The U.S. Department of Justice Submits Statement of Interest in DC Jail case

On April 9, 2021, TPM, along with co-counsel at the Washington Lawyers’ Committee and School Justice Project, filed a class action on behalf of students with disabilities at the DC Jail complex challenging the District of Columbia’s failure to provide special education services and a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. On April 12, we filed a motion for a preliminary injunction which shows that the District’s failure to provide any direct instruction throughout the pandemic, and only providing students with work packets, is not FAPE and the Court should order effective injunctive relief. 

On May 26, 2021, the United States Department of Justice filed a Statement of Interest in the case, explaining that the United States “has an interest in ensuring the appropriate and consistent interpretation of the [Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)] and its implementing regulations . . . . [and] also has an interest in ensuring that the IDEA protections continue to apply during emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic.”

The United States explained that students with disabilities in adult correctional facilities are entitled to special education and related services under the IDEA and the responsibility of state and local education agencies to provide special education and related services exists during the COVID-19 pandemic despite challenges. The United States further explained that special education and related services must be designed to meet a student’s unique needs and cited cases in which courts have found packet-based instruction to be insufficient under the IDEA, particularly when it is the sole method of instruction.

The United States emphasized the federal resources available to state and local education agencies which can be used to overcome the challenges posed by remote learning in correctional settings. The Statement noted that the Department of Education has explained that educational agencies have “considerable flexibility” in how they use federal IDEA funds during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Lastly, the United States stated that compensatory education may be required when a school district denies students special education and related services, including during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Statement of Interest is available here.

TPM Wins Affirmance in Federal Appeals Court that District of Columbia Underserves Preschoolers with Disabilities

D.L. v. District of Columbia is a class action brought by the firm seeking to remedy the District of Columbia’s failure to provide and timely provide special education services to preschoolers with disabilities in violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and other laws.

On Friday, June 23, 2017, the court of appeals, in a unanimous decision, affirmed the lower court decision in all respects.  The lower court found that the District of Columbia violates the rights of preschoolers with disabilities by failing to provide and timely provide services required by the IDEA and District law.  The lower court issued an injunction requiring numerous corrective actions to prevent further violations.

U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth, who has presided over the case since 2005, described the case as follows: “This case concerns the District of Columbia’s obligations, under both federal and local law, to provide special education to some of our most vulnerable citizens at a very early and critical stage in their lives.  In the first few years of a child’s life, there exists a narrow window of opportunity in which special education, tailored to the child’s particular needs, can work a miracle.  ‘[S]omewhere in the neighborhood of 75 to 80 percent’ of the disabled children who are found in the community and served by quality early intervention programs will go on to kindergarten alongside every other ordinary five-year-old—without needing further supplemental special education. * * * So that’s what’s at stake here.”   

The court of appeals rejected all arguments made by the District in its appeal of Judge Lamberth’s ruling.  Addressing the District’s argument that the IDEA precludes comprehensive injunctions and allows only for relief on an individual child basis, the court of appeals stated that “the District’s argument would eviscerate the very purpose of IDEA.”  Congress enacted the IDEA in response to the “pervasive and tragic” failure to serve all children with disabilities.  In exchange for federal funding, the IDEA imposes on states, including the District, the obligation of identifying and evaluating all preschoolers with disabilities.  The court of appeals found that although the District had “enthusiastically accepted millions of dollars in IDEA funding,” it was now proposing to shift back to parents the burden of determining whether a child was eligible for special education services.  The court of appeals stated: “Given the purpose of IDEA, we cannot imagine a more preposterous argument.”

Plaintiffs and their counsel are very pleased with the ruling.  This decision will have a positive and lasting impact on children with disabilities in the District.  We hope and expect that the District will now focus its full attention and resources on complying with the injunction and bringing about the improvements needed to ensure that special education services are timely delivered to all preschoolers with disabilities.

This decision was featured in the Washington Post on June 23, 2017.

Click here for the decision.

