Aaron L. v. LaCroix

No. 94-12365 PBS (D. Mass. filed Jan. 23, 1995) ; Clearinghouse Number: 50716

Description

Suspended Student Objects to Determination That His Current Placement Is Appropriate Under Stay-Put Provisions of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

Abstract

Plaintiff student has moved for a preliminary injunction in this action challenging his indefinite suspension from school. Plaintiff is an 18-year-old high school senior. He was suspended indefinitely for allegedly assaulting his track coach. His parents then requested that he be evaluated for eligibility for special education. The Massachusetts Department of Education Bureau of Special Education Appeals meanwhile approved the suspension. The hearing officer held that plaintiff’s current placement under the “stay-put” provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(3), was as a regular education student under suspension and that defendant school officials could continue to educate him at home under suspension. Plaintiff argues that defendants are prohibiting him from exercising his right to a free, appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment by extending his suspension beyond the statutory minimum of ten days. He asserts that his current placement of suspension provides him with neither a coherent nor a consistent educational program. Plaintiff maintains that the hearing officer’s reading of the “stay-put” provision as suspension treated as an educational placement strains the plain meaning of the statute. In an amicus brief filed on plaintiff’s behalf, the Center for Law and Education argues that, under section 1415(e)(3), the “current educational placement” is the general education program in which the student was enrolled at the time of the suspension or other proposed change in placement. Amicus also argues that the hearing officer’s decision that previously unidentified students with disabilities who invoke their IDEA rights after suspension may be excluded from school, and subsequently denied a free, appropriate public education, rewards school districts for their failure to identify, evaluate, and serve students as required by the IDEA. Finally, amicus argues that, because plaintiff has since been determined to be a student with disabilities, plaintiff has an immediately enforceable right to return to school pursuant to the individualized education plan proposed by the school.

Additional Information

Attorney Information
Amicus curiae represented by Maura Kelly, Center for Law and Education, 197 Friend St., 9th Fl., Boston, MA 02114, (617) 371-1166.
Docket Date
1995-01-23 00:00:00+00:00