### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT KNOXVI LLE A ugus t 10 , 200 4 S es sio n MICH AELA BABB v. HAMI LTO N COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATI ON

Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Ham ilton Coun ty No. 03C1151 W. Ne il Th om as, III, Jud ge
F iled Septem ber 21, 2004
No. E2004-00782-COA- R3-CV

This is a suit brought by

a school tea cher ag ainst the Hamilt on County Boa rd of Education under the Tenne ssee Gove rnmental Tort L iabilityAct whe rein the te ache r alleg es neg lige nce on the part of the Boa rd of Educ ation as a r esult of an assault on her by a student who was re -enr olled in school and re- place d in her c lassroom despite the fac t the student had assaulted her the pre vious month and been suspended f

rom school. T h e t ri al court gr anted the B oard of Education’s motion for summary jud g me nt. We h oldthat the de c isi on to p la c e the stu de nt b a c k in the te a c he r’ s c la ssr oo m, d e sp ite the previous assault, was a discr etionary action for which the B oard of

Education was immune from lia bil ity . A c c or din g ly , w e a ff ir m a ndre ma ndto the tr ia l c ou rt

. Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Ci r c uit

Co ur t A ffirm e d; Ca use Rem anded
S HAR ON G. LEE , J. , d e li v e r e d th e o p in io n o f th e c o u r t, in which H ER SCH EL P. F RAN KS , P.J . and C H A RLES D. S US ANO , J R , J ., joined.
J eff rey D. B oehm, Chattanoog a, Te nnessee , for the A ppellant, Michae la B abb
D. Scott B ennett, Chattanoog a, Tenne ssee, for the Appellee , Hamilton CountyBoa rd of Educ ation

OP IN ION The Appe llant, Michaela Ba bb, was, at all times re levant to the matter s described her ein, employ ed by

the Appellee , Hamilton CountyBoa rd of Educ ation (her einaf ter HCB E), as a

second g rade school teac her at Orcha rd Knob Eleme ntary

School in Hamilton C o u n ty , Tenne ssee. Ale x Fields wa s enrolled a s a student in Ms. B abb’s class during the 2002-2003 school y ear
. Alex had a history of socially

ag g ressive be havior a nd, on November 20, 2002, the school psy chologist at Orc hard Knob i s s u ed a psy cholog ical eva luation report on him. The r eport a naly zes information provided by

an asse ssment team composed o f two school psy cholog ists, two teacher s, the school principal, a n educational diag nostician, Alex’s m other, his g uardia n ad litem , his Department ofA tten tio n d e ficit hyp e ra c tivity d iso rd e r. 1

T he P l ai nt i f

f al s o s ued H ami l t on Co un t y
. H owever , H ami l t on Co un t y di d not f i l e a n A nswe r or any ot her 2
p le a d ing s a n d no a c tio n w a s ta k e n b y the P la intiff o r th e trial c o u rt a s to this D e fen d a n t. -2- Child S ervic es ca se mana g er a nd school principal, B etty Wil liam s
. W i t h respe ct to Alex’s educational history , the re port shows “[t] eac her c oncer ns included fig hting in the c lassroom, not sitti ng still , temper c ontrol issues, and not doing c lass work

. ” T h e re port indicates that Ale x ’s mothe r is a lso c on c e rn e d that “ Al e x ca n’ t si t st ill , o ft e n g e ts i nto fi g hts , a nddo e sn ’t min d, e sp e c ia lly at s ch o o l

. ” T h e r ep o rt cl o s es wi t h a r ec o m m en d at i o n s t at em en twh i ch i n cl u d es t h e f o l l o wi n g:
The tea m should co n v en e and consider a ll assessments in planning a n educational prog ram for

this student. S y mptoms of ADHD wer e obser ved in the 1 classroom a nd we re re ported by both the mother and the teac her. H oweve r, no me dic a l st a te me nt h a s b e e n c omp le te d, a ndTE AM e va luatio n didno t di a g no se ADHD due to inconsistent test results.
On Dec ember

