In Irvine Unified School District v. Landers, Nos. 21-55290, 21-55663, 21-55882, 2023 WL 8915431, 124 LRP 3 (9th Cir. Dec. 26, 2023) (unpublished), the Ninth Circuit addressed whether administrative law judge (ALJ) orders awarding tuition reimbursement also established a student’s private placement as the stay-put placement during the pendency of further proceedings. The court affirmed the district court’s reversal of two ALJ stay-put orders, concluding that the underlying reimbursement decision did not constitute an agreement that the private placement was appropriate for stay-put purposes.
The procedural history was complex and involved multiple ALJ decisions, only two of which were before the court. In an initial decision, an ALJ found that the school district failed to offer the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and ordered reimbursement for tuition at the private school selected by the parents. Two subsequent ALJ orders interpreted that reimbursement decision as an express determination that the private school was the appropriate placement for stay-put purposes. In a later clarification, however, the ALJ who issued the original reimbursement decision explained that the decision addressed appropriateness only for reimbursement and did not decide whether the private school was appropriate for stay-put.
The Ninth Circuit viewed that clarification as dispositive. It compared the case to L.M. v. Capistrano Unified School District, 556 F.3d 900 (9th Cir. 2009), where reimbursement had been awarded without an adjudication that the private placement was appropriate for stay-put. As in L.M., the court emphasized that the decision maker ultimately disavowed having reached the merits of whether the private placement constituted the student’s then-current educational placement for stay-put purposes.
Under the IDEA regulation at 34 C.F.R. § 300.518, a placement becomes the stay-put placement if a hearing officer agrees with the parents that a change of placement is appropriate. The dispute in Landers therefore turned on whether the initial reimbursement decision reflected such an agreement. Relying on the ALJ’s later clarification, the Ninth Circuit concluded that it did not and that stay-put relief was therefore unavailable.
In a concurring opinion, Judge Christen acknowledged that, absent the ALJ’s later clarification issued more than a year after the reimbursement decision, it was understandable why the parents and subsequent ALJs viewed the original decision as establishing the private school as the stay-put placement. Judge Christen observed that the district court’s reversal of the stay-put orders could have been avoided and noted that the parents were not barred from filing a new due process complaint to litigate stay-put, though it was regrettable that additional proceedings would be required.
In a separate, non-precedential decision issued the same day, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the tuition reimbursement and attorneys’ fees awards in favor of the parents.
The decision reflects that a reimbursement award alone does not automatically establish a private placement as the stay-put placement, and that clarity as to whether a decision addresses appropriateness for reimbursement, stay-put, or both can be determinative of the availability of stay-put relief.