Student's Expulsion Upheld After Threats to Librarian Found Unrelated to Reading Disability

A 17-year-old student with a Specific Learning Disability (mild reading disorder) was expelled from Lincoln High School after threatening a librarian with physical violence. His parents challenged the expulsion, arguing his conduct was a manifestation of his disability and that the district failed to implement his IEP. The ALJ ruled in the district's favor, finding no direct and substantial relationship between the student's reading disability and his threatening behavior.

What Happened

A 17-year-old student eligible for special education under the category of Specific Learning Disability (a mild reading disorder caused by a deficit in phonemic awareness) was expelled from Lincoln High School after a serious incident on May 23, 2011. The incident began when a school librarian gestured for the student to remove his earbuds in accordance with posted library rules. The student immediately erupted into a loud, profanity-laced tirade, refused to show his ID, threw a book, and ultimately threatened the librarian directly: "I'm going to beat the fuck outta you." He later told a campus supervisor he had walked away to keep from "knocking him out." The student had an extensive disciplinary history spanning years, including multiple physical fights, threats of violence, and defiance of authority figures.

The student's family challenged the expulsion through a due process hearing, arguing that the district's manifestation determination was wrong in two ways: (1) the student's conduct was caused by or directly related to his disability, and (2) the incident was the direct result of the district's failure to implement his IEP, because the librarian had never been given a copy of the student's Behavioral Support Plan (BSP). The family also raised the possibility that the student suffered from Emotional Disturbance (ED) and undiagnosed depression, which they argued should have been recognized as an additional disability. The district defended its manifestation determination and its expulsion decision.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in favor of the district. Here are the key findings:

No link between reading disability and threatening behavior. The student's only qualifying disability was a mild reading disorder. Nothing about the library incident involved reading or phonemic processing. The librarian used clear gestures and simple verbal directions that required no reading whatsoever. The student understood every instruction — he simply chose to defy them. The ALJ found no direct and substantial relationship between the student's SLD and his conduct.
A BSP describing behavior does not make that behavior a disability manifestation. The student's BSP accurately predicted that he would respond to redirection with obscenities and physical threats. But the ALJ emphasized that the MDIEP team correctly focused on whether the conduct was related to the student's disability — not whether it was consistent with his BSP. Those are two different questions. A student can have a BSP addressing behavioral patterns that are conduct-based rather than disability-driven.
The student was not eligible under Emotional Disturbance. The student had been assessed five times across five years by three different school districts, an independent evaluator (Dr. Brock), and a county mental health intern. Not one assessment found the student eligible for ED. Multiple evaluators concluded his behaviors resembled conduct disorder — which is a legal "rule-out" for ED eligibility. A recent depression diagnosis was considered but found insufficient to change this conclusion, especially without a psychiatrist's report and given that the student had always demonstrated the capacity to understand and follow directions when he chose to.
The librarian did not fail to implement the IEP. The district's policy of providing IEPs only to staff who regularly work with a special education student was found to be rational and legally sound. The librarian — who had never previously encountered this student — was not required to have memorized the student's BSP. Remarkably, despite not having read the BSP, the librarian's instinctive de-escalation efforts (calm voice, maintaining distance, offering the student a face-saving "do-over") actually aligned with the BSP's prescribed interventions. The situation escalated so rapidly — the entire encounter lasted under five minutes — that no further intervention was realistically possible.
Even a staff member who had read the IEP could not intervene. The student's educational assistant, who was present and knew the BSP, chose not to intervene because she feared for her own safety. This further undercut the claim that IEP implementation failures caused the incident.

What Was Ordered

The student's request for relief from the manifestation determination was denied in its entirety.
The expulsion — through the end of the 2011–2012 school year — was allowed to stand.
No compensatory education, placement changes, or other remedies were ordered.
The district's temporary restraining order preventing the student from entering any Lincoln campus was noted as well-supported by the record.

Why This Matters for Parents

A BSP is not the same as a disability. If your child has a Behavioral Support Plan, that plan documents behavioral patterns — but it does not automatically mean every behavior described in the plan is caused by your child's disability. The manifestation determination focuses on whether there is a direct and substantial link between the specific conduct and the specific qualifying disability. Parents should understand this distinction before challenging a manifestation determination.
The disability category matters enormously. This student had a reading disorder. His explosive aggression had no connection to reading. If the qualifying disability had been Emotional Disturbance, the outcome might have been very different. If you believe your child's behavioral difficulties reflect a separate disability like ED, advocate vigorously for a comprehensive assessment before a serious incident occurs — not after.
Document everything about your child's disability and how it affects behavior. The family's last-minute arguments about depression and possible ED were not supported by formal diagnostic evidence. Had a psychiatrist's report or a formal ED evaluation been obtained earlier, the family would have been in a much stronger position. Proactive, documented assessment is far more powerful than arguments made at a hearing.
Not all school staff need a copy of your child's IEP — but key staff should. Districts have legitimate reasons not to distribute IEPs to every employee. However, parents can and should advocate at IEP meetings for specific staff members who regularly interact with their child to receive training or a summary of key accommodations and behavioral strategies. Ask the IEP team to identify which staff will be informed of your child's needs and how.
Speed of escalation matters in implementation failure claims. Courts and ALJs look at whether there was a realistic opportunity to apply IEP strategies before the conduct occurred. If an incident unfolds in seconds or minutes, it becomes very difficult to show that the absence of a specific IEP intervention caused the behavior. This case is a reminder that behavioral de-escalation strategies are most effective — and most legally relevant — when implemented proactively and consistently, not just during a crisis.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in favor of the district. Here are the key findings:

