1:16-cv-03586
D.N.J.Aug 9, 2016Background
- Student R.L., eligible for special education, had an IEP placing her at The Quaker School at Horsham (TQSH) under a settlement with Berlin Borough (Oct. 28, 2014); Berlin paid limited tuition and the settlement was approved by a state ALJ.
- Mother K.L. moved with R.L. to Cinnaminson Township on Oct. 31, 2014; she presented Berlin’s IEP but Cinnaminson did not adopt it or promptly implement a new IEP.
- K.L. filed for due process in Dec. 2014; Cinnaminson and K.L. settled for Cinnaminson to fund TQSH through June 30, 2015, while reserving stay-put claims.
- For the 2015–16 school year Cinnaminson proposed an in-district IEP; K.L. challenged its adequacy and sought emergent stay-put relief. ALJ Ascione ordered Cinnaminson to fund TQSH (June 6, 2016).
- Cinnaminson sought interlocutory review in federal court and the parties converted pending motions into a final-in-effect resolution request. The District Court reversed and vacated the ALJ’s stay-put order (Aug. 9, 2016).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a prior IEP/stay-put from Berlin continued to bind Cinnaminson after the family’s unilateral move | Cinnaminson must fund the Berlin/TQSH stay-put because the ALJ found that IEP to be R.L.’s then-current placement | K.L. contends the ALJ correctly identified the stay-put and funding should follow | Court held voluntary intrastate transfer defeats stay-put; receiving district must provide comparable services under 20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(2)(C)(i) but need not fund private placement |
| Whether the ALJ’s factual finding that Berlin’s IEP was the stay-put is entitled to deference | ALJ’s factual finding should control and require funding | Cinnaminson argued legal effect of voluntary move makes stay-put inoperative despite ALJ’s factual conclusion | Court gave due weight to ALJ facts but exercised de novo review on the legal question and reversed because the law renders stay-put inoperative after voluntary relocation |
| Whether Cinnaminson’s failure to produce a new IEP within 30 days converted the transfer into a continuing stay-put obligation | K.L. argued statutory/regulatory breach (NJAC 6A:14-4.1) should result in adopting the prior IEP as stay-put | Cinnaminson argued regulation breach does not create stay-put; transfer protections and §1414 govern and compensate remedies exist | Court held procedural violations do not automatically resurrect stay-put; remedies include due-process petitions and compensatory relief, but the receiving district must provide comparable services pending a new IEP |
| Whether injunctive relief (funding TQSH) is required pending appeal/further proceedings | K.L. sought injunction to enforce ALJ’s order compelling funding; also relied on Ridley to argue funding even if stay-put was erroneous | Cinnaminson sought interlocutory relief to avoid irrecoverable funding obligations | Court denied injunctive relief and vacated ALJ order; held Ridley does not compel funding where the stay-put determination itself is reversed on interlocutory review |
Key Cases Cited
- Drinker v. Colonial School Dist., 78 F.3d 859 (3d Cir. 1996) (stay-put provision functions as an automatic preliminary injunction and requires funding of then-current placement)
- Michael C. v. Radnor Tp. Sch. Dist., 202 F.3d 642 (3d Cir. 2000) (voluntary interstate move frees new district from obligation to adopt prior IEP as stay-put)
- Pardini v. Allegheny Intermediate Unit, 420 F.3d 181 (3d Cir. 2005) (stay-put can attach to services provided by a state agency during transition from IFSP to IEP)
- Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (U.S. 1988) (Congress intended strong protections against excluding disabled students; stay-put construed broadly)
- M.R. v. Ridley Sch. Dist., 744 F.3d 112 (3d Cir. 2014) (parents may obtain reimbursement for private placement incurred during appeals in certain procedural contexts)
- Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (U.S. 2005) (IDEA implements cooperative federalism and allocates evidentiary burdens)
- Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (U.S. 1982) (framework for FAPE inquiry under IDEA)
- D.K. v. Abington Sch. Dist., 696 F.3d 233 (3d Cir. 2012) (compensatory education is an appropriate remedy for substantive IDEA violations)