9, 2002, less than one month afte r t he is suance of this report, Ale x assaulted Ms. Ba bb in her c lassroom by

striking he r in the fa ce. A s a conse quence of this incident, Alex was su sp e nd e d f

ro m sc ho ol f

or te n d a y s b y the sc ho ol p ri nc ipa l, B e tty Willi a ms. Ms. Willi a ms atte sts that she had a lso beg un prepa rations to expel him pursuant to st ate a nd local zero-toler ance policies when she was c ontacted by an off icial with the Tenne ssee De partment of H uman Service s who a d v i s e d h e r

t h a t s h e c o u l d n o t l e g a l l y e x p e l A l e x i f h i s c o n d u c t w a s a m a n i f e s t a t i o n o f

a d i s ab i l i t y. Ms. Wi lliams attests that she therea ft er a rra ng ed for

an Individualiz ed Educ ation Prog ram (her einaf ter “ I EP”) tea m to review A lex’s si tuation.
Th e I EP t e a m, w hic h c on sis te d o f t e a c he rs , th e sc ho ol p sy c ho log ist , A le x’s m ot her, M s. Wil liams and others, met on Dec ember 12, 2002. The team’s report conclude s that Alex “[ d]oes not meet the standa

rds for any

disabiliti es” and that he is not elig ible for spe cial educ ation for that rea son. Howeve r, the re port also i n co rp o rate s an “A dditional W ritten Notice” section which indicates a

conce rn t h at Al ex suffe rs from a “hea lth impairment” and the r eport c oncludes with a de c isi on to c los e the case as to “ sp e c if ic le arn ing dis abil ity ” a ndto r e -o pe n th e c a se a s to “ he a lth impairment.”
O n J a n u ar y 8 , 2 0 0 3 , M s
. W i l l i a m s r e t u r n e d A l e x t o M s
. B ab b ’ s c l a s s r o o m
. U n f o r t u n a t e l y, on the day of hi s return to the classroom Alex assaulted both Ms. Ba bb and a te ache r’s a ide who wa s assisting Ms. B abb.
On J uly 3, 2003, Ms. Ba

bb fil ed a ca

use of a ction in the Hamilton CountyCircuit Court ag ainst HCBE for da mag es under the Tenne ssee Gove rnmental Tort L iabilityAct. The complaint 2 alleg es that HCB E was ne g lige nt in “placing [Alex ] back into a reg ular classroom” and in placing him “back into the c lassroom of the tea cher he had pr eviously

assaulted. ” T h e co m p l aint further alleg es that “[a]s a proxi mate re sult of the second assault, Ms. Ba bb suffe red a

traumatic br ain injury-3-

wi th s e izur e s, he a da c he s, dizzi ne ss, blu rr e d v isi on , p oo r m e mory , e mot ion a l li abil ity , h e ari ng los s and dy sg raphia .”
O n Se p te mb e r 3 , 2 0 0 3 , H CB E f il e d it s mo ti o n f

o r s u mm ar y ju d g me n t a n d supporting memorandum of la w in the ca se asse rting its im munityunder the Tennesse e Gove rnmental Tort L ia bil ity Ac t arg uin g that Ms. Willia ms’ de c isi on to re -p la c e Al e x in Ms . B abb ’s c la ssr oo m w a s a discretionary

decision and that HCBE “ is imm une from suit for the neg lige nt acts of its employ ees wher e the e mploy ee is a cting acc ording to his or her de leg ated discr etion.” On Septembe r 18, 2003, HC B E f ile d a re ply in f urthe r s up po rt

of its mot ion fo r su mmary jud g me nt a sse rt ing that Ms

. Wil liams was prohibited fr om unilaterally expelling Alex bec ause she had re ason to believe that he might qualify

