Abington Heights School District v. A.C.
3:14-cv-00368
M.D. Penn.May 2, 2014Background
- Abington Heights sought a statutory stay-put injunction under IDEA § 1415(j) to keep A.C. in his current placement during pending proceedings.
- A.C. is a nine-year-old with Down syndrome receiving special education; disputes involve Waverly vs Clarks Summit Elementary placements.
- A pendency order named Waverly Elementary as A.C.’s pendent placement, pending further due process proceedings.
- Hearing Officer’s memorandum acknowledged possible transition issues but kept Waverly as the stay-put placement, signaling potential future move with a transition plan.
- Plaintiff argues the stay-put order should be enjoined or vacated; defendants argue the order should stand and merits favor the district.
- Court denies the motion, balancing harms and recognizing transition planning as part of the dispute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether stay-put requires traditional injunction analysis | Abington Heights seeks to vacate/modify stay-put, not standard injunction. | Stay-put creates automatic status quo; standard injunction should apply if moving forward. | Traditional preliminary injunction analysis applies to enjoin stay-put. |
| Whether Waverly being the current placement is correct | Stipulated pendent IEP from 12/20/2012 remains in Waverly; move to Clarks Summit not required. | Move may be permissible with transition plan; pendency determined placement. | Hearing Officer’s view may be correct; transition needs affect placement. |
| Irreparable harm to Abington Heights if stay-put remains | Maintaining stay-put causes staffing and financial burdens. | Harm to district not irreparable; transition costs solvable. | Irreparable harm not shown; harms not outweigh A.C.’s rights. |
| Public interest in staying put during due process | Public interest supports judge reviewing stay-put order. | Public policy favors stability but not at the expense of due process. | Public interest weighs against granting stay-put injunction here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Drinker by Drinker v. Colonial School Dist., 78 F.3d 859 (3d Cir. 1996) (corestay-put placement doctrine; current placement measured by functioning IEP)
- Pardini v. Allegheny Intermediate Unit, 420 F.3d 181 (3d Cir. 2005) (supports balancing stay-put and merits; limits automatic vacatur)
- Johnson ex rel. Johnson v. Special Educ. Hearing Office, 287 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2002) (district court applies traditional injunction analysis to stay-put)
- Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (injunctions require balancing of harms and public interest)
- Drinker v. Bd. of Educ. of the Borough of the Clementon School Dist., 747 F.2d 149 (3d Cir. 1984) (context for stay-put and placement considerations)
- Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sec’y of HHS, 724 F.3d 377 (3d Cir. 2013) (reiterates standard injunction framework in Third Circuit)