M.G. v. District of Columbia
246 F. Supp. 3d 1
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- K.H., a D.C. resident with major depression, anxiety, ADHD, executive-functioning and math disabilities, attended Stansbury Academy through Aug. 5, 2015, then was unilaterally enrolled by her mother (M.G.) at Emerson Preparatory School for 2015–2016 after DCPS had not provided a placement or implemented an IEP by the school-year start.
- Plaintiff filed due-process claims alleging DCPS denied a FAPE, failed to provide an appropriate placement, and failed to develop an appropriate IEP; an initial HOD found DCPS missed required evaluation deadlines and ordered reimbursement for Stansbury tuition under certain conditions.
- A subsequent HOD (Nov. 22, 2015) concluded DCPS denied a FAPE for summer 2015 and for failing to have an IEP at the start of 2015–2016, but denied reimbursement for Emerson tuition because Emerson allegedly did not deliver the IEP’s special-education services and because parent failed to give required notice.
- On judicial review, the magistrate judge found there was no valid public-school placement or IEP in effect at the start of the 2015–2016 year and that Emerson provided educational benefit (small classes, quieter environment, academic success), so Emerson was a proper unilateral placement.
- The magistrate judge rejected DCPS’s reliance on a ten‑day notice theory and other equitable defenses, finding notice inapplicable where no placement existed and that scheduling failures were mutual.
- The magistrate judge remanded for a factual determination only on an asserted $355 underpayment for June 2015 Stansbury expenses (insufficient record proof). Recommendation: grant plaintiff’s summary-judgment motion in part (reimbursement for Emerson tuition), deny DCPS’s cross-motion, and remand on the $355 issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DCPS denied a FAPE by failing to have an appropriate IEP/placement in effect for 2015–2016 | DCPS had no valid IEP or placement by school start; therefore FAPE was denied | DCPS contends it proposed an IEP and was working to place K.H. | Held: DCPS failed to provide an appropriate IEP/placement by start of year; FAPE denial sustained |
| Whether Emerson was an appropriate unilateral private placement under IDEA (i.e., reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit) | Emerson met K.H.’s needs (small, quiet classes; academic success), so it was proper | Emerson lacks many IEP‑specified special‑education services and thus is improper | Held: Emerson was reasonably calculated to confer educational benefit and was a proper placement |
| Whether equitable defenses (notice/ten‑day requirement; parental unreasonableness) bar reimbursement | Parent argues ten‑day notice inapplicable where no public placement existed and that she gave sufficient notice via communications | DCPS argues parent concealed the placement, failed to give ten‑day notice, and impeded IEP process | Held: Ten‑day notice inapplicable here because no placement existed; record does not show parental unreasonableness sufficient to deny reimbursement |
| Whether plaintiff is entitled to an additional $355 for June 2015 Stansbury expenses | Plaintiff says DCPS underpaid by $355 and is owed that amount | DCPS says plaintiff produced no supporting invoice/documentation | Held: Insufficient evidence in record to decide $355; remand to Hearing Officer for specific factual finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Leggett v. District of Columbia, 793 F.3d 59 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (three‑part test for reimbursement of unilateral placement and standard for appropriateness)
- Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (courts may consider equities and remand where administrative record is incomplete)
- Florence County School Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (U.S. 1993) (parents who unilaterally place child in private school do so at their own risk; reimbursement framework)
- Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (U.S. 1982) (IEP must be reasonably calculated to confer educational benefit; courts must give due weight to educational authorities)
- Frank G. v. Board of Education, 459 F.3d 356 (2d Cir. 2006) (analysis of private placement appropriateness where accommodations were specially designed)
- Boose v. District of Columbia, 786 F.3d 1054 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (DCPS’s obligation to provide FAPE)
- Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (U.S. 2005) (burden of proof in special‑education administrative proceedings placed on party seeking relief)