for pr otection under

the fe deral I n dividuals with Disabilit ies Education Act (h er ei n af t er“IDE A” ). HC BE a r g u e d t h at t h i s l aw p ro h i b i t s t h e e x p u l s i o n o f as t u d en tp en d i n g a determination as to whether the student’s beha vior was the manifestation of a disabilityand re quires th at t he s tu den t b e kep t “i n t he t hen -cur rent edu cat io nal set ti ng” du ri ng th at peri od of t im e. H CBE contende d that when Ms. Willi ams returned Alex to Ms. B abb’s classroom she mere ly exercised he r discretion within the re strictions placed upon he r under the I DEA.
I n response to HCBE’s motion for summary judgme nt, Ms. Babb arg ued that both state law and local mandates cate g orize the striking of a teac her as a zero toleranc e offe nse whi ch re q u ires expuls ion for one y ear
. There fore , Ms. Ba bb contends, Ms. Wil liams did not have discr etion to place Alex back in her c lassroom and, a ccor dingly , HCBE is liable f or her actions.
On Ma rc h 8 , 2 00 4, the tr ia l cou rt e nte re d it s me mor a nd um andjud g me nt w hic h s e ts f orth its finding that Ms. Will iams’ decision was a discre tionary decision which involved “ balanc ing the re qu i r e m e n t s o f z e r o t o l e r a n c e w i t h t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f f e d e r a l l e g i s l a t i o n
. ” B a s e d up on thi s finding , the Court determined that HCBE w as immune f rom suit unde r the Tenne ssee Gove rnmental Tort LiabilityAct. This appe al followed. The sole issue pr esente d in this appeal i s whether Ms. Wi lliams’ decision to re- place Alex in M s. B abb ’s c la ssr oo m wa s an exe rc ise of dis c re tio n for wh ic h the HC B E i s im mun e fr om l ia bil ity under the Tenne ssee Gove rnmental Tort LiabilityAct. It is our opinion that the school principal’s decision in reg ards to plac ing the student back in the cl as s ro o m was a discretionary

function, and the re fo re , the De fe nd a nt is immu ne fr om lia bil ity un de r the Te nn e sse e Go ve rn me nta l T ort Lia bil ity Ac t.
Our standa

rd of r eview is we ll s et t l ed

. Summary judgme nt proce eding s are eff icient and eff ective ve hicles for

concluding case s that can and sho u l d b e dec ided on leg al issues alone. Howe v e r , th e s e p r o c e e d in g s s h o u ldn o t s e r v e a s a s u b s ti tu te f

o r a tria l o f g e n u in e a n d mate rial fac tual matters. By rd

v . H all , 8 47 S.W. 2d20 8, 21 0- 21 1 ( Te nn . 1 99 7) ; Be lla my v . F e de ra l E x pre ss Corp. , 749 S.W .2d 31, 3 3 (T en n
. 1 9 8 8 ). Summary judgme nts should be awar ded only when the m o v i ng party

has demonstrated that there is no ge nuine issue as to any materia l fac t and that the mov ing pa

rt y is en tit le d to a judg me nt as a ma tte r of la w. Te nn . R.Civ .P. 56 .0 4; Ba in v . W e lls , 936 S.W. 2d61 8, 62 2 ( Te nn . 1 99 7) ; Carvell v. Bottoms , 900 S.W . 2d 23, 26 (Tenn. 1995)

.-4-

No pr e su mpt ion of

c or re c tne ss atta ches to the low e r c ou rt ’s jud g me nt andou r t a sk is confine d to review ing the rec ord to de termine whether the require ments of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56 have be e n me t. We mus t vie w the e vid e nc e in the lig ht mos t fa vo ra ble to the no nmo vin g pa

rt y , wh ic h in t h i s c a s e i s t h e P l a i n t i f

f, a n d m u s td r a w a l l r e a s o n ab l e i n f e r e n c e s i n f

a v o r o f t h e n o n m o v i n g p ar t y. Staples v. CBL & Associates, Inc ., 15 S.W .3d 83, 89 (Tenn. 2000)

