White v. Dist. of Columbia
| Decision Date | 31 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | 20-cv-3821 (APM) |
| Parties | GWENDOLYN WHITE, Plaintiff, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Plaintiff Gwendolyn White brings this action under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”). She seeks review of a Hearing Officer's Determination that she believes did not fully redress Defendant District of Columbia's alleged violations of her son's right to a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”). The Hearing Officer found in favor of Plaintiff as to some claims and granted compensatory education as relief, but rejected other alleged violations.
Now before the court are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment on all claims. For the reasons that follow the court grants in part and denies in part both the District's motion and Plaintiff's cross-motion and remands the case to the Hearing Officer for further proceedings consistent with this memorandum opinion.
Plaintiffs son K.W. was (at the time of filing in this court) a 15-year-old resident of the District of Columbia who attended District of Columbia Public Schools (“DCPS”) from 2017 to 2020. Pl.'s Cross-Mot. for Summ. J. & Opp'n to Def's Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 34 [hereinafter Pl.'s Cross-Mot.], ¶¶ 1-2; Def's Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 31 [hereinafter Def's Mot.], at 4.[1]
The first individualized education program (“IEP”) meeting for K.W. at issue here took place on October 20, 2017. Def's Mot. at 2. His IEP for that year recommended that K.W. receive “five hours of specialized instruction per week in reading and . . . mathematics, ” each “delivered outside general education, ” along with “120 minutes per month of occupational therapy.” Id. Plaintiff asserts that, in addition to the October 2017 IEP meeting, the District also completed a routine reevaluation of K.W. in accordance with the IDEA's “triennial re-evaluation requirement” in December 2017. Pl.'s Cross-Mot ¶ 4. Plaintiff alleges, however, that the District did not conduct, as part of this reevaluation, (1) “a speech and language assessment”; (2) “a cognitive assessment” (as part of the standard psychological assessment); (3) “a vocational II assessment”; or (4) “a fine motor assessment” (as part of the standard occupational-therapy evaluation). Id. ¶¶ 5-8.
K.W. had his next IEP meeting on October 16, 2018. Id. ¶ 13; Def's Mot. at 2. K.W.'s additional instruction in reading and math remained the same, but the new IEP added “preferential seating, [classroom] location with minimal distractions, and extended time, among other accommodations.” Def.'s Mot. at 2. However, the occupational-therapy allotment was reduced by 50% to 60 minutes per month. Id.; Pl.'s Cross-Mot. ¶ 13. Plaintiff asserts that of this allotted time, the District failed to provide 345 minutes of occupational therapy between April 2019 and October 2019. Pl.'s Cross-Mot. ¶ 14. Over eleven months, Plaintiff alleges that K.W. was deprived of over half of his IEP benefit. Id. ¶¶ 15-16. Further, she contends that the District did not conduct any of the assessments missed in December 2017 during the 2018-2019 school year. Id. ¶¶ 9-12.
K.W.'s next IEP meeting was held on October 15, 2019. Def.'s Mot. at 2; Pl.'s Cross-Mot. ¶ 21; Admin. Record [hereinafter A.R.], ECF No. 24-1, at 456.[2] Following this meeting, DCPS reduced K.W.'s occupational-therapy allotment to a half-hour per month. Def.'s Mot. at 3; Pl.'s Cross-Mot. ¶ 21. The 2019 IEP listed occupational therapy as a “Consultation Service[], ” as opposed to a “Related Service[]” “[o]utside General Education” as in prior years. Compare A.R. 464 (October 2019 IEP) with A.R. 436 (October 2018 IEP), 406 (October 2017 IEP). Further, the District directed his specialized instruction in math and reading to be delivered inside a general education setting. A.R. 464. Plaintiff alleges that her son was again provided only about half of his occupational-therapy allotment through May 2020. Pl.'s Cross-Mot. ¶ 23.
The District, in the wake of the COVID-19 global pandemic, began providing online virtual learning to all students in March 2020. Id. ¶¶ 24-25. K.W. did not have computer or internet access for the remainder of the school year, so he could not receive both his standard and individualized education for April and May 2020. Id. ¶¶ 27-29. K.W. had an off-cycle IEP meeting on May 26, 2020, to address concerns about his access to education during the pandemic and to address his program, generally. A.R. 479; HOD at 13. His new IEP increased K.W.'s access to specialized instruction in reading and math, providing 10 hours of instruction in each subject to be delivered both inside and outside of general education. A.R. 490. It also continued the October 2019 IEP's allotment of thirty minutes per month of occupational therapy as a “Consultation Service[].” Id. This IEP made no other changes and did not address the underlying access problem.
