Lopez-Young v. District of Columbia
211 F. Supp. 3d 42
D.D.C.2016Background
- Student R.L., a D.C. resident who immigrated from El Salvador in 2012, had limited English proficiency and was eventually found eligible for special education as having a Specific Learning Disability in May 2015.
- Ms. Lopez (mother) repeatedly requested evaluations beginning in December 2012; DCPS did not complete a comprehensive evaluation until ~120 days after a January 2015 authorization.
- Hearing Officer found DCPS’s two‑year failure to evaluate (from Dec. 13, 2012) denied R.L. a FAPE, but reserved all compensatory‑education claims because necessary evaluations were not complete and Ms. Lopez failed to submit a compensatory plan before the hearing.
- Ms. Lopez submitted a post‑hearing independent evaluation (the "Gurley Report") criticizing DCPS’s testing (use of interpreter, lack of Spanish tests) and diagnosing additional disorders; DCPS objected to its consideration.
- In district court, parties cross‑moved for summary judgment; they agreed remand for determination of compensatory education was appropriate, but disputed whether the hearing officer could or should be ordered to fund an independent "compensatory education study."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court may consider the Gurley Report (additional evidence) | Gurley Report is relevant to FAPE/compensatory analysis and IDEA requires the court to hear additional evidence on request | District said plaintiff failed to move formally and the report postdates HOD so is irrelevant | Court accepted Gurley Report as supplemental evidence and will consider it to the extent necessary to resolve remand/compensatory issues |
| Whether remand is appropriate to determine compensatory education | Lopez asks remand so hearing officer can craft compensatory relief | District does not object to remand | Court remanded to Hearing Officer to craft a fact‑specific compensatory education remedy consistent with Reid and B.D. |
| Whether a hearing officer has authority to order/require a compensatory‑education study or additional assessments (and to require district to fund them) | Lopez sought an order requiring DCPS to fund an independent compensatory study to fill gaps caused by lost/insufficient records | District argued no authority to compel funding and plaintiff offered no specifics for the study | Court held the Hearing Officer has authority to order additional assessments (and may order DCPS to fund them if equitable) and that the Hearing Officer erred to the extent he thought he lacked authority |
| Whether the court should order the compensatory education study now | Lopez requested the court require DCPS to fund the study immediately | District argued plaintiff gave vague, undefined request and no showing such a study is necessary | Court declined to order the study now: plaintiff’s proposal was too vague; remand to Hearing Officer required to decide what assessments, if any, are necessary and whether DCPS must pay |
Key Cases Cited
- Reid ex rel. Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516 (D.C. Cir.) (compensatory education standard and district court/hearing officer remedial authority)
- B.D. ex rel. Davis v. District of Columbia, 817 F.3d 792 (D.C. Cir.) (need for flexible, assessment‑driven approach when crafting compensatory awards)
- Florence County School District Four v. Carter ex rel. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993) (equitable remedial authority under IDEA includes compensatory education)
- Boose v. District of Columbia, 786 F.3d 1054 (D.C. Cir.) (IDEA grants broad remedial discretion)
- Lesesne ex rel. B.F. v. District of Columbia, 447 F.3d 828 (D.C. Cir.) (IEP as primary vehicle for IDEA implementation)