D.M. v. New Jersey Department of Education

Summary

The Third Circuit reviewed a preliminary injunction issued under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s stay-put provision. The court held that the student’s suit against the New Jersey Department of Education constituted a proceeding under IDEA and that the challenged directive could alter her educational placement. It remanded for additional fact finding while leaving the injunction in place.

Holdings

1. A federal action by E.M. challenging the Department's directive as interfering with her receipt of a free appropriate public education and implementation of her IEP constituted a proceeding conducted pursuant to IDEA section 1415.
2. Exhaustion was unnecessary because the IDEA and New Jersey administrative procedures did not provide an administrative means for a parent to challenge the state Department of Education's action, and the administrative process therefore could not grant the requested relief.
3. Educational placement is a fact-specific concept that may encompass at least the program identified in a child's IEP, and a state agency's directive may effect a change in placement when, without notice or a viable alternative, it prevents implementation of the IEP's program.
4. The preliminary injunction was left intact and the case was remanded for additional fact finding, including whether another educational alternative capable of implementing E.M.'s IEP was available.

Questions Presented

1. Whether E.M.'s federal action against the New Jersey Department of Education constituted a proceeding conducted pursuant to IDEA section 1415 for purposes of the stay-put provision.
2. Whether exhaustion of IDEA's administrative remedies was required when the administrative process could not provide a remedy for a parent's challenge to a state educational agency's action.
3. Whether the Department's directive potentially altered E.M.'s then-current educational placement by preventing implementation of the mainstreaming component of her IEP.
4. Whether the record was sufficiently developed to determine whether an alternative educational program could implement E.M.'s IEP and whether the stay-put injunction should remain in effect.

Disposition

remanded