with intellectual disabilities in regular classes. Final Decision and Order >
In G.M. v. New Britain Bd. of Educ., 173 F.3d 77 (2nd Cir. 1999), he obtained an order requiring the Board to provide a community based transition program to address G.M.'s individual needs.
In A.S. v. Norwalk, he obtained a federal court order prohibiting the school from removing a child from regular classes. Final Decision and Order >
In P. v. Regional School District #15, he obtained an order from a federal court requiring appropriate programming for a child with autism.
Summary of a Sample of Class Action Cases:
P.J. v. State of Connecticut, No. 2:91CV00180 (RNC)
This case was brought on behalf of 4000 intellectually disabled school age children in Connecticut who were unnecessarily segregated from regular classrooms and nondisabled children. The case was settled after a three week trial. The settlement requires the State to significantly increase the participation of children with mental retardation or intellectual disabilities in regular classes in their home schools, increase their participation in extracurricular activities and end the racial and gender bias in the identification and placement of these children. Over 1500 school age children with intellectual disabilities moved from segregated education settings to properly supported regular classrooms during the implementation phase of this case.
Final Decision and Order >
Messier v. Southbury Training School, 562 F.Supp. 2d 294 (D.Conn. 2008)
This lawsuit secured, following a 123 day trial and 6 day Fairness Hearing, a Settlement Agreement requiring the State of Connecticut to provide the 450 residents of Southbury Training School with an opportunity to move from Southbury Training School to community living arrangements with all necessary support services.
Arc Connecticut v. O'Meara, No. 3:01CV1871 (JBA)
After considerable discovery, a settlement was negotiated which provided community residential supports for approximately 750 persons with mental retardation in Connecticut who until then had been living at home with their parents with little or no state support. The Settlement Agreement requires the State to provide Medicaid Waiver funding for over 500 Connecticut residents with intellectual disabilities who lived at home with their parents. In addition, the State agreed to provide residential supports for over 750 adults with intellectual disabilities sufficient to enable them to leave the homes of their aging parents and move into properly supported community residential settings.
C.A.R.C. v. Thorne, No. H78-653 (TEC)
This case was settled after a two week trial and a six month Fairness Hearing. The settlement eliminated unconstitutional conditions and obtained community placements for the 1200 residents of the Mansfield Training School and 200 additional individuals who previously lived at Mansfield Training School and had been transferred to nursing homes by the Superintendent of Mansfield Training School.
