Honig v. Doe Lawsuit
Facts of the Case
"Hoing v Doe started when the San Francisco Unified School District tried to expel two emotionally disturbed students from school for an indefinite amount of time because one of the emotionally disturbed children, John Doe, was prone to violent outbursts and the other, Jack Smith, was hyper-active and would often extort money from other students, steal, and make sexual comments to female students. The parents of these children felt that this violated their right to have a say in their children’s IEP [because]...If one of the [the group members who created a student's IEP] wants to change the IEP then the team has to meet to approve a new IEP. Until this happens the child must “stay put” in their current situation until the IEP changes." - Sam Robbins, Bucknell University
"In Hoing v Doe the school district unilaterally removed the two students from school by expelling them. They did this without consulting the team that made the IEP, thus violating the stay put provision. The school district claimed that it could do this because the children presented a danger to the schools and teachers of the school." - Sam Robbins, Bucknell University
"In Hoing v Doe the school district unilaterally removed the two students from school by expelling them. They did this without consulting the team that made the IEP, thus violating the stay put provision. The school district claimed that it could do this because the children presented a danger to the schools and teachers of the school." - Sam Robbins, Bucknell University
Decision of the Court
"Instead of filing two different cases, the cases were put together and the defendants sued under the name of Doe. When the case was heard in the district court, Louise Lombard School was forced to readmit Doe and Smith. Afterwards, the school district appealed to the circuit and it agreed with the district court. Finally, the school district appealed to the Supreme Court. However the Supreme Court ruled that the current case was moot because Doe turned 24 and is not longer protected by the “Education for All Handicapped Children Act” and Smith’s grandparents opted for Smith to be home schooled. Although the case was rendered moot and did not affect Doe or Smith the Supreme Court felt that this kind of case could come up again and they gave an opinion on how they would have ruled. The Supreme Court stated that the indefinite removal of the two students violated the stay-put provision." - Sam Robbins
Basis of the Decision
"The Supreme Court decided that mentally disturbed children cannot be indefinitely expelled from school because they cannot control their own actions, and that their handicaps are directly responsible for their behavior. However, the Court held that suspension up to ten days did not constitute a change in educational placement. Also, the Supreme Court declared that the stay-put provision does not include any violent student exception. The decision was based on the Education of All Handicapped Children Act." - Sam Robbins
Congressional Intent
"[The purpose of the case was] To help schools respond appropriately when students with disabilities exhibit serious misconduct [and] To help IEP teams to appropriately address problem behaviors through the IEP process." - The Law and Special Education
"Congress intended to address this exclusion in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, as the Supreme Court in Honig v. Doe (484 U.S. 305 (1988)) clarified, saying: 'Congress very much meant to strip schools of the unilateral authority they had traditionally employed to exclude disabled students, particularly emotionally disturbed students, from school (p. 323).'"
- PBIS: Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports
"...the decision of the Honig court did not end concerns about behavior and discipline of children with disabilities. Congress recognized the need for schools to use evidence-based approaches to proactively address the behavioral needs of students with disabilities. Thus, in amending the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act both in 1997 and in 2004, Congress explicitly recognized the potential of PBIS to prevent exclusion and improve educational results..."
- PBIS: Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports
- PBIS: Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports