S-1 v. Turlington
635 F.2d 342 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the expulsion of a student with a disability constitutes a 'change in educational placement,' which requires a pre-expulsion determination by a qualified group of persons as to whether the misconduct was a manifestation of the student's handicap. While expulsion remains a permissible disciplinary tool, a school may not implement a complete cessation of educational services for a handicapped student during the expulsion period.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs were nine students at Clewiston High School in Hendry County, Florida, who were all classified as handicapped, specifically as educable mentally retarded (EMR), mildly mentally retarded, or EMR/dull normal.
- During the 1977-78 school year, seven of the students were expelled for alleged misconduct, including insubordination, vandalism, and sexual acts.
- The expulsions were for the remainder of the 1977-78 school year and the entirety of the 1978-79 school year.
- For six of the expelled students, the school did not conduct a hearing to determine if their misconduct was a manifestation of their handicap.
- For the seventh expelled student, S-1, the school superintendent determined that as a matter of law, his misconduct could not be a manifestation of his handicap because he was not classified as 'seriously emotionally disturbed.'
- Two other handicapped students, S-7 and S-9, requested impartial due process hearings regarding their individualized educational programs in October 1978.
- The school superintendent denied the requests from S-7 and S-9 for due process hearings, offering informal conferences instead.
Procedural Posture:
- Nine handicapped students (plaintiffs) sued state and local school officials in the United States District Court.
- Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, seeking injunctive relief.
- The trial court found that the plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits and would suffer irreparable harm.
- The trial court granted a preliminary injunction against the defendant school officials.
- The defendant school officials (appellants) appealed the trial court's order granting the preliminary injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the expulsion of a handicapped student constitute a 'change in educational placement' under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, thereby requiring a determination by a qualified group of persons as to whether the misconduct was a manifestation of the student's handicap before expulsion can occur?
Opinions:
Majority - Hatchett, Circuit Judge.
Yes, the expulsion of a handicapped student is a change in educational placement, which invokes the procedural protections of the EHA and Section 504. The court held that a termination of educational services through expulsion is a change in placement that requires specific procedural safeguards. Citing Stuart v. Nappi, the court reasoned that expulsion restricts the availability of alternative placements and circumvents the student's right to an education in the least restrictive environment. Therefore, before a handicapped student can be expelled, a specialized and knowledgeable group of persons must determine whether the handicap is the cause of the disruptive behavior. The court placed the burden of initiating this determination on the school officials, not the student or their parents. While expulsion remains a valid disciplinary option, a complete cessation of educational services during an expulsion period is not permissible under the EHA. The court also found that students S-7 and S-9 were improperly denied their right to a due process hearing, as the EHA provides this right for any complaint related to a handicapped child's education.
Analysis:
This decision establishes the foundational principle of the 'manifestation determination review' in special education law. It fundamentally alters school disciplinary procedures by creating a heightened standard of protection for students with disabilities, distinguishing their rights from those of the general student population under Goss v. Lopez. The ruling mandates that schools cannot treat misconduct by a handicapped student as a simple disciplinary issue; they must first analyze the causal link between the behavior and the disability. This case affirms that the right to a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) is not forfeited due to misbehavior, solidifying the idea that educational services must continue even for expelled students with disabilities, thereby preventing schools from using expulsion to effectively deny them an education.
