Drinker v. Colonial Sch. Dist.

78 F.3d 859 (3d Cir. 1996); No. 95-1201 (3d Cir. Mar. 12, 1996) ; Clearinghouse Number: 51103

Description

School District Must Continue to Pay for Disabled Child's Placement Where Placement Issues Had Been Decided But Transition and Timing Issues Had Not

Abstract

The Third Circuit has held that, under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act's "stay put" provision, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(3), defendant school district was required to pay for plaintiffs' child's placement in a special education program outside of the district pending hearing and appeal of plaintiffs' second due process claim. Plaintiffs are the parents of a child with disabilities. Because the school district lacked facilities to educate the child, he was placed in a neighboring district's special education program. However, after the school district developed its own special education program, it sought to transfer the child. Plaintiffs' initial administrative challenge to the transfer was denied. They did not cooperate in developing a transition plan, and the district stopped paying for the child's education. They sought a second due process hearing, culminating in this action. According to the district court, the placement issue was barred by res judicata because plaintiffs did not appeal the initial administrative decision. However, the stay put provision required the district to support the child's continued placement in a program outside of the district pending the outcome of the second due process hearing and subsequent appeals. Also, the court found that the stay put provision did not rise to the level of a section 1983 claim. On appeal, the Third Circuit found that, although the initial administrative decision settled the issue of placement, plaintiffs' subsequent administrative appeal involved contested issues of timing and transition from the child's former placement to the school district's program. Because these issues are integral elements of any educational program and pending their resolution, the district is obligated to continue the child's placement pursuant to the stay put provision.

Additional Information

Attorney Information
Appellees represented by Barbara Ransom, Frank Laski, Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, 125 S. 9th St., Suite 700, Philadelphia, PA 19107, (215) 627-7100.
Docket Date
1970-01-01 06:00:00+00:00