In the Matter of Osseo Area Schools v. M.N.B.

Background

This case concerned the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and whether Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279 (the District), had to reimburse transportation costs for M.N.B., who was open-enrolled in the District but attended North Education Center in another school district.

M.N.B.’s October 2015 individualized education program (IEP) required individualized transportation between her home and school because she struggled when near other students who displayed vocalizations. Her parents drove her, and the Big Lake School District previously reimbursed their mileage. After M.N.B. open-enrolled in the District, the District agreed to reimburse mileage between its boundary and North Education Center but refused to reimburse mileage between M.N.B.’s home and the school.

The parties filed administrative complaints. M.N.B. argued that the District’s refusal to implement the transportation provision denied her a free appropriate public education (FAPE), meaning the education and related services required under the IDEA. The District argued that it was not required to provide transportation beyond its borders because open enrollment reflected parental preference.

Administrative Decision and District Court Review

On March 17, 2017, an administrative law judge ruled for M.N.B. The administrative law judge determined that the 2015 IEP was the “stay-put” IEP—the last agreed-upon IEP that remains in effect during a dispute—and that it required transportation between home and school. The administrative law judge concluded that the District was responsible for M.N.B.’s FAPE while she was open-enrolled there and ordered reimbursement for transportation expenses incurred to date and going forward.

The District then filed this action under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2), seeking review of that decision. Both parties moved for summary judgment on the administrative record. In an IDEA case, summary judgment may be decided based on the record even when factual disputes exist, and the court must independently review the evidence while giving appropriate weight to the administrative proceedings.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that transportation is a “related service” under the IDEA when it is needed to help a student with a disability benefit from special education. Because M.N.B.’s IEP specifically required individualized transportation and the District was responsible for providing her a FAPE, the District was required to provide transportation as stated in the IEP.

The court rejected the District’s reliance on decisions involving transportation requests based on parental convenience or preference. It distinguished those cases because M.N.B.’s transportation was required by her IEP and was necessary for her to receive a FAPE at the school the District designated. The court also concluded that open enrollment did not change the District’s responsibility after it accepted M.N.B. as a student.

The court noted that the District had previously maintained a blanket policy against providing out-of-district transportation to open-enrolled students with IEP transportation provisions. The Minnesota Department of Education had determined that the policy violated the IDEA because transportation needs had to be assessed individually. The court rejected the District’s attempt to challenge that determination indirectly in this case and found that the District had denied M.N.B.’s transportation based on open enrollment rather than on an individualized determination that she did not need it.

Disposition

Judge David S. Doty granted M.N.B.’s motion for summary judgment, denied the District’s motion for summary judgment, and affirmed the administrative law judge’s March 17, 2017, order in its entirety. The order required the District to reimburse M.N.B.’s transportation expenses, including mileage between her home and school, and judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.