Y.S. v. New York City Department of Education
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:24-cv-09711
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Y.S. v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Schofield ordered the Department to respond by June 9 to the plaintiffs’ requested stay.
The order affects Y.S. and the other plaintiffs seeking a stay, and the New York City Department of Education, which was ordered to file a response by June 9, 2025.
What happened
Y.S. v. New York City Department of Education concerns plaintiffs’ request to pause their Individuals with Disabilities Education Act case. They asked to wait for developments in a related class action and a Supreme Court case involving Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
The plaintiffs said the related proceedings could affect issues involving one-to-one applied behavioral analysis, at-home services, speech services, and how educational skills are generalized. The Department did not agree to a stay.
Judge Lorna Schofield ordered the Department to file any response by June 9, 2025. The order set a response deadline but did not decide whether to grant or deny the requested stay.
The detailed version
- Y.S. v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:24-cv-09711
- Lorna Schofield
- June 5, 2025
Background
Plaintiffs brought this action under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, a federal law governing special-education services, to seek review of administrative decisions. The plaintiffs’ filing states that Y.S.’s daughter, Y.F., is a member of the class in a related class action concerning claims for one-to-one applied behavioral analysis, extended school-day at-home applied behavioral analysis, and speech services. The filing also states that generalization of skills was identified as an educational-program need for Y.F.
Request for a Stay
The plaintiffs asked the court to pause this case at least until the court in the related class action ruled on requested adverse inferences involving redacted deposition transcripts and judicial admissions. They also asked for a stay pending clarification of the legal standard for claims under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which the Supreme Court was considering in another case. The plaintiffs argued that waiting could avoid duplicative briefing, conflicting decisions, and unnecessary work. The Department did not consent to a stay.
Order
Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered the Department to file any response by June 9, 2025. The opinion text does not show a ruling granting or denying the requested stay; it sets a deadline for the Department’s response.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.