153 F. Supp. 3d 4
D.D.C.2015Background
- J.W., a 14-year-old D.C. resident eligible for special education (Other Health Impairment/ADHD), attended Kingsbury Day School through 2014 but transferred to Stuart Hall (a private boarding school) for 2014–2015 at her mother's direction.
- In June 2014 an IEP was developed that the parties disputed; DCPS later sought to revise it and Wimbish declined to reconvene, prompting administrative conflict.
- Wimbish filed a due-process complaint (Jan. 2015). An administrative hearing officer (HOD, Mar. 29, 2015) found DCPS denied J.W. a FAPE for 2014–2015 and ordered DCPS to reimburse 50% of Stuart Hall tuition for that year (reduction based on Wimbish’s June 2014 conduct).
- For 2015–2016 DCPS told Wimbish J.W. was no longer eligible for special education and produced a §504 plan; Wimbish filed a second due-process complaint (Aug. 20, 2015).
- Wimbish sought a stay-put preliminary injunction under IDEA §1415(j) to require DCPS to fund J.W.’s placement at Stuart Hall during pending proceedings; the district court granted the stay-put and ordered DCPS to fund 100% of tuition retroactive to the start of 2015–2016 and through the proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stuart Hall is J.W.’s "then-current educational placement" for stay-put purposes | Stuart Hall is the current placement based on the HOD’s finding that DCPS denied a FAPE and that Stuart Hall is appropriate | District argued the HOD was only a reimbursement order and that Stuart Hall lacks OSSE certification, so it is not the stay-put placement | Court held Stuart Hall is the then-current placement because the HOD found on the merits that DCPS denied a FAPE and Stuart Hall was appropriate; OSSE certification is not required |
| Whether the stay-put injunction requires DCPS to fund tuition and, if so, what percentage | Wimbish sought full (100%) funding for tuition during pendency | DCPS contended it need only fund 50% (the amount ordered by the HOD for 2014–2015) going forward | Court held DCPS must fund 100% of Stuart Hall tuition during the pendency of administrative and judicial proceedings; the HOD’s 50% reduction was limited to 2014–2015 and equitable reduction does not extend automatically into the stay-put period |
| Whether the court may consider merits of underlying IDEA dispute when resolving stay-put | Wimbish argued stay-put decision should not consider merits beyond placement status | DCPS argued J.W. no longer needs special education and proposed alternative placements (Kingsbury/Cardozo) | Court reiterated stay-put inquiry is separate from merits; it may not resolve the underlying eligibility/IEP merits and cannot rely on merits-based arguments to avoid stay-put relief |
| Whether private-school lack of state approval (COA) bars stay-put funding | Wimbish argued appropriateness is a merits inquiry and lack of COA does not preclude stay-put funding | DCPS argued Stuart Hall’s lack of OSSE Certification makes it inappropriate | Court held lack of COA is not dispositive; appropriateness is judged by whether the private program provides educational benefit and the HOD found Stuart Hall appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- School Comm. of Town of Burlington v. Dep’t of Educ., 471 U.S. 359 (parental placement reimbursement standard under IDEA)
- Florence Cnty. Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter by Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (parents may obtain reimbursement for unapproved private schools if appropriate)
- Leonard v. McKenzie, 869 F.2d 1558 (D.C. Cir.) (stay-put placement inquiry centers on what constitutes current educational placement)
- Vinyard v. District of Columbia, 901 F. Supp. 2d 77 (D.D.C.) (reimbursement order can establish stay-put placement if HOD made merits findings)
- Leggett v. District of Columbia, 793 F.3d 59 (D.C. Cir.) (appropriateness of private placement based on educational benefit, not formal approvals)