949 F. Supp. 2d 134
D.D.C.2013Background
- E.J. is a 15-year-old with disabilities receiving IDEA-funded services; his mother unilaterally placed him at Spectrum after Hamilton closed.
- IEP May 6, 2011 calls for full-time out-of-general-education placement with specified services.
- Spectrum was selected as the 2011-2012 service site after Hamilton closed; plaintiff objected.
- HOD on Sept. 26, 2011 found Spectrum appropriate and did not grant private placement relief; plaintiffs did not appeal this ruling.
- A second due process complaint on Sept. 30, 2011 sought tuition reimbursement and parental participation; a December 13, 2011 HOD held Spectrum non-change-in-placement did not require parental involvement; collateral estoppel and res judicata issues were raised subsequently.
- This court denies plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and grants defendant’s cross-motion, upholding the 2011-2012 Spectrum placement and denying tuition reimbursement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did DCPS violate FAPE by excluding parents from Spectrum selection? | James contends parental participation was required. | EDUCATION placement did not change; site selection not a formal placement change. | No FAPE violation; Spectrum did not require parental involvement. |
| Was the inappropriate placement claim barred by collateral estoppel/res judicata? | Plaintiffs argued the issue could be relitigated. | HOD’s findings on Spectrum/placement precluded relitigation. | Collateral estoppel bars the claim. |
| Did DCPS deny FAPE by not providing an appropriate 2011-2012 placement? | DCPS failed to determine/implement an appropriate 2011-2012 placement. | Spectrum was appropriate and capable of implementing the IEP. | Spectrum was appropriate; no FAPE denial. |
| Are plaintiffs entitled to tuition reimbursement? | Private placement should be reimbursed due to FAPE denial. | School program at Spectrum complies with IDEA; unilateral private placement at own risk. | No reimbursement; private placement not required. |
Key Cases Cited
- White ex rel. White v. Ascension Parish Sch. Bd., 343 F.3d 373 (5th Cir. 2003) (educational placement means program, not location; parental participation not always required for site changes)
- A.W. v. Fairfax Cnty. Sch. Bd., 372 F.3d 674 (4th Cir. 2004) (location change not necessarily a placement change if program is replicated)
- NG. v. District of Columbia, 556 F. Supp. 2d 11 (D.D.C. 2008) (equitable authority to reimburse private placement if proper under IDEA)
- Roark v. District of Columbia, 460 F. Supp. 2d 32 (D.D.C. 2006) (private placement reimbursement standard under IDEA)
- Gulf Power Co. v. F.C.C., 669 F.3d 320 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (preclusion principles applied to administrative/agency decisions)