## Facts

- M.K., a high-school student with a significant emotional disability, attended E.L. Haynes Public Charter School under an individualized education program (IEP).
- After M.K. assaulted another student and caused a concussion, the school conducted a manifestation determination and found the conduct was a manifestation of M.K.’s disability.
- The school nonetheless removed M.K. to an interim alternative educational setting for the maximum 45 school days permitted for incidents involving serious bodily injury.
- Before the 45-day period ended, the school sought to keep M.K. in the alternative setting while it pursued due-process proceedings to change his placement permanently; M.K.’s parent refused consent and demanded his return to the then-current placement.
- When the school did not readmit M.K. after the 45-day limit, the parent filed an IDEA civil action seeking a preliminary injunction enforcing the “stay-put” provision and seeking compensatory education for the period of exclusion.

## Issues

1. In an IDEA action seeking enforcement of the “stay-put” provision, must a court apply the traditional four-factor preliminary-injunction test and place the burden on the student, or treat stay-put as a statutory injunction that the local educational agency (LEA) must overcome?
2. Does denial of stay-put relief moot or otherwise limit a claim for compensatory education arising from the student’s continued exclusion?

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit reversed the denial of injunctive relief and remanded.
- The court held the district court erred by placing the burden on the student and applying the traditional preliminary-injunction framework (including irreparable harm) to stay-put.
- The court held the LEA bears a heavy evidentiary burden to justify departure from the then-current placement under IDEA’s stay-put rule, particularly after the statutory 45-day interim placement ends.
- The court held the compensatory-education claim was not moot and was not merely collateral to the stay-put dispute; it was tied to whether the continued exclusion violated IDEA.

## Legal Principles

- IDEA’s stay-put provision, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j), creates a strong statutory presumption that a child remains in the then-current educational placement during proceedings challenging a proposed change in placement.
- Stay-put operates as a statutory (automatic) injunction; courts should not require the student to satisfy the traditional four-factor preliminary-injunction test to obtain stay-put relief.
- The LEA must carry a heavy evidentiary burden to displace the stay-put default and must operate within IDEA’s limited disciplinary exceptions and time limits (including the 45-school-day interim setting for serious bodily injury).
- Safety concerns are addressed through IDEA’s disciplinary scheme; generalized equitable balancing cannot replace the statute’s allocation of burdens and presumptions.
- Compensatory education is an appropriate remedy for educational losses resulting from unlawful exclusion and is directly connected to the legality of the placement decision under stay-put.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit held that IDEA stay-put relief is governed by a statutory presumption requiring the student’s return to the then-current placement unless the LEA meets a heavy evidentiary burden to justify a lawful departure, and it further held that a compensatory-education claim remains available because it turns on whether the exclusion violated the stay-put right.


Olu-Cole ex rel. M.K. v. E.L. Haynes Pub. Charter Sch., 930 F.3d 519 (D.C. Cir. 2019)