Arelis Araujo v. New York City Department Of Education

Background

The plaintiffs are parents acting on behalf of 33 students. They alleged that the New York City Department of Education (DOE) violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by failing to fund tuition, transportation, and services at the International Institute for the Brain (iBRAIN) during challenges to the students’ Individualized Education Programs. They sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.

The IDEA’s “stay-put” provision generally requires a child to remain in the last agreed educational placement while administrative or court proceedings about the child’s education are pending. The Second Circuit has described this provision as an automatic preliminary injunction that preserves the educational status quo.

The Three Groups of Students

The court divided the students into three groups:

1. Thirteen students with agreed or established pendency rights. The parties did not dispute that these students had pendency at iBRAIN based on prior pendency orders, federal court orders, or findings and decisions after due process hearings from an earlier school year. The DOE argued that immediate relief was inappropriate because the plaintiffs had not provided documentation about tuition, services, and whether attendance was remote. The court rejected that argument and held that the stay-put provision required preliminary injunctive relief for these students.

2. Fifteen students relying on an “operative placement” theory. The plaintiffs argued that these students’ enrollment at iBRAIN during the 2020–21 school year made iBRAIN their current educational placement for stay-put purposes. The court disagreed because the plaintiffs had not shown that the DOE agreed to those placements. Relying on Second Circuit precedent, the court held that parents may not unilaterally change a child’s placement and then require the school district to fund the new placement on a stay-put basis. Parents who make such a unilateral change do so at their own financial risk, although they may seek reimbursement after the education dispute is resolved.

3. Five remaining students. The plaintiffs acknowledged that these students did not have valid pendency orders or other documentation showing a right to pendency at iBRAIN. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the DOE’s failure to offer a pendency placement automatically entitled these students to funding at iBRAIN, because the claimed placements were also unilateral under the court’s analysis.

Ruling

Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted in part the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. The court ordered the DOE to provide pendency funding by October 14, 2020, for the 13 students whose pendency at iBRAIN the parties agreed was established. The funding had to follow the prior orders or administrative decisions creating that pendency. The court denied the motion with respect to the remaining 20 students and directed the Clerk of Court to close docket entry number 6.