Interesting case regarding mootness and jurisdiction

District of Columbia v. Doe (D.C. Cir. 2010): This case has been litigated for years. It is ostensibly about the suspension and alternative placement of a 6th grader, but the events occurred in 2004. The issue that survived was whether an IDEA hearing officer has the authority to revise district imposed discipline upon finding that an infraction is not a manifestation of a disability. The case went up and down the court system a few times over the years. Not surprisingly, the issue of mootness was raised. The Circuit Court held that the case was not moot, because it was capable of repetition while evading review. What makes this interesting is that the analysis was done without regard to the particular student in this case. The Court concluded that the District was almost certain to encounter the issue again and that it would evade review as the student seeking review of disciplinary matters is often done with school or otherwise ineligible for IDEA protections by the time the review process is concluded.

The Court recognized that a school has an obligation to provide the disciplined child with a FAPE and then concluded that an IDEA hearing officer has the authority to determine whether the District has in fact provided the disciplined child, even one for whom manifestation is not found, with a FAPE.

SRO addresses failure to give proper notice for manifestation meeting

SRO 10-028: Student was suspended on 12/2/09 for his role in an altercation that occurred on 11/30/09. District(NYC) twice scheduled manifestation review meetings, but each time did not notify the parent ahead of time. The second time the district proceeded with the meeting and found no manifestation. The district suspended the student for one calendar year. The IHO found that the parent had not been provided with proper notice, annulled the manifestation determination and ordered that the child be returned to school. SRO Paul Kelly agreed that the parent had not received proper notice, ordered that the MDR team reconvene with proper notice to the parent, but annulled without explanation the IHO decision ordering that the student be returned to school. And, remarkably, the SRO gave the district 30 days from the date of the decision (May 7, 2010) to reconvene the MDR team despite the fact that the law requires the MDR team to meet within 10 school days of a decision to impose a long term suspension.

OSERS on Discipline

OSERS Q and A on discipline, revised June 2009.