Dl v. District of Columbia
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132092
D.D.C.2011Background
- DL v. District of Columbia concerns DCPS/OSSE failure to provide special education to preschoolers 3–5 under IDEA and related laws; class certified for victims identified, located, evaluated, or offered services late or not at all; data from 2008–2011 show persistent noncompliance; trial addressed 2008–2011 liability with expert testimony; Court previously held violations through 2007 and sought remedies; Court ordered structural injunction and ongoing monitoring.
- Evidence shows DC experienced leadership turnover, inadequate data systems, and underfunding that hindered Child Find, timely evaluations, eligibility determinations, and transitions from Part C to Part B.
- DCPS restructured Early Stages Center under pressure from this suit, but ongoing compliance issues remained; Court found multiple failures to identify, locate, evaluate, and provide FAPE to eligible preschoolers.
- Experts (Dunst and Cupingood) testified to under-identification rates, delays in evaluations, and timeliness gaps; data reliability and inter-agency coordination were problematic.
- Court grants declaratory and injunctive relief, extending prior rulings to 2008–2011, and imposes numerical/programmatic requirements with reporting and jurisdictional provisions.
- Defendants acknowledged reforms but leadership turnover and persistent noncompliance led to continued court oversight.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FAPE violation under IDEA for 3–5 year olds in DC | DL alleged widespread failure to provide FAPE in time | DCPS contended improvements were underway | Plaintiffs prevail; FAPE violated 2008–2011 |
| Child Find compliance and timely evaluations | DC failed to identify/evaluate within mandated timelines | Timelines were challenging but improvements were made | Violations found; timeliness not achieved 2008–2011 |
| Part C to Part B transition adequacy | Transitions not timely or smoothly conducted | Reforms were addressing transition gaps | Violations found; inadequate transitions 2008–2011 |
| Section 504 liability for the District | Bad faith/gross misjudgment in failing to comply with 504 | DC complied with some provisions and enacted changes | Section 504 violated due to IDEA noncompliance (bad faith/gross misjudgment) 2008–2011 |
| Appropriateness of injunctive and declaratory relief | Court should mandate broad reforms to ensure compliance | Reforms could be implemented administratively without broader oversight | Declaratory and permanent injunctions entered; programmatic/numerical requirements imposed |
Key Cases Cited
- NG ex rel. NG v. District of Columbia, 556 F. Supp. 2d 11 (D.D.C. 2008) (Child Find obligations and evaluations framed by court)
- Haskins v. Stanton, 794 F.2d 1273 (7th Cir. 1986) (public-benefit enforcement; irreparable harm recognized in injunctive context)
- Petties v. District of Columbia, 238 F. Supp. 2d 88 (D.D.C. 2002) (financial hardship not a defense to statutorily mandated obligations)