. The Tenne ssee Governmental Tort L iability Act is e mbodied at Tenn. Code Ann. § 29- 20- 101, et seq. and provides in pertinent part as follows at Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20- 205 with respec t to the immunit y

of a g overnme nt entity

such as HCB E:
I mmunityfrom suit of all g overnme ntal entities is removed for injury proxi mately cause d by a neg lige nt a ct or omission of any employ ee w i t h i n the scope of his employ ment except if the injury arises out of: ( 1) the ex ercise or p er f o rma n ce or the failure to exerc ise or perform a discretionary function, whe th e r o r n o t t h e d is c r etion is abused; (Emphasis adde d).
I n Bowers by Bowers v. City of Chattanooga, 826 S.W .2d 427, 430-431 (Tenn. 19 9 2 ) t he Tenne ssee Supreme Court a dopted a “planning -oper ational” test as a means of determ i n i n g when the ac tion of a g overnme nt e mploy ee c onstitut es a discr etionary function under

the above statute:
Under the planning -oper ational test, dec isions that ris e to the leve l of plann ing or

po lic y -m akin g are c on s i d e r e d d isc re tio na

ry a c ts w hic h d o n ot g ive ri se to tort liabili ty , while dec isions that ar e m erely operational are not considere d d i s c r e t i o n ar y a c t s a n d , t h e r e f o r e , d o n o tg i v e r i s e t o i m m u n i t y.

... A consideration of the decision-making proce ss, a s well as the f actor s influencing a particular de cis ion, will often reve al whethe r that dec ision is t o be viewe d as planning or oper ation al

. I f a pa rticular c ourse of

conduct is dete rmined af ter consideration or debate by an individual or g roup cha rg ed with the formulation of plans or po lic ie s, it s tr on g ly

su g g e sts the re sult is a

plann ing de c isi on . T he se decisions often r esult from assessing priorities; allocating resour ces; de veloping po lic ie s; o r e sta

bli sh ing plans , s pe c if

ic a tio ns or

sc he du le s.
On the other

hand, a de cision resulting from a de terminati o n based on pr e e xistin g la ws , r e g ulatio ns , p oli c ie s, or stand ard s, us ua lly

ind ic a tes tha t it s maker is performi n g an operational act. Similarly operational arethose ad hoc decisions made by

an individual or g roup not cha rg ed with t h e development of plans or policies. The se oper ational ac ts, which often implement prior planning decisions, ar e not “discretionary functions’” within the meaning of the Te nnessee Governmental Tort Liabili t y Ac t. I n other wor ds, “the discr etionary function e xce pti on [ wi ll ] no t app ly to a c la im that g ov e rn me nta l e mpl oy e e s f a ile d to-5-

comply with reg ulations or policies desig ned to g uide t heir actions in a particular situation.” (Citations omi tted).
I n support of her

arg ument that Ms. Wi lliams lacked di s cretion to return Alex to her classroom, Ms. Babb refer ence s HCBE’ s own C ode of Acc eptable Be havior and Discipline which ident i fi es “striking a tea cher ” as a “zero tolerance of

fense ” and w hich re quires that a stude nt who co m m i t s t h i s o ff

en s e b e e x p el l ed fo r o n e y ea r. M s
. Bab b al s o ci t es T en n
. C o d e A n n
. § 4 9 -6 -3 4 0 1 (g) which provide s that “a student committing battery upon any teac her ... sha ll be expelled for a pe riod of not less than one ( 1) ca lendar y ear ... .” Ms. B abb ar g ues that g iven these state and loca l mandates Ms. Wi lliams was prese nted with an oper ational dec ision, having no c hoice but to expel Alex from school. Ms. Ba

bb contends that the trial court erre d in concluding that Ms. Wil liams was pre sented with the discretionary decision of balanc ing the require ments of the existi ng zero toleranc e policy with the require ments of the I DEA.
I n W ilson Count

y School Sy stem v. Clifton , 41 S.W .3d 645,649 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000), we reiter ated some of

the basic g oals and re quirements of the I DEA:
I n enac ting the IDEA, Cong ress intende d, int e r a lia , “to ensure t hat all childre n with disabilit ies have available to them a fre e appr o p ri ate public education that emphasizes specia l education and related servic es desig ned to me et their unique needs a nd prepa

re the m for employment and indepe ndent living.” 20 U.S.C.A. § 1400(d)( 1)(A) (West 2000). To this end, the I DEA re quires pub l i c school districts to develop a c urriculum “ta il o re d t o the unique nee ds of the [disabled] chil d by means of an ‘individualiz ed educ ational prog ram’” (IEP) Cleveland He igh ts- Un iv

