10 F.4th 215
3rd Cir.2021Background
- H.K., a disabled fifth grader residing in East Brunswick, was enrolled at the Laurel School (a private school) after his parents unilaterally transferred him from Hatikvah Charter School.
- Hatikvah (the charter LEA) and H.K.’s parents agreed on an IEP that kept H.K. at Laurel; East Brunswick (the district of residence) later challenged that placement in due process.
- The parties agreed H.K. should remain at Laurel while litigation proceeded (i.e., Laurel became the pendent placement); the ALJ ordered Hatikvah to pay tuition and East Brunswick to provide transportation.
- The District Court vacated only the portion requiring East Brunswick to reimburse transportation but otherwise left Hatikvah responsible for tuition; Hatikvah appealed the tuition ruling.
- The Third Circuit held that under the IDEA stay-put rule and New Jersey law (N.J. Stat. Ann. § 18A:36A-11), the resident district (East Brunswick) bears financial responsibility for all pendent placement costs, even where a charter school implemented the IEP.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who must fund pendent placement costs (tuition & transport)? | Hatikvah: stay-put + NJ law require resident district to fund pendent placement. | East Brunswick: charter that implemented IEP should bear costs; or stay-put not implicated for monetary relief. | Resident district (East Brunswick) must fund all pendent placement costs. |
| Does stay-put protect a private placement that resulted from a unilateral parent move later agreed to by the LEA? | Hatikvah: once LEA and parents agree to the IEP placing the student at the private school, stay-put protects that placement. | East Brunswick: stay-put shouldn’t apply because parents unilaterally moved the child and the relief sought is monetary. | Stay-put applies because Hatikvah agreed to the IEP and the student was already attending the private school when stay-put was invoked. |
| Does New Jersey law alter financial allocation when a charter implements the IEP? | Hatikvah: §18A:36A-11(b) preserves resident district fiscal responsibility for private placements even if a charter implements the IEP. | East Brunswick: (implicitly) the charter’s implementation should not automatically shift costs to the district. | NJ statute confirms resident district bears fiscal responsibility; charter status does not shift financial burden. |
| Can the resident district still challenge the placement while funding stay-put costs? | Hatikvah: paying stay-put costs does not foreclose the district’s right to challenge. | East Brunswick: paying should not be required while it litigates merits. | District may litigate merits (has 30-day challenge right) but must still fund stay-put costs during proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- M.R. v. Ridley Sch. Dist., 744 F.3d 112 (3d Cir. 2014) (resident district must fund pendent private-school placement; financing "goes hand-in-hand" with stay-put)
- Susquenita Sch. Dist. v. Raelee S., 96 F.3d 78 (3d Cir. 1996) (stay-put protects the IEP actually functioning when invoked; districts may be required to pay tuition/expenses)
- D.M. v. N.J. Dep’t of Educ., 801 F.3d 205 (3d Cir. 2015) (de novo review of stay-put application; stay-put functions as automatic injunction)
- Drinker v. Colonial Sch. Dist., 78 F.3d 859 (3d Cir. 1996) (stay-put is an automatic preliminary injunction; protects status quo placement)
- Florence Cty. Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993) (IDEA can impose significant financial burdens on school districts for private placements)
- Dig. Equip. Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863 (1994) (statutes should be construed to harmonize with other statutory law)
- Zvi D. ex rel. Shirley D. v. Ambach, 694 F.2d 904 (2d Cir. 1982) (implicit in maintaining status quo is district’s duty to finance a placement made with parental consent)
- Y.B. v. Howell Twp. Bd. of Educ., 4 F.4th 196 (3d Cir. 2021) (distinguished — stay-put did not apply in Y.B., unlike here)