Y.S. v. New York City Department of Education
- Vyskocil
- 1:21-cv-00711
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Y.S. v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Vyskocil granted a preliminary injunction requiring DOE to implement Y.F.’s ordered school placement.
Y.F., the student seeking the ordered educational placement and services, and the New York City Department of Education, which was ordered to implement the hearing officer’s placement decision.
What happened
Y.S., the mother of Y.F., sued the New York City Department of Education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. An impartial hearing officer had ordered the Department to provide Y.F. specified services and place her in a state-approved nonpublic school, but Y.S. claimed the Department had not fully complied.
Y.S. asked the court for a preliminary injunction requiring the Department to carry out the placement order while the case continued. The Department opposed the request. The court found that the hearing officer’s order was final and binding because no one appealed it, and that Y.F. faced continuing educational harm from the delay.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted the preliminary injunction. She ordered the Department to completely implement the placement portion of the hearing officer’s decision, including identifying and securing a suitable state-approved nonpublic school by April 23, 2021, unless the court ordered otherwise.
The detailed version
- Y.S. v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:21-cv-00711
- Vyskocil
- Mar. 26, 2021
Background
Y.S. brought an action under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) on behalf of Y.F. and S.F. The motion addressed only Y.F.’s placement. Y.F. is a six-year-old student with a disability, and the New York City Department of Education (DOE) is her local educational agency under the IDEA.
After due-process hearings concerning Y.F.’s education, an Impartial Hearing Officer issued a decision on February 17, 2020. The decision found that DOE had denied Y.F. a free and appropriate public education during the three relevant school years. It ordered DOE to provide specified evaluations, therapy, counseling, behavior-analysis services, transportation and aide services, and other accommodations. It also ordered DOE to refer Y.F. for placement at a state-approved nonpublic school capable of providing the required classroom and instructional program. No party appealed the decision.
Y.S. alleged that DOE did not fully implement the order. Among other things, an IEP did not include applied behavior analysis services, a one-on-one transportation aide, or bilingual speech-language therapy. Y.S. then sought a preliminary injunction, which is a temporary court order issued before final judgment, requiring DOE to implement the placement portion of the hearing officer’s decision.
Preliminary-injunction standard
The court applied the traditional preliminary-injunction standard. Y.S. had to show a likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without an injunction, favorable equities, and that the injunction served the public interest. Because the requested injunction could alter the existing situation, the court also required a strong showing of irreparable harm and a clear or substantial likelihood of success.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Y.S. made the required strong showings. It concluded that the hearing officer’s decision was final and enforceable against DOE because it had not been appealed. The court noted that DOE admitted at the hearing that the decision was final and binding and that DOE had not complied within the decision’s deadlines.
The court determined that continued denial of the ordered placement and services would cause Y.F. irreparable harm. It relied on the record describing Y.F.’s serious disabilities and her dependence on assistive services for basic life skills, including using the bathroom. The court also found that Y.S. was likely to succeed on the claim that DOE had failed to comply with the hearing officer’s decision as written.
The court did not decide whether DOE was required to place Y.F. at a non-approved public school. It stated that the issue before it was enforcement of the hearing officer’s decision, which required placement at a state-approved nonpublic school. The court also rejected DOE’s argument, raised at the hearing, that Y.S. could place Y.F. at a nonpublic school at her own financial risk and later seek reimbursement. Because reimbursement was uncertain and Y.S. could have to pay thousands of dollars without reimbursement, the court found that this was not an adequate legal remedy.
Ruling
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted Y.S.’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The court enjoined and ordered DOE to completely implement Order No. 6 of the February 17, 2020 hearing officer decision, including identifying, locating, and securing a state-approved nonpublic school capable of providing the required program. Unless the court ordered otherwise, DOE had to comply by April 23, 2021.
The parties were also ordered to meet and confer immediately about placement efforts, including requesting variances or exploring ways to provide services unavailable at otherwise appropriate schools. DOE was ordered to provide Y.S.’s counsel with the complete application package submitted or intended for submission to proposed nonpublic schools. The parties had to submit a joint status letter by April 7, 2021. The opinion addressed the preliminary injunction and did not state a final resolution of all claims in the case.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.