Hale ex rel. Hale v. Poplar Bluffs R-I School, 01-1372.

Decision Date11 February 2002
Docket NumberNo. 01-1372.,No. 01-1374.,01-1372.,01-1374.
Citation280 F.3d 831
PartiesJeffrey HALE, by and through his parents, Jack Hale and Sherry Hale, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross Appellant, v. POPLAR BLUFF R-I SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellant/Cross Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Teri B. Goldman, argued, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.

William M. Hart, argued, Minneapolis, MN, for appellee.

Before LOKEN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Jeffrey Hale and his parents commenced this action under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) seeking judicial review of the decision of an administrative hearing panel. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i). Based upon the administrative record and the parties' cross motions for summary judgment, the district court1 ruled that the Poplar Bluff School District had violated IDEA's "stay put" provision, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j), and ordered the District to provide Jeffrey compensatory education services in the form of a summer program. However, the court concluded that the District had provided Jeffrey the free appropriate public education IDEA requires and therefore denied Jeffrey all other relief. See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1). The court also denied the Hales an award of attorneys' fees because they "prevailed on only a very small and technical part of their claim," and because of "the parents' unreasonable failure to cooperate in arrangements for Jeffrey's return to school." The Hales and the District cross appeal. We affirm.

Jeffrey Hale suffers from mild cerebral palsy. He is a "child with a disability" for purposes of the IDEA. See 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3)(A). In February 1999, Jeffrey was in the sixth grade, receiving regular classroom and special education services from the Poplar Bluff School District in accordance with his Individualized Education Program. See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(4). That month, he had surgery to implant a pump in his abdomen that would deliver medication to his spine. With the District's approval, Jeffrey began receiving homebound instruction while he recovered from the surgery. In August, this recovery period was extended into his seventh grade school year because the pump had to be replaced.

During the fall of 1999, relations between the Hales and the District deteriorated to the point of total lack of cooperation. By early January, both parties had requested due process hearings to determine the appropriateness of Jeffrey's education program. In mid-January, the District concluded that Jeffrey's home was no longer an appropriate learning environment and notified the Hales that Jeffrey would now be provided the same services at school. The Hales refused to bring Jeffrey to school, and he received no schooling until the district court issued a preliminary injunction ten months later. Meanwhile, the due process hearing panel concluded that the District had provided Jeffrey a free appropriate public education and had not violated IDEA's stay-put provision, but it ordered the District to provide extended school year services and other relief while Jeffrey's home schooling was being phased out. Both sides sought judicial review of this decision.

The district court first concluded that the District's unilateral decision to change the location of Jeffrey's schooling from home to school violated the stay-put provision. Under that provision, "during the pendency of any [due process] proceedings... the child shall remain in the then-current educational placement of such child" unless all parties agree otherwise. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j). The stay-put provision is literally and rigorously enforced, consistent with its purpose "to strip schools of the unilateral authority they had traditionally employed to exclude disabled students." Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 323, 108 S.Ct. 592, 98 L.Ed.2d 686 (1988) (emphasis in original).

The statute does not define the term "then-current educational placement," and the District argues there was no change when it offered Jeffrey identical educational services at a different location in January 2000. Considering this a fact-specific issue, the district court reviewed the impact of the change on Jeffrey and concluded that "[m]oving the location of his services, in this case, changed the educational placement." We agree. Though the parties cite prior cases which seem to disagree on whether a mere change in location was a change in educational placement, the conflict is more apparent than real. A transfer to a different school building for fiscal or other reasons unrelated to the disabled child has generally not been deemed a change in placement, whereas an expulsion from school or some other change in location made on account of the disabled child or his behavior has usually been deemed a change in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Dohmen ex rel. Dohmen v. Twin Rivers Public Sch.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska
    • June 14, 2002
    ...placement" which the plaintiffs had the right to appeal under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(A)(i). See Hale ex rel. Hale v. Poplar Bluffs R-I School Dist., 280 F.3d 831, 834 (8th Cir.2002) (expulsion from school or some other change in location made on account of the disabled child or his behavior ha......
  • Garcia v. Board, Educ., Albuqurque Public Schools
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • March 25, 2008
    ...865, 873 (3d Cir. 1990); Bd. of Educ. of Fayette County v. L.M., 478 F.3d 307, 316 (6th Cir.2007); Hale ex rel. Hale v. Poplar Bluffs R-I Sch. Dist., 280 F.3d 831, 834 (8th Cir.2002); Park ex rel. Park v. Anaheim Union High Sch. Dist., 464 F.3d 1025, 1034 (9th Cir.2006); Reid ex rel. Reid v......
  • D.M. v. N.J. Dep't of Educ.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • September 10, 2015
    ...a change in educational placement that violates the stay-put provision if made unilaterally.Hale ex rel. Hale v. Poplar Bluffs R–I Sch. Dist., 280 F.3d 831, 834 (8th Cir.2002) (per curiam) (agreeing with the district court's factual determination that changing the location of instruction fo......
  • ND EX REL. GUARD. AD LITEM v. HI DEPT. OF EDUC.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • April 5, 2010
    ...cause a student to be transferred, the focus is on the child's general educational program); Hale ex rel. Hale v. Poplar Bluff R-I Sch. Dist., 280 F.3d 831, 833-34 (8th Cir.2002) (per curiam) (change from home to school was a change in placement); Lunceford v. Dist. of Columbia Bd. of Educ.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Individuals With Disabilities Education Act - the Right 'idea' for All Childrens' Education
    • United States
    • Kansas Bar Association KBA Bar Journal No. 75-3, March 2006
    • Invalid date
    ...Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993). 78. White v. Ascension Parish Sch. Bd., 343 F.3d 373 (5th Cir. 2003). 79. Hale v. Popular Bluff R-1 Sch. Dist., 280 F.3d 831 (8th Cir. 2002). 80. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(A). 81. K.S.A. 72-5393. 82. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(4)(A). 83. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(B)(i). 84. 2......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT