With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that his or her acts were unlawful.” Wright v. Smith, 21 F.3d 496, 500 (2d Cir.1994). “[T]he absence of legal precedent addressing an identical factual scenario does not necessarily yield a conclusion that the law is not clearly established.” Johnson v. Newburgh Enlarged Sch. Dist., 239 F.3d 246, 251 (2d Cir.2001). With respect to the plaintiffs causes of action for violations of the IDEA, the court concludes that the individual defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because the law was clearly established that each child’s individualized education plan be developed and revised at least annually, by a team composed of the parents of the child with a disability. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d). See Butler v. South Glens Falls Cent. Sch. Dist., 106 F.Supp.2d 414, 421-22 (N.D.N.Y.2000) (<HOLDING>). With respect to the plaintiffs cause of

A: holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity
B: holding that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity where the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that speech was public concern
C: holding that defendants claiming qualified immunity to  1983 action were entitled to summary judgment where factual disputes were not material
D: holding that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity where it was not objectively reasonable for them to believe that failing to develop ieps which contained the required information did not violate the plaintiffs statutory rights
D.