. He igh ts City Sc h. Di st. v . Bos s , 144 F.3d 391, 397- 398 (6 Cir. th 1 9 9 8 ) ( q u o t i n g Board of Educ. v. Rowley , 458 U.S. 176, 181-182, 102 S. Ct . 3034, 73 L .Ed.2d 690 (1982))

.

... Th e I DE A r e qu ires pu blic sc ho ol d ist ri c ts t o e ns ur e that c hil dr e n w ith disabiliti es ar e educ ated “ to the maxi mum ex tent appropriate” w ith nondisabled children. Doe v . Board of Educ. , 9 F.3d 455, 460 ( 6 Cir. 1993), cert. de nied , 511 th U.S. 1108, 114 S.Ct

. 2104, 128 L .Ed.2d 665 (1994); 20 U.S.C.A. § 1412(a )(5) (A) (West 2000). I n this way , Congr ess has stated a “very strong ” pre fer ence for “mainstreamin g ” disabled c hildren by placing them in reg ular c lasses whe re fea sible. Doe v . Board of Educ., 9 F. 3 d at 4 6 0

. Ne v er t h el es s , t h i s “m ai n s tre am i n g” require ment is not absolute, and courts have rec og nized that mainstreaming is not require d in every

case
. Id. I nstead, the pr oper inquiry rema ins whether the proposed plac ement is appropriate under the I DEA. Id.
The IDEA de cre es, as set forth at 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(4)( 5), that bef ore a local educ ational ag ency can suspe nd a disabled c hild from school for more th an ten day s there must be a-6-

manifestation dete rmination review “by the IEP Team and other qualified personne l” to determine the re la tio ns hip be tw e e n th e c hil d’ s d isa bil ity a ndthe be ha vio r f

or wh ic h s uc h s us pe ns ionis contemp late d

. T h e b e h a v io r o f th e c h il d w il l n o t b e d e e me dto b e a man if e s tati o n o f

th e c hild’s disabilityand will subject the c h i l d to disciplinary proce dures a

pplicable to childre n without disabiliti es, only

if, inter alia, “ the c hil d’ s d is abil ity didno t im

pa ir the abil ity

of the c hil d to understand the impact and c onsequenc es of the be havior subject to disciplinary action ... and ... the child’s disabilitydid not impair the ability of the c hild to control the behavior subje ct to disciplinary action.”
Ms. Ba bb arg ues that Ms. Williams wa s not oblig ed to c onsider Alex’s rights under the I DEA beca use on De cembe r 12, 2002, the IEP Team dete rmined, as e vidence d by its report, t h at Alex “[d] oes not meet the standards for any disabiliti es.” I

n further support of this arg ument Ms. Ba bb re fe re nc e s th e I EP t e a m’ s d isc us sio n n ote s o f that date a s f oll ow s:

‘ N o S L D ’ - H e d o e s n ’ th a v e a l e ar n i n g d i s ab i l i t y.

... [T] he student has not bee n diag nosed wit h AD/HD at this poi nt. Accor ding to the BA SC rating by

mom - there a

ppear s to be no evidenc e of A D/HD.

