v.
Doe, Et Al
The United States
No. 86-728
January 20, 1988
This case revolves around the suspensions and expulsions of two students with specific behavior disorders: one with severe anti-social and violent tendencies and another with severely low self-esteem and violent tendencies. One was placed in a school for students with behavioral disorders operated by the San Francisco United School District (SFUSD) and the other in a mainstream “regular education” school also operated by SFUSD. Both boys had specific IEP’s, as mandated Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA) the predecessor of IDEA.
Neither of the boys made much positive progress toward the behavioral goals mandated in their IEP’s. The first retaliated to another student’s taunting by choking that student and leaving severe bruises about the student’s neck. He subsequently kicked out a school window when being escorted to the principal’s office. The second made continuous lewd comments to female students and generally disrupted class at all times. He also acted out violently after being teased by other students. He was placed in a half day program but eventually suspended because of his continuing threats and lewd behavior. Both sets of parents were informed that their sons were to be expelled permanently from the school system. Their parents sued under the FAPE rules of EHA.
At the district level of the judicial process, the courts affirmed lower rulings that the school system could not suspend the two students indefinitely or expel them permanently because of behaviors indentified in their IEP. Their behaviors, as part of an identified disorder, could not be primary evidence for expulsion. Rather, the court deemed, the school system must re-enroll the boys and insure “free and adequate” education.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently affirmed most of the lower courts rulings with one exception: they did not see that suspensions up to thirty days violated the students’ rights to FAPE or harm them irreparably because of a labeled disability. Basically, the court accepted the traditional ruling of the “stay put provision” of EHA.
The system appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States
By the time the case reached the SCOTUS, both of the John Doe’s were in their mid-twenties so the case was basically labeled as operating under a “moot point” status regarding any benefit wither of the two former students could receive from any ruling made by the court. Regardless of that fact, the SCOTUS did affirm the lower courts ruling that students could not be expelled because of behavior arising from a disability and that the lower courts attachment of importance to “the stay put” concepts of EHA (by then IDEA) was appropriate and justified.
This case is hugely significant in that it denotes within the law that a maximum suspension of ten (10) days is indeed appropriate and fair to students committing rules violations because of behavior identified within established IEP’s.