Notice to Plaintiff Subclasses in D.L. v. District of Columbia

Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a motion for an award of litigation costs, including attorneys’ fees and related expenses, in DL v. District of Columbia, a class action related to special education services for preschool-aged children in the District of Columbia.  Defendants are scheduled to file an opposition to that motion.  In addition, subclass members may file objections to that motion.  For additional detail, click here for a copy of the notice related to this motion.  Click here for additional information regarding this case.

Washington Post Addresses Decision in DL v. District of Columbia

On June 24, 2016, the Washington Post addressed the decision in DL v. District of Columbia, and the District of Columbia's appeal of that decision, in an article titled, “Court rules D.C. underserves and under-identifies preschoolers with disabilities.”  Click here to link to that article.

For more information about this case, click here.

TPM Wins Injunction Requiring Improvements to District of Columbia’s Provision of Special Education and Related Services for Preschoolers in the District

In DL v. District of Columbia, on May 18, 2016, the district court found the District of Columbia liable for violating children’s rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and District law through November 12, 2015, and the Rehabilitation Act until March 22, 2010, and issued an injunction.  The district court enjoined the District of Columbia from further violations of the IDEA and District law, and ordered specific corrective actions, including that the District ensure that (1) at least 8.5 percent of children between the ages of three and five who reside in the District or are wards of the District receive necessary special education and related services, (2) at least 95 percent of all children between the ages of three and five referred for special education services receive a timely eligibility determination, and (3) at least 95 percent of all children receiving Part C services (early intervention services for children up to three years of age) that are found eligible for Part B services (special education and related services for children ages three and older) receive a smooth and effective transition to those Part B services by their third birthdays.

The injunction also includes specific provisions related to the measurement and monitoring of compliance.  Specifically, the District of Columbia was ordered to correct several metrics that it uses to measure compliance with these benchmarks, which had made it appear that it was performing much better than it actually was.

The District of Columbia is required to provide annual reports on its compliance with the numerical benchmarks and semi-annual reports regarding compliance with other programmatic requirements.  The injunction will remain in effect until the District has demonstrated sustained compliance with its requirements.

The district court wrote that “The District’s lack of effective Child Find and transition policies is particularly troubling in light of the intense scrutiny and seemingly constant admonishment it has received over the last decade.  In 2011, this Court stated, ‘Defendant’s persistent failure to live up to their statutory obligations, a failure that works a severe and lasting harm on one of society’s most vulnerable populations—disabled preschool children—is deeply troubling to this Court.’ * * * Moreover, as discussed, OSEP [the U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs] informed OSSE [the District of Columbia Office of the State Superintendent of Education] in 2015 that it ‘needs intervention in implementing the requirements of Part B of the IDEA’ for the ‘ninth consecutive year,’ which is the longest period in the country. * * * Although OSEP’s long-running ‘needs intervention’ determination does not deal exclusively with the statutory obligations at issue in this litigation, it contributes to the overarching narrative that the District requires strong, outside involvement to produce even minimally acceptable results.  And critically, this litigation has been ongoing for more than ten years, providing the District with ample time and robust incentives to come into full compliance with the law.  It is for these reasons that a structural injunction is necessary.”

The district court concluded by stating that “The District has come a long way since 2005 when this lawsuit was initiated, but it has not come far enough.  Indeed, while its progress has been in some ways impressive, the District started at such a low base that the advances it has made are insufficient to bring it into compliance with its legal obligations. The Court today makes clear that the implementation and outcomes of the District’s policies are paramount.  The District will comply with its statutory obligations when it actually locates and identifies children to provide them with a FAPE [free appropriate public education], timely evaluates them, timely determines their eligibility, and smoothly and effectively transitions them—not when they establish policies that, if properly implemented, would achieve these goals.  If the defendants fail[] to abide by the order and adopt a more outcome-based approach, the District will earn far more significant court involvement and oversight than is ordered today.”

We are pleased with the injunction and believe that it will have a positive and lasting impact on children with disabilities in the District of Columbia.  We hope that this will draw this case closer to its end and that, rather than appealing, the District will focus its attention and resources on the needed improvements.

For more information with regard to this case, click here.