Plaintiff filed an administrative due process complaint with DCPS in July 2020. HOD at 1, 15. The complaint advanced various challenges to the formation and implementation of K.W.'s IEPs. Id. at 3-4. As part of the proceedings, on September 1, 2020, the assigned Hearing Officer ordered the District to disclose all relevant documents relating to K.W.'s education in advance of an administrative hearing later that month. Pl.'s Cross-Mot. ¶ 30. Plaintiff claims to have received only some of the documents in advance of the hearing. Id. ¶¶ 31-34. The District attributes this shortfall to continued remote work by DCPS officials and limited on-site access due to the global pandemic. Id. ¶ 34 (citing Pl.'s Cross-Mot., Ex. 12, ECF No. 34-1 [hereinafter Pl.'s Exs.], at 95). The hearing was held on September 15 and 16, 2020. Def.'s Mot. at 3.
The Hearing Officer issued his Determination on September 29, 2020. As to claims concerning the 2017 IEP, the Hearing Officer found those claims time-barred by the IDEA's two-year limitations period. HOD at 15-16. As to the 2018, 2019, and 2020 IEPs, the Hearing Officer found that DCPS had denied K.W. a FAPE in part. Id. at 17-26. As a remedy, the Hearing Officer ordered a “compensatory education evaluation” for K.W. Id. at 34. That evaluation resulted in tutoring services of 462 hours. Pl.'s Ex. 15 at 101. Since that time, Plaintiff contends that Defendant has “steadfastly refused to issue an authorization letter that complies with the September 29, 2020 HOD.” Pl.'s Cross-Mot. ¶ 56.
Plaintiff filed this action on December 27, 2020, against the District. See Compl. for Inj. & Decl. Relief, ECF No. 1. Plaintiff eventually moved for leave to file an Amended Complaint on March 29, 2021. See Pl.'s Cross-Mot. for Leave to File Am. Compl. & Consent Mot. to Extend Deadline to File Scheduled Joint Status Report, ECF No. 5; see also Am. Compl. for Inj. & Decl. Relief, ECF No. 7 [hereinafter Am. Compl.]. The Amended Complaint added two DCPS officials as Defendants: Alecia Abrams and Kerri Larkin. Am. Compl. at 3. The court accepted the Amended Complaint as the operative pleading. See Order, ECF No. 6.
On April 28, 2021, the District filed an Answer to all claims except the breach-of-contract claim. As to that claim, the District moved to dismiss on behalf of all Defendants, including Abrams and Larkin. Def. District of Columbia's Answer to Am. Compl., ECF No. 10; Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss Am. Compl., ECF No. 11 [hereinafter Defs.' MTD]. The court granted the motion with respect to the individual defendants but denied the motion with respect to the District, leaving it as the only Defendant remaining. White v. District of Columbia, No. 20-cv-3821, 2021 WL 7286820, at *2 (D.D.C. Dec. 23, 2021).
As the Amended Complaint now stands, Plaintiff asserts three violations of the IDEA: (1) a failure to comprehensively evaluate her son in 2017 (Count One); (2) a failure to implement his IEP for the 2017-2018, 2018-2019, and 2019-2020 school years (Count Two); and (3) a failure to develop an appropriate IEP for the 2017-2018, 2018-2019, and 2019-2020 school years (Count Three). Plaintiff also invokes 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to remedy the District's failure to produce K.W.'s educational records as ordered by the Hearing Officer, as well as its alleged failure to comply with the Hearing Officer's order for compensatory education services (Count Four). Finally, she asserts a breach-of-contract claim premised on the District's alleged failure to honor an authorization it issued for certain independent evaluations of K.W. (Count Five).
After filing the administrative record for the case, the District moved for summary judgment on all claims. Def.'s Mot. Plaintiff responded with an opposition and her own motion for summary judgment. Pl.'s Cross-Mot.
A parent dissatisfied with the outcome of an IDEA due process hearing may appeal that decision to a federal district court. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(A). The reviewing court “(i) shall receive the records of the administrative proceedings; (ii) shall hear additional evidence at the request of a party; and, (iii) basing its decision on the preponderance of the evidence, shall grant such relief as the court determines is appropriate.” Id. § 1415(i)(2)(C). The party challenging the hearing officer's ruling bears the burden of “persuading the court that the hearing officer was wrong.” Kerkam v. McKenzie, 862 F.2d 884, 887 (D.C. Cir. 1988). Although the court owes some deference to the hearing officer's decision, “a hearing decision without reasoned and specific findings deserves little...
To continue reading
Request your trial