S. C. v. Lincoln County School District

Citation: Not availableDocket: 21-35242

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; October 18, 2021; Federal Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s denial of a “stay put” order under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for a student with Prader-Willi Syndrome. The court mandated that the student be placed at an educational center that ensures total food security, with costs borne by Lincoln County School District. An administrative law judge (ALJ) previously determined that the school district had failed to provide a free appropriate public education due to the student's specific needs. The district court had denied the stay put order, claiming the parent needed to challenge a September 2020 individualized education program (IEP) not addressed by the ALJ. However, the panel clarified that a “party aggrieved” under the IDEA includes parents seeking enforcement of an ALJ’s order when the school district neither appealed nor complied with it. The Ninth Circuit found that the district court misinterpreted the ALJ’s ruling as offering alternative remedies rather than mandating immediate placement at the educational center. It also criticized the district court for not adequately analyzing the implications of the ALJ's order on the student's placement. The court ruled that the ALJ’s order constituted a change in the student's legal placement, thus necessitating enforcement of the stay put order without the need for traditional preliminary injunction considerations.

The case involves the application of the "stay put" provision of the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA) regarding a child with disabilities, S.C. An administrative law judge ordered S.C. to be placed at the Latham Center at the Lincoln County School District’s expense due to a due process challenge. Although the school district did not appeal this order, it failed to comply, prompting S.C.'s mother, K.G., to seek a federal district court stay put order for the same placement and funding. The district court denied this request, which was identified as an error. The ruling is reversed, and a stay put order is directed.

The IDEA mandates that states provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to children with disabilities, requiring individualized education programs (IEPs) tailored to each child's needs. IEPs must be developed by a team that includes parents, educators, and specialists. If parents are dissatisfied with an IEP, they can initiate an administrative due process challenge, which is heard by an administrative law judge (ALJ) who has the authority to order educational services at the school district's expense. The ALJ's decision is final unless appealed.

Crucially, the IDEA's "stay put" provision ensures that a child remains in their current educational placement during ongoing proceedings, unless otherwise agreed upon. Notably, regulations establish that an unappealed ALJ order to change placement becomes the "then-current" placement. The stay put requirement functions as an automatic preliminary injunction, relieving the moving party from demonstrating the usual factors necessary for such relief.

Stay put provisions generally require maintaining the status quo, but if a parent prevails in an administrative hearing regarding a new placement for a child with special needs, that new placement must be implemented as per the agreement between the State and the parents. In this case, S.C., a teenage girl with severe Prader-Willi Syndrome (PWS), attended school in the Lincoln County School District and had been receiving special education services since the 2015–2016 school year. In May 2020, her mother, K.G., filed a due process challenge asserting that the school district failed to provide S.C. with a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). During the ongoing challenge, a new IEP was finalized in September 2020, which was not agreed upon by S.C. or K.G. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled that her review was limited to events from May 21, 2018, to May 21, 2020, and therefore did not cover the September IEP.

After an extensive hearing in October 2020, the ALJ concluded on December 22, 2020, that the school district had not provided S.C. with a FAPE during the specified period and mandated that she be placed at the Latham Center, a residential facility that accommodates students with PWS and offers total food security in a school-wide setting. The ALJ ordered the school district to cover all costs associated with S.C.'s enrollment at the Latham Center until it provided the necessary services in a school-wide environment and an appropriate IEP. The school district did not appeal the decision but also failed to comply with the order. Consequently, K.G. filed a federal lawsuit on January 6, 2021, seeking a stay put order or preliminary injunction to enforce the ALJ's ruling and secure S.C.’s placement at the Latham Center at the district's expense.

The district court denied a stay put order or preliminary injunction on March 22, 2021, stating that K.G. needed to pursue further administrative action regarding the September 2020 Individualized Education Program (IEP). The court focused on whether the September 2020 IEP remedied deficiencies identified in a prior Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruling, neglecting the implications of the ALJ's order on the stay put status. It emphasized the need for administrative resolution before court intervention, mischaracterizing S.C.'s emergency motion as premature. K.G. subsequently appealed this decision.

The standard of review for a preliminary injunction denial is an abuse of discretion, but legal interpretations by the district court are reviewed de novo. The court erred in two respects: it misinterpreted the ALJ order as providing alternative remedies instead of a sequential two-phase remedy, and it failed to adequately analyze the stay put implications stemming from the ALJ's ruling.

The ALJ order mandated that the school district pay for S.C.'s placement at the Latham Center starting the winter 2021 semester until the district addresses specified deficiencies in the IEP. This language indicates a two-phase remedy, focusing first on immediate placement at the Latham Center while waiting for the district to fulfill its obligations under the IEP.

The order mandated S.C.'s immediate transfer to the Latham Center at the school district's expense, explicitly using the term "until" and indicating no further IEP would occur until September 2021, despite the school district issuing a new IEP in September 2020. The order did not allow for delays based on the premature issuance of this IEP, which had not been evaluated for adequacy by the ALJ. 

The ALJ's decision, spanning sixty-nine pages, clearly supported the immediate placement at the Latham Center and did not present alternative remedies, as K.G. had requested. The ALJ deemed it unnecessary to address remedies concerning TFS and IEPs since the residential placement was ordered. 

The school district's claim that it could undermine the ALJ's order by implementing the new IEP contradicts the procedural safeguards of the IDEA, effectively transferring authority from the ALJ to the IEP team, which has been deemed non-compliant by various Circuit courts. 

Additionally, interpreting the ALJ's order as conditional would require K.G. to file new due process challenges for each new IEP, complicating the process and conflicting with the IDEA's protective measures. The ALJ's order should be seen as a two-part remedy, and the district court erred in interpreting it as offering simultaneous remedies or in necessitating a new challenge to the September 2020 IEP. 

Finally, the district court neglected to analyze the stay put provision concerning S.C.'s placement at the Latham Center. According to the Department of Education's regulations, if a hearing officer supports a change in placement, this agreement mandates that the school district cover appropriate private education costs, which the district court failed to consider in relation to the ALJ's order.

The final and unappealed ALJ order mandated the school district to pay for S.C.’s placement at the Latham Center starting on the first day of the winter semester 2021, establishing an agreement for the stay put provision. S.C.’s legal placement is considered to have changed to the Latham Center either upon the issuance of the ALJ order on December 22, 2020, or at the beginning of the winter semester 2021. The stay put order acts as an automatic injunction, eliminating the need for traditional preliminary injunction factors, such as irreparable harm. Consequently, the court reverses and remands with instructions to enforce the ALJ’s order, ensuring S.C. remains at the Latham Center at the district's expense until the district provides school-wide TFS alongside an IEP that addresses the identified inadequacies. Further proceedings may assess the adequacy of the school district's TFS and whether a new IEP meets the requirements for providing FAPE. However, S.C. is to remain at the Latham Center until any changes to her educational placement are determined. Additionally, S.C.'s request for one year of compensatory education at the Latham Center is denied, as the ALJ found insufficient evidence to support it, and S.C. and K.G. cannot challenge the district court's modification of the ALJ order while simultaneously seeking a new remedy that the ALJ explicitly rejected.