W.S. v. Dist. of Columbia

502 F.Supp.3d 102

W.S., et al., Plaintiffs,

v.DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant.

No. 19-cv-1390 (KBJ)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed November 12, 2020

Paula Amy Rosenstock, Michael J. Eig, Michael J. Eig & Associates, PC, Chevy Chase, MD, for Plaintiffs.

Veronica A. Porter, Office of the Attorney General for D.C., Washington D.C., DC, Steven Nathan Rubenstein, Office of Attorney General/DC, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, United States District Judge

W.S. is an elementary school student who is eligible for special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (See Redacted Compl.

("Compl."), ECF No. 17, ¶¶ 6, 11, 35.)¹ On May 14, 2019, W.S. and his parents, W.S. and E.S. (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), filed the instant action against the District of Columbia, challenging the decision of a Hearing Officer at the Office of the State Superintendent of Education ("OSSE"), who denied Plaintiffs’ request for funding and placement at a specific private school on the ground that the District of Columbia Public Schools system ("DCPS") and OSSE had provided W.S. an appropriate educational placement under the IDEA. (See id. ¶¶ 52, 82–110; see also Sealed Compl., ECF No. 1.) In their three-count complaint, which seeks tuition reimbursement for the year W.S. attended Plaintiffs’ preferred school, Plaintiffs allege that (1) DCPS and OSSE denied W.S. a "free appropriate public education" for the school year at issue, in violation of the IDEA (see Compl. ¶ 113), (2) the Hearing Officer failed to "order [DCPS and OSSE] to place and fund W.S. in an appropriate program and placement" (see id. ¶ 115), and (3) the Hearing Officer "violated [P]laintiffs’ due process rights ... by failing to render a proper decision based on an accurate and impartial understanding of the facts" (see id. ¶ 117), and "by failing to apply correct legal standards" (id. ¶ 118).

On May 16, 2019, this Court referred this matter for random assignment to a Magistrate Judge for full case management. (See Min. Order of May 16, 2019.) The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson, and the parties subsequently filed cross-motions for summary judgment. (See Pls.’ Mot. for Summ. J. ("Pls.’ Mot."), ECF No. 10; Def.’s Cross-Mot. for Summ. J. ("Def.’s Cross-Mot."), ECF No. 11.)

Before this Court at present is Magistrate Judge Robinson's Report and Recommendation regarding the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, as well as the District of Columbia's objections thereto. (See R. & R., ECF No. 20; Def.’s Objs. to R. & R. ("Def.’s Objs."), ECF No. 21; see also Pls.’ Reply to Def.’s Objs., ECF No. 23.)² The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the parties’ submissions, and the record evidence, and for the reasons discussed below, the Court will ADOPT Magistrate Judge Robinson's Report and Recommendation in full. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment will be GRANTED IN PART , and only insofar as Plaintiffs request further administrative proceedings to determine whether the school at which DCPS and OSSE placed W.S. could manage students with aggressive behaviors. Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment will be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE , and with the understanding that Defendant may file a renewed summary judgment motion after the Hearing Officer has determined (1) whether W.S.’s aggressive behaviors could have been accommodated in the educational setting that DCPS and OSSE assigned, and if not, (2) whether Plaintiffs are entitled to tuition reimbursement for the year W.S. attended Plaintiffs’ preferred school. A separate Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will follow.

I. BACKGROUND

W.S. began receiving special education services in pre-kindergarten, after exhibiting behavioral issues and developmental delays. (See Def.’s Resp. to Pls.’ Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, ECF No. 11-1, ¶¶ 3–5.) Although W.S. made substantial progress during the beginning of the following school year, he started to express himself in increasingly violent and aggressive ways, and his academic performance soon took a turn for the worse. (See id. ¶¶ 7–13.) In response, W.S.’s parents retained a pediatric specialist to evaluate W.S. and to help craft a new Individualized Education Plan ("IEP") for him. (See id. ¶¶ 14–15, 17.) After conducting a neurodevelopmental exam, the specialist diagnosed W.S. with Autism Spectrum Disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and an anxiety disorder, and recommended that he be placed in a "highly structured" program that uses "evidence-based, specialized teaching and behavioral strategies to support his social, emotional-behavioral, and learning needs." (Id. ¶ 17.) Building on the specialist's evaluation and report, W.S.’s parents worked with an educational consultant and DCPS to develop a new IEP, which called for a "full-time special education placement[.]" (See id. ¶¶ 18–19.) W.S.’s parents asked that W.S. be placed at The Auburn School, but OSSE rejected their request, because The Auburn School lacked a certificate of approval. (See id. ¶ 22.) OSSE instead placed W.S. at The Children's Guild (see id. ¶ 32), a school that W.S.’s parents and their educational consultant deemed inadequate (see id. ¶¶ 24–26). W.S.’s parents subsequently enrolled W.S. in The Auburn School, notwithstanding OSSE's decision, and filed an administrative complaint seeking to compel "OSSE and/or DCPS [to] fund [W.S.’s] placement there." (See id. ¶¶ 33, 35.)

