Pierre-Noel v. Bridges Public Charter School

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedApril 6, 2023
DocketCivil Action No. 2023-0070
StatusPublished

This text of Pierre-Noel v. Bridges Public Charter School (Pierre-Noel v. Bridges Public Charter School) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pierre-Noel v. Bridges Public Charter School, (D.D.C. 2023).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MARGDA PIERRE-NOEL, on behalf of her minor child K.N.,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:23-cv-00070 (TNM)

BRIDGES PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This case is about who must ensure that a disabled child reaches his school bus. Margda

Pierre-Noel sued Bridges Public Charter School and the District of Columbia under the

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) for failing to provide a free and

appropriate public education and related services for her minor son, K.N. Pierre-Noel seeks

review of a hearing officer’s decision that she is responsible for getting K.N. to and from the

school bus. She also seeks an order that his school denied him a free and appropriate public

education under the IDEA for failing to provide in-person support while he learned from home

and for failing to provide an in-school nurse. The school agrees with certain aspects of the

hearing officer’s decision, but disagrees with others—including that it failed to provide an

appropriate education. The District agrees with the hearing officer’s decision that it need not

carry K.N. to the school bus.

Before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment from Pierre-Noel, the school,

and the District. The Court will grant the District summary judgment on the transportation claim

because it finds that the IDEA does not mandate the service Pierre-Noel seeks. But the Court will grant Pierre-Noel summary judgment on her free and appropriate public education claim

because the school did not plan adequate support for K.N. to learn from home. Finally, the Court

will grant the school’s motion as to the issue of failing to have a nurse present in school because

K.N. was learning from home at the time. Also, Pierre-Noel has not shown injury or

redressability on this claim. In sum, the Court will grant the District’s motion in full, and it will

grant in part and deny in part the other two motions.

I.

A.

The IDEA offers states and the District of Columbia federal funding to provide a “free

appropriate public education” (“FAPE”) to disabled children. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)(A). A

FAPE includes both “special education and related services.” Id. § 1401(9). “Special education”

is “specially designed instruction . . . to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability,” and

“related services” are those “required to assist a child . . . to benefit from” that instruction. Id.

§ 1401(26), (29). The IDEA defines “related services” as

transportation, and such developmental, corrective, and other supportive services (including speech-language pathology and audiology services, interpreting services, psychological services, physical and occupational therapy, recreation . . . [and] counseling services, including rehabilitation counseling, orientation and mobility services . . . as may be required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education[.] Id. § 1401(26)(A).

The meaning of “transportation” is key to this case. The Act’s implementing regulations

note that “transportation” “includes travel to and from school and between schools” and

“specialized equipment (such as special or adapted buses, lifts, and ramps), if required to provide

special transportation for a child with a disability.” 34 C.F.R. § 300.34(c)(16).

2 To ensure that a child receives a FAPE, special education and related services must be

provided “in conformity with the [child’s] individualized education program,” or IEP. 20 U.S.C.

§ 1401(9)(D). An IEP is the “centerpiece of the statute’s education delivery system[.]” Honig v.

Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 311 (1988). “It is through the IEP that the free appropriate public education

required by the Act is tailored to the unique needs of a particular child.” Endrew F. ex rel.

Joseph F. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 580 U.S. 386, 401 (2017) (cleaned up). The IEP

must be “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the

child’s circumstances.” Id. at 399. A team of interested individuals—including the child’s

parents and teachers—draft his IEP. See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(4), 1414(d). Each IEP must

describe the “special education and related services . . . that will be provided” to help the child

“advance appropriately.” Id. § 1414(d)(1).

The IDEA provides that “[t]o the maximum extent appropriate[,]” disabled children

should be “educated with children who are not disabled.” Id. § 1412(a)(5). This means that

removal from the “regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of

the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and

services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.” Id. To further this statutory instruction, IEPs specify

a child’s “least restrictive environment”—the location and services a student should receive. Id.;

see also 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.114(a), 300.115–16.

3 B.

K.N. is a first grader eligible for special education and related services under the IDEA.

See Administrative Record (“AR”) at 1537. 1 He is medically fragile, non-verbal, wheelchair

bound, and weighs about 40 pounds. See id. at 1444, 1533.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, K.N. worked virtually with a special education teacher.

See id. at 738; see also Hr’g Tr. at 55. Pierre-Noel provided the at-home support he needed to

learn. See AR at 723, 1530. As the 2022 school year drew to a close, Pierre-Noel and school

staff convened in May to discuss his IEP. See id. at 722–37. All agreed that K.N. could return to

school in person in September 2022. See id. at 13, 332. At that time, he would “resume 22.5

hours of specialized instruction hours . . . outside of the general education setting with a

dedicated nurse aide” inside the school building. Id. at 738. The May IEP included a

contingency provision: “[i]f [K.N.] is required to remain home for an extended period due to

medical needs, [he] will receive homebound instruction and the team will develop a plan for

continuation of services.” Id. The IEP also states that no nurse aide will be provided if K.N.

attends virtually. See id.

The transportation section of K.N.’s May IEP explains that he requires a single transport

bus and a nurse on the bus. See id. at 744. K.N.’s apartment building is not handicap-accessible,

so getting him to the bus involves traversing 14 to 20 steps. See id. at 1571; 1645. 2 Pierre-Noel

1 The Administrative Record can be found at ECF Nos. 18–20. It is sealed to protect the personal identifying information of K.N. The Court will cite all references to the Administrative Record as “AR at [page],” except for the Hearing Officer’s Determination, which the Court will cite as “HOD at [page],” and K.N.’s July IEP, which the Court will cite as “IEP at [page],” to reflect their internal pagination. The hearing officer’s determination is available on the public docket, see ECF No. 1-1, as is a redacted version of K.N.’s IEP, see ECF No. 4-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman
451 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1981)
Irving Independent School District v. Tatro
468 U.S. 883 (Supreme Court, 1984)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Honig v. Doe
484 U.S. 305 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
504 U.S. 555 (Supreme Court, 1992)
Muscarello v. United States
524 U.S. 125 (Supreme Court, 1998)
Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams
532 U.S. 105 (Supreme Court, 2001)
Reid Ex Rel. Reid v. District of Columbia
401 F.3d 516 (D.C. Circuit, 2005)
Devia v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
492 F.3d 421 (D.C. Circuit, 2007)
Petit v. United States Department of Education
675 F.3d 769 (D.C. Circuit, 2012)
District of Columbia v. Ramirez
377 F. Supp. 2d 63 (District of Columbia, 2005)
Johnson Ex Rel. F.J. v. District of Columbia
962 F. Supp. 2d 263 (District of Columbia, 2013)
McAllister v. District of Columbia
794 F.3d 15 (D.C. Circuit, 2015)
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins
578 U.S. 330 (Supreme Court, 2016)
Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools
580 U.S. 154 (Supreme Court, 2017)
United States v. Davis
588 U.S. 445 (Supreme Court, 2019)
Dan Wilson v. Safelite Group, Inc.
930 F.3d 429 (Sixth Circuit, 2019)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Pierre-Noel v. Bridges Public Charter School, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pierre-noel-v-bridges-public-charter-school-dcd-2023.