762 F. Supp. 2d 745
E.D. Pa.2010Background
- R.B. is a 19-year-old with Trisomy 21 who qualifies for special education under IDEA and attends Mastery Charter School Pickett Campus.
- Mastery obtained control of Pickett in 2007, transferring R.B.'s special education program from the District to Mastery.
- Mastery disenrolled R.B. unilaterally on June 19, 2009, triggering a stay-put dispute during pending proceedings.
- R.B. and Parent sought stay-put protection to remain in Mastery during IDEA due process; the hearing officer deferred ruling on placement.
- R.B. has not received special education services since March 2009 and lives with her mother in Philadelphia; Mastery argues disenrollment was lawful under state law for absences.
- The Court held that Mastery’s disenrollment was a change in placement and violated stay-put, granting a preliminary stay-put injunction and reinstating R.B. at Mastery during pendency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there a stay-put entitlement in this case? | Stay-put applies to the then-current placement during pendency. | Placement not clearly defined due to disenrollment; issues of truancy. | Yes; stay-put applies to the then-current placement during pendency. |
| Did Mastery's disenrollment constitute a change in educational placement? | Disenrollment terminates placement, triggering stay-put protections. | Disenrollment was a location change or routine truancy issue under state law. | Yes; disenrollment is a change in placement triggering stay-put. |
| Is exhaustion of administrative remedies required for stay-put relief here? | Exhaustion is not required for stay-put due to time sensitivity. | Exhaustion generally required for IDEA claims. | Exhaustion not required for stay-put injunctive relief in this context. |
| Does the School District have liability or standing to be named in the stay-put action? | District should be bound by stay-put via Mastery’s actions. | District not properly subject to stay-put relief as to claims asserted. | District granted dismissal on 12(b)(6) grounds for failure to state a claim. |
| What is the proper remedial order regarding R.B.'s placement during pendency? | Reinstate R.B. at Mastery or provide an equivalent arrangement. | Alternative arrangements possible; placement may be modified. | Mastery must reinstate R.B. in Mastery or reach an agreed alternative; injunction granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (U.S. 1988) (IEP framework and procedural safeguards foundational to IDEA)
- Drinker by Drinker v. Colonial Sch. Dist., 78 F.3d 864 (3d Cir. 1996) (stay-put injunction framework governs placement disputes during pendency)
- Murphy v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. Educ., 297 F.3d 195 (2d Cir. 2002) (exhaustion not required where stay-put relief is sought; immediacy of relief)
- George A. v. Wallingford Swarthmore Sch. Dist., 655 F. Supp. 2d 546 (E.D. Pa. 2009) (location vs. placement; placement factors in stay-put analysis)
- Cronin v. Bd. of Educ., 689 F. Supp. 197 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) (graduation/expulsion as a change in placement triggering stay-put)
- Lunceford v. Dist. of Columbia Bd. of Educ., 745 F.2d 1577 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (change in placement considerations and stay-put)