Butler v. District of Columbia
275 F. Supp. 3d 1
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- D.B., a student with blindness and learning disabilities, stopped attending school after an alleged sexual assault in September 2014 and never returned; DCPS later changed his placement but he did not enroll.
- Plaintiff Davette Butler filed an IDEA due process complaint alleging DCPS denied D.B. a FAPE during 2014–2015 and 2015–2016; the Hearing Officer found a FAPE denial for two discrete failures (failure to reconvene IEP team after the assault; failure to revise the 2015–2016 IEP).
- The Hearing Officer declined to award compensatory education, finding the record insufficient to determine what position D.B. would occupy but denied relief “without prejudice.”
- At the administrative hearing, Plaintiff’s expert (Sharon Millis) proposed a specific compensatory plan (large hours of tutoring, adaptive PE, OT, orientation & mobility) based on long acquaintance with D.B., but conceded there were no tests showing regression or current assessments.
- Plaintiff asked this court to award compensatory education based on the expert testimony; DCPS asked for remand to the Hearing Officer to develop an individualized remedy (or for a lesser award if the court awards relief).
- The district court held the Hearing Officer erred by refusing to craft a compensatory remedy without seeking more evidence, and remanded for the Hearing Officer to solicit additional evidence and/or order assessments to fashion an individualized compensatory education award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should itself award compensatory education to D.B. | Butler: the Hearing Officer’s denial was improper; court should award compensatory services based on the expert’s proposal. | District: award is appropriate but remand is required so the Hearing Officer can conduct a fact-specific inquiry; if court awards, it should be less than plaintiff seeks. | Court declined to award relief itself and remanded for the Hearing Officer to take additional evidence and/or order assessments to determine an individualized compensatory award. |
| Whether the Hearing Officer appropriately denied compensatory education without further proceedings | Butler: expert testimony sufficed to support an award. | District: Hearing Officer needs more fact-specific evidence to avoid mechanical award. | Court held the Hearing Officer erred in denying relief without soliciting further evidence; he must either allow additional evidence or order assessments to define deficits and remedies. |
Key Cases Cited
- B.D. v. District of Columbia, 817 F.3d 792 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (compensatory education must be individualized and seek to undo both affirmative harm and lost progress)
- Reid ex rel. Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (remedy requires fact-specific individualized assessments; courts may remand when administrative record lacks pertinent findings)
- Kerkam v. McKenzie, 862 F.2d 884 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (party challenging hearing officer bears burden to show error; district court reviews on a preponderance standard with due weight to the hearing officer)
- Kerkam v. Superintendent, D.C. Pub. Schs., 931 F.2d 84 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (decisions without reasoned, specific findings deserve little deference)
- Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (U.S. 1982) (courts must give due weight to school authorities and not substitute their educational policies)
- Stanton ex rel. K.T. v. District of Columbia, 680 F. Supp. 2d 201 (D.D.C. 2010) (hearing officers must solicit evidence before denying compensatory education; prohibits mechanical awards)