Hoing v Doe

484 US 305 (1988)

by

Sam Robbins

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.

An IEP, or individual learning plan, is a set of procedures that a child with a disability is provided in order to guarantee them an adequate education.  An IEP is created by a team that consists of the parents of the child, a teacher, someone who understands the psychological needs, and anyone else that can help if possible.  If one of these parties 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.

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.

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.

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.