78 F. Supp. 3d 109
D.D.C.2015Background
- G.B. is a thirteen-year-old identified as a student with disabilities under IDEA and her parents challenge her IEP placement.
- The December 13, 2013 IEP provided 31 hours of specialized instruction outside the general education setting and 1 hour of behavioral support per week, to be delivered in a fully separate special education setting at a DCPS school (Hart Middle School).
- Hart could only provide 27.5 hours of services per week because it lacks a fully separate special education setting.
- On December 8, 2014 the District revised G.B.’s IEP to 27.5 hours and identified Cardozo High School as the service location, which would expose G.B. to nondisabled peers during transitions and lunches.
- On December 31, 2014 the parents filed a due process complaint challenging the December 8, 2014 IEP; an administrative hearing was anticipated to decide by March 16, 2015.
- On January 8, 2015 the parents filed suit invoking the IDEA stay-put provision and sought DCPS funding for a non-public placement during administrative proceedings; the court granted TRO and, pending the admin proceeding, a preliminary injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether stay-put applies and what is the then-current placement | G.B.’s 2013 IEP is the then-current placement | The District’s 2014 proposed changes could alter placement | Yes; 2013 IEP remains the then-current placement |
| Whether District’s proposed changes constitute a fundamental change in placement | The changes are a fundamental change from the 2013 IEP | Changes are de minimis and not a fundamental change | Yes; the proposed changes constitute a fundamental change in placement |
| Relief sought and granted during pendency | Stay-put injunction and TRO should be granted to fund the 2013-based placement | Maintain current placement while admin review proceeds; no injunction or TRO | TRO granted and Preliminary Injunction granted pending admin proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Lunceford v. Dist. of Columbia Bd. of Educ., 745 F.2d 1577 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (change in placement requires a fundamental alteration to the program)
- Johnson v. District of Columbia, 839 F. Supp. 2d 176 (D.D.C. 2012) (stay-put analysis focuses on the then-current placement and proposed changes)
- Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (U.S. 1988) (stay-put purpose to protect the child pending review)
- Drinker ex rel. Drinker v. Colonial Sch. Dist., 78 F.3d 859 (3d Cir. 1996) (stay-put framework and timing considerations)
- Knight v. District of Columbia, 877 F.2d 1025 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (precedent on stay-put relief in DC)
- McKenzie v. Smith, 771 F.2d 1527 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (stay-put relief context in DC)
- Block v. District of Columbia, 748 F. Supp. 891 (D.D.C. 1990) (support for stay-put injunction standards)
- Laster v. District of Columbia, 394 F. Supp. 2d 60 (D.D.C. 2005) (stay-put and placement change considerations)