901 F. Supp. 2d 77
D.D.C.2012Background
- DCPS challenged a Hearing Officer’s Determination and Order under IDEA after a due process hearing in favor of private placement at Lab School of Washington for G.V.; Lab School was identified as G.V.’s current placement for stay-put purposes; HOD ordered DCPS to reimburse Lab School costs for 2011-2012 and to develop a new IEP; the District requested a stay of the HOD pending appeal and Defendants sought a stay-put injunction enforcing the Lab School placement funded by DCPS; the Court granted stay-put relief and granted-in-part the District’s stay, staying the HOD’s reimbursement and IEP-development orders but keeping Lab School as G.V.’s pendent stay-put placement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lab School is G.V.’s current placement for stay-put | District: Lab School not current; no functioning IEP. | Defendants: HOD found Lab School appropriate; constitutes current placement. | Yes; Lab School is G.V.’s current placement for stay-put. |
| Whether automatic stay-put relief applies | District: staying put requires traditional injunctive criteria. | Stay-put is automatic if current placement is Lab School. | Automatic stay-put relief applies. |
| Whether the District is entitled to equitable relief on stay-put | District: balance of harms supports withholding stay-put. | Stay-put relief should not depend on merits; Lab School funding continued. | District not entitled to equitable relief to override stay-put; stay-put applies automatically. |
| Whether to stay the HOD pending appeal | District: full stay preserves appeal rights. | Partial stay preferable to protect merits while preserving pendency. | HOD stayed except the Lab School as pendent stay-put placement; reimbursement/IEP orders stayed. |
| Whether a bond is required for stay-put | Bond may be necessary to secure potential recovery. | Bond not required; stay-put mechanism already protects placement. | No bond required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (U.S. 1988) (stay-put purposes and automatic injunction)
- Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (U.S. 1982) (IEP must be reasonably calculated to enable progress)
- School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Department of Education of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359 (U.S. 1985) (private school placement can become current placement)
- Forest Grove School Dist. v. TA, 557 U.S. 230 (U.S. 2009) (parents may obtain private school tuition where state fails to provide FAPE)
- Johnson v. Dist. of Columbia, 839 F. Supp. 2d 173 (D.D.C. 2012) (stay-put analysis; placement as current; district arguments)
- Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist. v. OAH, 556 F.3d 876 (9th Cir. 2009) (emphasizes stay-put implications for private placement)
- Laster v. Dist. of Columbia, 439 F. Supp. 2d 93 (D.D.C. 2006) (automatic stay-put entitlement; four-factor test not required)
- Mackey ex rel. Thomas M. v. Bd. of Educ. For Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 386 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2004) (stay-put overlap with traditional injunction standards)