... Tea m evaluation also re

jected A D/HD base d on test in 2000.
The De ce m b er 1 2 , 2002, repor t of the IEP team does indicate that Alex fails to meet the sta nd ard s f

or a ny dis abil iti e s a nd fo r that re a so n is not eli g ibl e fo r spe c ia l edu c a tio n. Ho we ve r, wh ile it i s c le ar f

ro m th e re po rt

a nda tta c he d d isc us sio n n ote s th a t th e te a m did not fi ndthat A le x exhib its a spec ific l earning disabilit y , the di scussion notes also evidenc e a de termination that the eva luation of Al e x s ho uld c on tin ue ba se d up on the te a m’ s c on c e rnthat A le x may oth e rw ise su ff

e r f ro m a he a lth impairment of some nature. This conc ern appea rs t o be specifically related t o the pos sibili ty that Alex may be manife sting sy mptoms of AD/HD and that f urther inve stiga t i o n i s warranted in that re s p ec t . Thus, while the tea m concludes that Alex “has not been diag nosed with AD/HD a t th is po int ” (empha sis a dded) and indicates that tests and rating s conducte d to date have not presente d evidenc e of A D/HD, it is appar ent t hat, based upon a reasonable analy sis of i ts own observations and oth e r i nf orma tio n, the te a m susp e c ts that Ale x’s be ha vio r is a ma nif e statio n o f a

he a lth imp a ir me nt, specific ally

AD/HD. Ac cording ly , the team obviously does not rea ch a final decision in the matter on Dec ember 12, 2002. Our c onclusion in this reg ard is inesca pable based upon a complete r eading of the te a m’ s d isc us sio n n ote s w hic h in the ir e nti re ty pr ov ide a s f

oll ow s:
Discussion: Alex was a

Woodmore student prior to transferr al h er e. I Q 88 low aver ag e. W J I I I was given by Tea m Eval. and the sc ore w ere compatable

. Alex
seem ed to be re stless & mobile during testing . Weakness is re ad ing - L W I Q = 88 - Word attack aver ag e. L ow P honics skills. Reading fluenc y 81 - he couldn’ t stay focused. - R ef

ert o as s es s m en tre p o rt

. Br o ad re ad i n g = 5 5

. R ea d i n g av g.-7-

Voca bulary 91. A l ex ’s attention is defini tely a factor. Br o ad m at h = 8 8 av g. B r o a d L a n g
. = 8 6 = A v g
. B r o a d L is te n in g = 8 3. A g a in it appears to be an attention problem.
“NO SL D” = He doesn’t have a lea rning disability

. His behaviors appear to be that the student could not remain seated.
Th e re is so me c on c e rn a s to wh a t hi s a c a de mic re c or ds are a t th is p oin t. T he re is no t f orm 12 a ndthe stu de nt h a s n ot b e e n d ia g no se d w ith AD /H D at th is p oin t.
Acc ording to the BA SC rating by mom - there a

ppear s to be no ev i d en ce of AD/HD. The teac hers r esponse a ppear s to be signif

icant. 74 - H

y pera c tiv ity

. R ef er t o BA SC R eport. - the 74 is high

. T e a m e v a lu a ti o n a ls o r e je c te d AD/HD based on te sting in 2000 (2 y rs. old).
* Concerns - Ron - Is this student’s medic a l co ndition/ AD/HD - Proposed AD/HD is impacting his condition.
Te am su gg e st tha t we c los e the c as e for SLD an d re -o pe n a cas e fo r He alt

h Impaired.
B e c ar e f u l t o n o tt o u c h t h i s s t u d e n t

. T h e r e i s s o m e h i s t o r y.
Julie Pe te rs wi ll su bmi t dif fe re nt ide a s a s to ho w s ta ff sh ou ld h a nd le thi s stud e nt.
Thi s stu de nt is prote c te d un de r ID EA du e the fac t th at t his student has a suspected disabili ty.
* CSAwi ll h ir e so me on e to s it w ith Al e x during sc ho ol.
Al e x h it a te a c he r o n 1 2/9 /02 a ndhe wa s su sp e nd e d f or zer o to le ranc e bu t since this student is suspe cted of hav i n g a disabili ty Mrs. B. Williams, P rincipal ha s decide d to reduc e suspension until J an 8 , 2003. th (Emphasis adde d.)
Th e la st p a g e of

the re po rt

state s:
DE SCRI PTI ON OF AC TI ON/ DEC I S I ON A ND E XP L AN AT I ON : T e am su g g e st that we close the c ase on SLD. Team will reopen a new case for He alth Impaired.
OT HE R F AC TO RS RE LEV AN T T O T H EP R O P O S E D A C T I O N : C l o s eth ec a se for SLD. Re-ope n the case for Health Impaired.-8-

