R.R. v. New York City Department of Education
- John Cronan
- 1:24-cv-08389
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In R.R. v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Cronan ordered one-on-one bus support for D.R. while the case proceeds.
D.R., R.R. and Z.R., and the New York City Department of Education. The Department must provide D.R. with one-on-one transportation support and submit biweekly status reports.
What happened
In R.R. v. New York City Department of Education, R.R. and Z.R., acting for themselves and D.R., a minor with a disability, claimed that the Department of Education was not following D.R.’s education plan. The plan required a one-on-one transportation paraprofessional during D.R.’s morning and afternoon bus rides to school.
The court found that the plaintiffs had clearly shown all four requirements for a preliminary injunction. It found a strong likelihood that they would succeed on their claim, that D.R. could lose educational opportunities without an injunction, that the hardships favored relief, and that an injunction served the public interest.
Judge John P. Cronan ordered the Department to provide a qualified one-on-one transportation paraprofessional for every school-day morning and afternoon ride, notify R.R. and Z.R. of staffing changes, and file reports with the court every two weeks. The injunction is stayed until December 16, 2024, except that the reporting requirement took effect immediately.
The detailed version
- R.R. v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:24-cv-08389
- John Cronan
- Dec. 10, 2024
Background
R.R. and Z.R., individually and on behalf of D.R., a minor with a disability, brought this case against the New York City Department of Education. The court addressed the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction concerning the First Cause of Action in the complaint. The opinion states that D.R.’s Individualized Education Program, or IEP, required D.R. to be accompanied by a one-on-one transportation paraprofessional during bus rides to and from school.
Court’s Analysis
At a hearing held on December 10, 2024, the court found that the plaintiffs had made a clear showing on each of the four preliminary-injunction factors and that their request was not moot. The court held that the plaintiffs showed:
- A clear and substantial likelihood of succeeding on their claim that the Department failed to implement the IEP requirement for a one-on-one transportation paraprofessional.
- A strong likelihood that the Department’s failure would cause D.R. irreparable harm through lost educational opportunities.
- That the balance of hardships decidedly favored an injunction because of the educational opportunities D.R. could lose.
- That an injunction served the public interest in ensuring that students with special needs receive the benefit of a public education.
Order
The court preliminarily enjoined the Department to provide a qualified and able one-on-one transportation paraprofessional for D.R.’s morning and afternoon bus rides on each school day. The Department must promptly tell R.R. and Z.R. about any change in D.R.’s transportation paraprofessional and provide the new paraprofessional’s name and contact information.
The Department must also submit a status letter to the court every two weeks, every other Friday, covering whether D.R. had a transportation paraprofessional for each morning and afternoon commute. If the paraprofessional was unavailable, the letter must identify the dates and commutes involved and the specific circumstances. The letter must also report changes in the paraprofessional and when R.R. and Z.R. were informed. The first letter was due December 13, 2024, covering the period beginning December 9, 2024, and the reports must continue until the court orders otherwise.
Judge John P. Cronan stayed the injunction until December 16, 2024, except for the status-letter requirement, which took effect immediately.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.