No link between reading disability and threatening behavior. The student's only qualifying disability was a mild reading disorder. Nothing about the library incident involved reading or phonemic processing. The librarian used clear gestures and simple verbal directions that required no reading whatsoever. The student understood every instruction — he simply chose to defy them. The ALJ found no direct and substantial relationship between the student's SLD and his conduct.
A BSP describing behavior does not make that behavior a disability manifestation. The student's BSP accurately predicted that he would respond to redirection with obscenities and physical threats. But the ALJ emphasized that the MDIEP team correctly focused on whether the conduct was related to the student's disability — not whether it was consistent with his BSP. Those are two different questions. A student can have a BSP addressing behavioral patterns that are conduct-based rather than disability-driven.
The student was not eligible under Emotional Disturbance. The student had been assessed five times across five years by three different school districts, an independent evaluator (Dr. Brock), and a county mental health intern. Not one assessment found the student eligible for ED. Multiple evaluators concluded his behaviors resembled conduct disorder — which is a legal "rule-out" for ED eligibility. A recent depression diagnosis was considered but found insufficient to change this conclusion, especially without a psychiatrist's report and given that the student had always demonstrated the capacity to understand and follow directions when he chose to.
The librarian did not fail to implement the IEP. The district's policy of providing IEPs only to staff who regularly work with a special education student was found to be rational and legally sound. The librarian — who had never previously encountered this student — was not required to have memorized the student's BSP. Remarkably, despite not having read the BSP, the librarian's instinctive de-escalation efforts (calm voice, maintaining distance, offering the student a face-saving "do-over") actually aligned with the BSP's prescribed interventions. The situation escalated so rapidly — the entire encounter lasted under five minutes — that no further intervention was realistically possible.
Even a staff member who had read the IEP could not intervene. The student's educational assistant, who was present and knew the BSP, chose not to intervene because she feared for her own safety. This further undercut the claim that IEP implementation failures caused the incident.

What Was Ordered

The student's request for relief from the manifestation determination was denied in its entirety.
The expulsion — through the end of the 2011–2012 school year — was allowed to stand.
No compensatory education, placement changes, or other remedies were ordered.
The district's temporary restraining order preventing the student from entering any Lincoln campus was noted as well-supported by the record.

Why This Matters for Parents

A BSP is not the same as a disability. If your child has a Behavioral Support Plan, that plan documents behavioral patterns — but it does not automatically mean every behavior described in the plan is caused by your child's disability. The manifestation determination focuses on whether there is a direct and substantial link between the specific conduct and the specific qualifying disability. Parents should understand this distinction before challenging a manifestation determination.
The disability category matters enormously. This student had a reading disorder. His explosive aggression had no connection to reading. If the qualifying disability had been Emotional Disturbance, the outcome might have been very different. If you believe your child's behavioral difficulties reflect a separate disability like ED, advocate vigorously for a comprehensive assessment before a serious incident occurs — not after.
Document everything about your child's disability and how it affects behavior. The family's last-minute arguments about depression and possible ED were not supported by formal diagnostic evidence. Had a psychiatrist's report or a formal ED evaluation been obtained earlier, the family would have been in a much stronger position. Proactive, documented assessment is far more powerful than arguments made at a hearing.
Not all school staff need a copy of your child's IEP — but key staff should. Districts have legitimate reasons not to distribute IEPs to every employee. However, parents can and should advocate at IEP meetings for specific staff members who regularly interact with their child to receive training or a summary of key accommodations and behavioral strategies. Ask the IEP team to identify which staff will be informed of your child's needs and how.
Speed of escalation matters in implementation failure claims. Courts and ALJs look at whether there was a realistic opportunity to apply IEP strategies before the conduct occurred. If an incident unfolds in seconds or minutes, it becomes very difficult to show that the absence of a specific IEP intervention caused the behavior. This case is a reminder that behavioral de-escalation strategies are most effective — and most legally relevant — when implemented proactively and consistently, not just during a crisis.