(Emphasis adde d.)
Th a t po rt ion of the I DE A se t fo rth a t 20 U. S.C. § 14 01 (3 )( A) (i )( ii) de fi ne s “a c hil d with a disability ” as a

child: (i) wi t h mental re tardation, hearing impairments (including deaf ness), speec h or lang uag e impairments, vis ual impairments (including blindness), serious emotional dist u rb an ce (h er ei n af t erre fe rr ed t o as “e m o t i o n al d i s t urbanc e”) , orthope d ic im

p air me n ts, autism, traumatic brain injury , oth e r h e alt h im pa irm e nts , or spec ific lea

rning disabiliti es; and (i i) wh o, by re a so n the re of , n e e ds sp e c ia l e du c a tio n a ndre la te d s e rv ic e s. (Emphasis adde d.)
I t is clear that the manifestation dete rmination revie w under 20 USC § 1415(k) (4)( 5) had not conclude d when the I

EP issued its re port on Dec ember 12, 2002, but was still pending with a shift of foc us from one de signation under the Ac t (“spec ific lea rning disabiliti es”) t o an o t h er (“othe r he a lth imp a ir me nts ” ). Sub se c tio n ( j) of § 1 41 5 f urthe r p ro vid e s: [D] uring the pende ncy o f an y proce eding s conducte d pursuant to this section, unless the State or loca l educational ag ency and the pa

rents other wise ag ree , the c hil d sha ll re ma in in the the n- c ur re nt e du c a tio na l pl a c e me nt o f s uc h c hil d .

.. un til all such proc eeding s have be en complete d.
This so-called “ stay

put” provision of the IDEA did not allow Ms. Wil liams the o p t ion of expelling Alex from school and once this became appar ent she wa s fac ed with the dec ision of where to p la c e him

wi thi n th e sc ho ol. As to the de c isi on sh e re a c he d, in that r e g a rdMs. Willi a ms atte sts a s f oll ow s:
I n particula

r I decide d to rea ssign [ Alex] back to Ms. Babb’s c lassroom. I thought it would be difficult for the c hild to adjust t o a new classroom midway throug h the school y ear . Additionally , I believed it would be difficult for a new c lassroom and a ne w t e a c he r t o a dju st t o th is p art ic ula r b oy . U lti ma te ly , I

be lie ve d th at Ms

. Ba bb’s classr oom was the be st placeme nt [ for] this child si nce he had bee n there for the f irst semester. Moreover , with the assis tance of a teache r’s a ide, I believed we we re max im iz in g the c ha nc e s th is b oy c ou ld c on tr ol h ims e lf

a ndsu c c e e d in a re g ula r e du c a tio n e nv iornme nt.
I t is certainly

unfortunate that the Plaintiff was inj ured by a y oung student while perf orming the duties of her

profe ssion. However , the s chool principa l was re quired to bala nce the interests of the zer o to le ranc e po lic y

ve rs us the ne e d to comply wi th fe de ra l law

. Th is d e c isi on wa s a dif fi c ult one, and by

nece ssityrequire d the use of disc retion on the pa rt of the school principal. The ref ore,-9-

un de r the c ir c ums ta nc e s p re se nte d inthi s c a se , M s. Willi a ms’ de c isi on to re-p lac e Ale x in Ms

. Ba bb’s classr oom was cle arly a discre tionary

decision for

which HCB E is not subject to liabili ty

. F orthe f

o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e tr i a l c o u r t i s a f f i r m e d a n d t h e c a u se is rema nded for

collection of c osts below. Costs of appeal a re adjudg ed ag ainst Michaela Ba bb and h e r s u r e t y.

____________________________ S HA RO N G. L EE , J UDGE