## Facts

- Nine students with identified disabilities in a Florida school district sued state and local education officials over disciplinary exclusions and denied procedural protections.
- Seven students (S-1, S-2, S-3, S-4, S-5, S-6, and S-8) were expelled from Clewiston High School during the 1977–78 school year for alleged misconduct and excluded for the maximum period permitted by state law (the remainder of 1977–78 and all of 1978–79).
- The expelled students had been classified with disabilities including educable mentally retarded, mildly mentally retarded, or similar classifications.
- The school provided the minimal disciplinary process applicable to general student expulsions, but (except for S-1) did not conduct hearings or determinations on whether the misconduct was related to the students’ disabilities.
- For S-1, the superintendent made a limited inquiry and concluded the misconduct could not be disability-related because S-1 was not classified as seriously emotionally disturbed.
- Two other students (S-7 and S-9) were not under expulsion orders but requested due-process hearings regarding evaluation status and/or individualized educational programs (IEPs); the superintendent denied the requests and offered informal conferences instead.
- The district court entered a preliminary injunction requiring educational services and EHA/§ 504 procedural protections; defendants appealed, arguing the injunction was an abuse of discretion.

## Issues

1. Whether expulsion of a disabled student constitutes a change in educational placement triggering procedural protections under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) and § 504 regulations.
2. Whether school officials must determine, before expulsion, if misconduct is a manifestation of the student’s disability, and whether the obligation arises absent a student request.
3. Whether the EHA and § 504 permit disciplining disabled students under a general disciplinary process without disability-related causation review.
4. Whether the EHA required due-process hearings for S-7 and S-9 concerning identification, evaluation, placement, or IEP-related disputes.
5. Whether the district court abused its discretion by issuing a preliminary injunction against state and local officials.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction.
- The court held that expulsion of a disabled student is a change in educational placement that triggers EHA and § 504 procedural safeguards.
- The court required a determination, before expulsion, whether the misconduct was related to the student’s disability, made by knowledgeable persons using evaluation data; categorical assumptions based on disability labels were improper.
- The court placed responsibility on school authorities to raise and address disability-relatedness; a student’s failure to request a hearing did not waive statutory protections.
- The court held S-7 and S-9 were entitled to impartial due-process hearings on evaluation/IEP matters and that denying those hearings violated the EHA.
- The court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering interim relief to prevent ongoing denial of educational rights.

## Legal Principles

- Long-term disciplinary exclusion of a disabled student can constitute a change in educational placement under the EHA and § 504 regulations, triggering procedural protections.
- Before expelling a disabled student, the school must determine whether the misconduct is a manifestation of the disability, based on proper evaluative methods and informed decisionmakers.
- School systems may not avoid EHA/§ 504 procedures by applying ordinary discipline to disabled students without first addressing disability-related causation.
- The duty to initiate and conduct the manifestation-relatedness inquiry rests with school authorities; statutory protections are not forfeited by a student’s silence or failure to demand them.
- Parents and students are entitled to an impartial due-process hearing for disputes concerning identification, evaluation, educational placement, and IEP-related matters.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit upheld injunctive relief requiring educational services and procedural safeguards, ruling that expulsion of disabled students is a placement change demanding a manifestation determination and that schools must provide EHA due-process hearings, including on evaluation and IEP disputes, without shifting the burden to students to invoke those rights.


S-1 v. Turlington, 635 F.2d 342 (5th Cir. 1981)