839 F. Supp. 2d 173
D.D.C.2012Background
- Morris Johnson sues the District of Columbia on behalf of his minor son M.J. under IDEA seeking placement at Deal Middle School while a second due process challenge proceeds.
- M.J. has an IEP with specialized instruction and related services; he attended Deal Middle School prior to the challenged placement.
- The District revised M.J.’s 2011-2012 IEP reducing services; the family filed a due process complaint; a hearing officer upheld the revised placement.
- A February 2012 IEP designated MacFarland Middle School as M.J.’s placement, incorporating the hearing officer’s findings; the District moved forward with the transfer.
- The plaintiffs visited MacFarland, objected, and filed a second due process complaint; they sought a stay-put injunction to require Deal or a private school.
- The court denied the stay-put injunction, found the February 2012 IEP to be M.J.’s then-current placement for stay-put purposes, and denied summary judgment for the plaintiffs while inviting further briefing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is M.J.’s then-current educational placement? | Pl. Johnson argues Deal is the current placement. | Def. District argues February 2012 IEP governs stay-put. | February 2012 IEP is the then-current placement. |
| Did the District propose a fundamental change to M.J.’s placement? | Plaintiffs contend there is a ongoing challenge to the location (Deal). | District has not proposed a fundamental change, only placement at MacFarland. | No fundamental change proposed; stay-put inapplicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lunceford v. D.C. Bd. of Educ., 745 F.2d 1577 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (defines stay-put concepts and placement changes)
- Spilsbury v. District of Columbia, 307 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 2004) (prior IEP controls during pendency when challenged IEP is under review)
- Laster v. District of Columbia, 394 F. Supp. 2d 60 (D.D.C. 2005) (supports stay-put framework and placement timing)
- Mackey v. Bd. of Educ. for the Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 386 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2004) (alignment of stay-put with agreed-upon IEP)
- Drinker ex rel. Drinker v. Colonial Sch. Dist., 78 F.3d 859 (3d Cir. 1996) (stay-put context and IEP functioning standard)
- Burlington School Comm. v. Dep’t of Educ., 471 U.S. 359 (Supreme Court 1985) (standard for administrative procedures and stay-put implications)
- Knight ex rel. Knight v. District of Columbia, 877 F.2d 1025 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (permits placement changes within constraints of non-fundamental alteration)
- Ill. State Bd. of Educ. v. Bd. of Educ., 103 F.3d 545 (7th Cir. 1996) (definition of current educational placement in stay-put context)