285 F. Supp. 3d 381
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- T.J., a D.C. public-school sixth-grader eligible for special education (ADHD, Emotional Disturbance), had IEPs from 2015–2017 that progressively increased specialized instruction and behavior support; DCPS proposed a 20-hour/week BES placement for 2017–18.
- Adams filed a due-process complaint seeking DCPS funding for placement at Phillips School (a private special-education day school); Phillips accepted T.J. and tuition is high (~$49,000/yr).
- Administrative hearing officer Vaden found DCPS denied T.J. a FAPE (procedural delay in FBA; inappropriate IEPs in 2016 and 2017) but did not find no suitable public placement existed; he ordered an IEP team review/revision and compensatory services (reading instruction, mentoring) instead of private-school placement.
- Adams filed suit in federal court and moved for a preliminary injunction to place T.J. at Phillips; Magistrate Judge Robinson recommended denying the motion for lack of irreparable harm; Adams objected.
- The district court conducted de novo review of objections and denied the preliminary injunction on alternative grounds: Adams failed to show likelihood of success on the merits of her administrative-appeal claims supporting prospective private placement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Past educational placement (Sept 2015 onward) | Adams: hearing officer erred by not ruling separately on placement; a finding would support private placement | DCPS: 2015 claim time-barred; 2016/2017 IEPs were invalidated so associated placements were encompassed by those rulings | Court: Adams unlikely to succeed; 2015 claim untimely and past-placement findings do not justify prospective private placement |
| 2. March 16, 2017 IEP (substantive review) | Adams: HOD invalidated the IEP on procedural grounds without addressing substantive allegations needed for placement decision | DCPS: the IEP was already invalidated and compensatory relief awarded; substantive review unnecessary | Court: HOD permissibly relied on procedural ground; compensatory relief appropriate; no likelihood of success |
| 3. Delegation to LRE team (parent participation) | Adams: DCPS improperly delegated placement to LRE team excluding parents/knowledgeable persons, violating parental participation rights | DCPS: claim moot because the 2017 IEP was invalidated and does not support prospective relief | Court: Even if debatable, 2017 IEP was invalidated; Adams unlikely to prevail |
| 4. Prospective private placement (Phillips) | Adams: HOD should have ordered private placement (Phillips); IEP-review remedy was insufficient; record shows no appropriate public option | DCPS: HOD reasonably ordered IEP revision; public options and supports were not foreclosed; prospective placement premature and unexhausted | Court: HOD’s order for IEP review/revision was reasonable; 20-hour/BES program and any post-HOD disputes were unexhausted; Adams not likely to succeed, so injunction denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Endrew F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist., 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017) (IEP must be reasonably calculated to enable appropriate progress)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary injunction factors and burden to show likelihood of success and irreparable harm)
- Reid ex rel. Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (district must pay for private placement if no suitable public school is available)
- Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988) (stay-put provision does not limit courts’ remedial authority under IDEA)
- Arkansas Dairy Co-op Ass'n, Inc. v. USDA, 573 F.3d 815 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (failure to show likelihood of success on the merits defeats a preliminary injunction)