Arelis Araujo v. New York City Department Of Education

Background

The court’s September 24, 2020 order directed pendency funding for S.J.D.’s education at the International Institute for the Brain, known as iBRAIN, under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s stay-put provision, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j). The parties agreed that S.J.D. was entitled to pendency funding for tuition, related services, and transportation at iBRAIN. They disagreed about whether a state review officer’s November 4, 2019 decision required a 25% reduction in that funding while an appeal of the decision remained pending.

An impartial hearing officer had previously directed the Department to fund S.J.D.’s placement at iBRAIN under the stay-put provision during the challenge to her 2018–19 individualized education program. The state review officer noted that the Department had not appealed the hearing officer’s finding that iBRAIN became S.J.D.’s pendency placement from December 6, 2018, onward. The parties did not dispute that the hearing officer’s order covered 100% of the tuition, related services, and transportation costs at iBRAIN.

In a later decision addressing reimbursement under S.J.D.’s individualized education program, the hearing officer found that the Department’s proposed program did not provide a free appropriate public education, that iBRAIN was appropriate for S.J.D.’s needs, and that the equities did not favor either side. On appeal, the state review officer affirmed the first two conclusions but ordered a 25% reduction based on equitable considerations. The parent appealed that reduction, and the appeal remained pending.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that a claim for funding under the stay-put provision is separate from a claim for reimbursement based on an inadequate individualized education program. The stay-put provision requires a school district to continue funding the educational placement that was last established for the child until the relevant administrative and judicial proceedings are complete.

The court rejected the Department’s argument that the state review officer’s decision automatically changed S.J.D.’s pendency placement. The court stated that an established pendency placement can be changed only by agreement of the parties, an unappealed hearing-officer decision, a state review officer decision agreeing with the parents, or a court decision on appeal from a state review officer’s decision. The court found that none of those circumstances existed here.

The court also rejected the argument that 100% pendency funding would make the parent’s appeal moot. It explained that the pending appeal concerned the funding available under S.J.D.’s individualized education program after the stay-put right ends, not the funding required during the ongoing dispute. A nonfinal state review officer decision therefore could not alter the stay-put funding.

Disposition

The court ordered the Department, pursuant to the earlier pendency order, to fund 100% of S.J.D.’s tuition, related services, and transportation at iBRAIN. Judge Lorna G. Schofield did not state that this order resolved the separate appeal concerning the proper level of funding under S.J.D.’s individualized education program.