Disputes over a school district’s obligation to maintain services during the pendency of due process proceedings are common. Far less common are cases resulting in findings of civil contempt and the imposition of sanctions. Bueno v. Bass Lake Joint Union Elementary School District, No. 1:21-CV-0436 AWI HBK, 2023 WL 3177796, 123 LRP 14143 (E.D. Cal. May 1, 2023), is one such case.
The case involved a student with developmental disabilities. The parent and the district began arranging special education services in May 2019. After the parent filed a due process complaint on October 2, 2019, the parties reached a settlement the following month. Disputes later arose, and the parent again requested due process. On December 23, 2020, an administrative law judge (ALJ) issued a decision finding that the district had denied the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) and imposing a stay-put IEP.
During 2020 and 2021, the student experienced significant medical issues, including multiple hospitalizations. The same period was marked by widespread educational disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. On March 16, 2021, the parent filed suit alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. On September 10, 2021, the parent moved for a preliminary injunction to enforce the stay-put IEP, alleging that the district was not fully implementing the ordered services. The court granted the injunction on November 30, 2021.
On February 10, 2022, the parent moved for civil contempt sanctions, asserting that the district continued to fail to comply with the stay-put IEP and the court’s injunction. In the decision at issue, the court granted the motion, found the district in civil contempt, and imposed sanctions.
The court detailed the extensive services required under the stay-put IEP, including substantial weekly hours of home-based academic instruction, nursing services, vision services, orientation and mobility services, physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech and language services, and multiple consultation services. 2023 WL 3177796, at *2.
The district argued that it had made good-faith efforts to provide the required services but faced persistent difficulties recruiting and retaining qualified personnel, obtaining sufficient service hours from available providers, and coordinating schedules with the parent. Although the court credited the district’s representations regarding its efforts, it concluded that the undisputed record demonstrated pervasive service gaps.
The court found, among other deficiencies, that no academic instruction was provided after November 30, 2021; that the student received far fewer than the required 20 hours per week of nursing services; that occupational therapy services were minimal; that vision services were delivered sporadically based on provider availability; and that similar shortfalls affected other related services.
The court concluded that the district failed to even substantially comply with the stay-put IEP. While acknowledging the extraordinary challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, the court emphasized that staffing shortages and pandemic-related disruptions did not excuse noncompliance. As the court stated, “Even with the present difficulties, Bass Lake must at least substantially comply with the IEP.” Id. at *4.
As a sanction, the parent sought a monetary penalty based on the value of compensatory services previously awarded by the ALJ. The court declined to impose a monetary sanction, finding insufficient evidence regarding actual service costs and concerns about overlap with relief potentially available under the pending ADA and Section 504 claims. Instead, the court ordered the district to pay the parent’s attorneys’ fees and cautioned that additional sanctions could be imposed if compliance with the stay-put IEP was not achieved.
The decision underscores that districts remain obligated to substantially comply with stay-put requirements, even under difficult circumstances, and that persistent failure to do so may result in findings of civil contempt and the imposition of sanctions.