The parties then presented arguments and witnesses to a Hearing Officer at OSSE, who ultimately dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice. (See Hearing Officer Determination, Administrative R., ECF No. 7-1, at 21.) The Hearing Officer concluded that Plaintiffs had not established a prima facie case that W.S. had been denied a free appropriate public education, and that, in any event, DCPS and OSSE had demonstrated that The Children's Guild was an appropriate placement for W.S. (See id. at 19–20.) Given those determinations, the Hearing Officer did not address whether The Auburn School was a proper placement, or whether the equities favored reimbursing Plaintiffs for W.S.’s enrollment there.

Following the Hearing Officer's decision, Plaintiffs initiated the instant action against the District of Columbia, and the parties then filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs argue in their motion that the Hearing Officer incorrectly determined that they did not establish a prima facie case and erroneously found that DCPS and OSSE had offered W.S. an appropriate placement. (See Pls.’ Mot. at 13–21.) Plaintiffs also contend that the Hearing Officer failed to consider W.S.’s unique needs as a twice-exceptional student, improperly weighed the testimony of the parties’ witnesses, and inappropriately concluded that W.S.’s parents had acted in bad faith. (See id. at 21–34.) In addition, Plaintiffs assert that The Auburn School is a proper placement for W.S., and that he "should be placed and funded there" as a result. (See id. at 34–37.) For its part, the District of Columbia maintains that the Hearing Officer's determination was correct, and that DCPS and OSSE provided W.S. a free appropriate public education in compliance with the IDEA. (See Def.’s Cross-Mot. at 16–37.)

After the parties finished briefing their cross-motions for summary judgment, Plaintiffs informed the Court that the District of Columbia had assigned W.S. a different placement for the following school year, and that they were no longer seeking to compel DCPS and OSSE to place W.S. at The Auburn School. (See Pls.’ Notice Regarding Relief Sought, ECF No. 16.)

Plaintiffs clarified, however, that they "continue to seek full reimbursement" for the year that W.S. attended school there. (See id. )

On August 17, 2020, Magistrate Judge Robinson issued a Report and Recommendation on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, addressing only whether the Hearing Officer properly determined that The Children's Guild was an appropriate placement under the IDEA. (See R. & R. at 27; see also id. at 8 n.2 (explaining that the Report and Recommendation would not discuss whether The Auburn School was a proper placement given Plaintiffs’ representation that they no longer sought placement there).) After reviewing the parties’ arguments on that issue and examining the administrative record, Magistrate Judge Robinson recommends that Plaintiffs’ motion be granted, and that Defendant's cross-motion be denied. (See id. at 27.) Specifically, Magistrate Judge Robinson finds that the Hearing Officer "applied a more stringent standard" than appropriate when evaluating whether Plaintiffs had established a prima facie case that W.S. had been denied a free appropriate public education. (See id. at 15–17.) Magistrate Robinson also finds that the Hearing Officer did not "adequately address" whether The Children's Guild could properly manage W.S.’s aggressive behaviors. (See id. at 25–27.) According to Magistrate Judge Robinson, the Hearing Officer failed to make any findings or conclusions about this issue, despite the fact that W.S.’s aggressive behaviors "were a central part" of his IEP (see id. at 25), and The Children's Guild could qualify as an appropriate placement under the IDEA only if it was able to "substantially implement[ ]" the part of W.S.’s IEP that required management of such behaviors (see id. at 15 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Magistrate Judge Robinson further concludes that, even though various pieces of evidence in the record could theoretically support a finding that The Children's Guild was capable of managing W.S.’s aggression, such evidence is "contradictory and unreliable" at best. (See id. at 25–27.)

With respect to Plaintiffs’ remaining challenges to W.S.’s placement at The Children's Guild, Magistrate Judge Robinson's Report and...