Margda Pierre-Noel, on behalf of her eight-year-old son K.N., sued the District of Columbia and Bridges Public Charter School. K.N. has spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy, is nonverbal, and relies on a wheelchair, a tracheostomy tube, and other medical devices. His Individualized Education Program (IEP) required him to attend school in person with a dedicated nurse. However, K.N. lives in a walk-up apartment building without wheelchair accessibility, requiring him to be carried up and down multiple flights of stairs to reach the street. The District of Columbia's Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE) refused to provide this assistance, citing a policy that staff would only retrieve students from the outermost door of a building and would not physically lift or carry students. The district court granted summary judgment to the District, ruling that moving a student from their apartment door to a bus was not a transportation service under the IDEA. The mother appealed, arguing that without this assistance, K.N. could not benefit from his special education.
Chief Judge Srinivasan, writing for the panel, analyzed the scope of the term 'transportation' under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The court rejected the District's narrow interpretation that transportation is limited to vehicular travel and immediate vehicle-adjacent assistance. Instead, the court applied ordinary statutory construction, noting that the IDEA defines 'related services' to include transportation 'as may be required to assist a child… to benefit from special education.' The court reasoned that because special education can occur in various settings, including the home, the transportation obligation must be flexible enough to enable a child to reach those settings. The court found that the District's policy of refusing to enter apartment buildings or carry students created a tension with the IDEA's core purpose of ensuring disabled children are not 'stranded at home.' The court also addressed the 'clear notice' requirement of Spending Clause legislation, holding that while states must be unambiguously notified of the obligation to provide transportation, they do not need to be notified of every specific factual scenario. The court concluded that the statutory scheme and purpose indicate that 'transportation' encompasses the door-to-door assistance sought by the mother. Additionally, the court clarified that the obligation to provide these services rests with the state educational agency, not the individual school, and that the agency has discretion only in the manner of delivery, not in the decision to provide the service. The court also addressed mootness, dismissing the appeal against the charter school because K.N. was no longer enrolled there, but finding the case justiciable against the District under the 'capable of repetition, yet evading review' exception.
The decision vacates the district court's summary judgment and remands the case for further proceedings consistent with the interpretation that the IDEA requires door-to-door transportation services. The District of Columbia must now provide assistance to move K.N. from his apartment door to the school bus, either by physically carrying him or by utilizing alternative methods such as lifts or ramps that the District deems appropriate. The ruling establishes that school districts cannot rely on internal policies limiting pickup to the outermost door of a building if such policies prevent a disabled student from accessing their education. The case remains open against the District to determine the specific injunctive relief required, while the claim against the charter school is dismissed as moot.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download