Special Education Stay Put Injunction Reversed

12/20/07

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in favor of our client, Evanston Township High School District (ETHS).  The Seventh Circuit found that the District Court applied the wrong legal standard when it held that under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), ETHS must provide co-teaching because the student received co-teaching in middle school. The Seventh Circuit also found that in granting the student’s motion for a preliminary injunction to enforce IDEA's "stay-put" provision, the lower court improperly ruled on the merits of his claim by vacating the hearing officer’s decision.

 

While in middle school, John M. received co-teaching, but the phrase "co-teaching" never appeared in his middle school IEP.  ETHS proposed comparable services because it would be unable to provide co-teaching. Unhappy with the proposed IEP, the parents requested an administrative due process hearing, and the hearing officer ruled in favor of ETHS on all issues.  The parents appealed and sought a preliminary injunction to enforce a stay-put placement which included co-teaching. The District Court granted the injunction and required ETHS to provide John M. with a co-teacher. The District Court also reversed the hearing officer's decision without having heard any arguments from the parties on the merits of the due process hearing decision.

 

The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded the case to the District Court.  First, the Seventh Circuit agreed with ETHS that because the District Court ruled on the merits of the case, the lower court deprived ETHS of its right to be heard.  Second, with respect to stay-put, the Seventh Circuit "recognize[d] that educational methodologies, appropriate and even necessary in one educational environment, are not always effective in another time and place…"  The Seventh Circuit instructed the District Court to revisit its preliminary injunctive relief and stay-put placement, commenting that "even if a school has provided a particular service in the past, it need not be provided in a stay-put situation if it was not within the governing IEP."