Suspensions Summary of Cases 1. Case Name Doe v. Todd County Sch. Dist., 625 F.3d 459 (8th Cir. 2010). 2. Portsmouth (VA) Pub. Schs., 48 IDELR 80 (OCR 2007). 3. Fennville Pub. Schs., 44 IDELR 290 (SEA MI 2005) Summary Public school student brought 1983 action against school district alleging they violated his federal procedural due process rights when he was placed in an alternative high school setting following his suspension for fighting and bringing a pocket knife to school. The court found the school district did not violate student’s constitutional rights when it denied him opportunity to challenge his placement in an alternative setting before the local school board because the IEP team changed the student’s placement from the school which suspended him to an alternative educational setting. Because the school board lacked authority to overrule educational decisions of the IEP team, the district’s refusal to convene a school board meaning did not violate the student’s procedural due process rights. Virginia district suspended a student for a total of 12 days over a five-month period. OCR determined that the district did not need to hold an MD hearing before his third suspension. OCR concluded that the three suspensions were too brief and too far apart to constitute a pattern of removals under the IDEA. OCR explained that a district has no obligation to conduct a manifestation determination unless the student's disciplinary removals constituted a significant change in placement. Although the student could establish a significant change in placement by establishing a pattern of exclusion, OCR concluded that he could not show a pattern. OCR observed that each individual suspension lasted five days or less -- less than half of the time it would take for a single suspension to amount to a change in placement. Moreover, the suspensions occurred in December 2005, April 2006 and May 2006. While all of the suspensions stemmed from fights with classmates, OCR explained that the similarity in misconduct did not in itself establish a pattern. Finding there was no need for the district to hold an MD hearing, OCR closed the parent's discrimination complaint. An IHO concluded that evidence offered at a due process hearing showed a Michigan district treated a middle schooler with an undisclosed disability similarly to students without disabilities, attempted to keep him in 4. Norfolk (VA) City Pub. Schs., 46 IDELR 21 (OCR 2005) 5. Chicago (IL) Pub. Schs., 45 IDELR 227 (OCR 2005) 6. Broward County (FL) Sch. Dist., 36 IDELR 159 (OCR 2001) 7. Randy M. v. Texas City Independent School District, 93 F.Supp. 2d 1310 (S.D. Texas 2000). 8. Magyar By & Through Magyar v. Tuscon Unified Sch. Dis., 958 F. Supp. 1423 (D. Ariz. 1997) school and continued to provide the services identified in his IEP during his removals. Therefore, district did not change the student’s placement. Districts must ensure that if ISS are not intended to be viewed as changes in a student’s placement, they must continue to provide educational opportunities during the ISS, with the accommodations required by the student’s plan. Here, student with ADHD and depression did not receive the accommodations required by his Section 504 plan while he was assigned to 15 days of in-school suspension. OCR determined district had no policies or procedures defining how the district would meet the individual educational needs of students with Section 504 plans while they were assigned to ISS. A district did not substantially change the placement of a ninth-grader with a LD when it gave her 14 days of ISS and 5 days out-of-school suspension. OCR found the district complied with both Section 504 and ADA by providing student with all services required by her IEP by the teachers who normally provided her services. Therefore, district was not required to conduct a reevaluation or a manifestation determination. During the student’s in-school suspensions and detentions, he was relocated to a study carrel outside the assistant principal’s office where he worked on his class assignments. He was not denied services, FAPE was continued and his placement was not altered. Although he was not provided services during two three-day outor-school suspensions, those suspensions did not create a pattern of exclusion and there, a change of placement did not occur. Special education student filed application for mandatory injunction, seeking an order requiring the school district to retain him in his last agreed upon educational placement. District Court held that district was justified in its disciplinary placement of special education student at an alternative learning center for remainder of the school year for his planned and intentional assault of a female student where student’s actions were not a manifestation of his disability. Change in placement occurred when the school district decided to extend the student’s suspension from 10 to 175 days without any meeting about his IEP. District violated IDEA because such a long-term suspension represents a change in placement for which a new IEP is required. 9. Big Beaver Falls Area Sch. Dis. v. Jackson, 624 A.2d 806 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) 10. Greenville County (SC) Sch. Dist., 17 IDELR 1120 (OCR 1991) 11. Chester County (TN) Sch. Dist., 17 IDELR 301 (OCR 1990) 12. Millcreek Township (PA) Sch. Dist., 16 (IDELR 1989) The district violated the due process rights of a student with disabilities by continuing to assign her to in-school suspensions after it became abundantly clear she would choose to return home rather than remain in the ISS classroom. Accordingly the ISS assignments amounted to de facto exclusions of the student from school, resulting in a substantial inference with her right to FAPE. Student with speech deficiency and ADD alleged that the district improperly placed him on in-school suspension for a single day on two occasions. OCR found district had not evaluated the student for special education and related services on the basis of his ADD. However, OCR determined that the single day ISS did not constitute a significant change in placement. As an alternative to exclusion from school, the in-school suspension program permitted students to attend school in a classroom with a qualified special education teacher and to continue their academic coursework and assignments in accordance with their IEPs. OCR found that the district's in-school suspension program was comparable, in nature and quality, to the educational services regularly provided to special education students and, thus, such suspensions, even for periods in excess of 10 days, did not constitute a significant change in placement requiring the replacement evaluation procedures of Reg. 104.35(a). OCR found that the district followed proper evaluation and placement procedures before instituting in-school suspensions, and provided adequate prior notice to the parents of their procedural rights. Thus, the district complied with Section 504 when it placed a student with learning disabilities on ISS for more than 10 consecutive school days.