Parent/Professional Advocacy League v. City of Springfield

• Decision Date: 08 August 2019
• Docket Number: 18-1813,18-1976,Nos. 18-1778,18-1867,s. 18-1778
• Citation: 934 F.3d 13
• Parties: The PARENT/PROFESSIONAL ADVOCACY LEAGUE; Disability Law Center, Inc.; M.W., a minor, by his temporary guardian, F.D., on behalf of himself and other similarly situated students, Plaintiffs, Appellants/Cross-Appellees, S.S., a minor, by his mother, S.Y., on behalf of himself and other similarly situated students, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS; Springfield Public Schools, Defendants, Appellees/Cross-Appellants, Domenic Sarno, in his official capacity as Mayor of City of Springfield; Superintendent Daniel J. Warwick, in his official capacity as Superintendent of Springfield Public Schools, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

934 F.3d 13

The PARENT/PROFESSIONAL ADVOCACY LEAGUE; Disability Law Center, Inc.; M.W., a minor, by his temporary guardian, F.D., on behalf of himself and other similarly situated students, Plaintiffs, Appellants/Cross-Appellees,

S.S., a minor, by his mother, S.Y., on behalf of himself and other similarly situated students, Plaintiff,

v.CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS; Springfield Public Schools, Defendants, Appellees/Cross-Appellants,Domenic Sarno, in his official capacity as Mayor of City of Springfield; Superintendent Daniel J. Warwick, in his official capacity as Superintendent of Springfield Public Schools, Defendants.

Nos. 18-1778

18-1813

18-1867

18-1976

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

August 8, 2019

Jeff Goldman, with whom Robert E. McDonnell, Boston, MA, Michael D. Blanchard, Hartford, CT, Elizabeth Bresnahan, Matthew T. Bohenek, Boston, MA, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Alison Barkoff, Deborah A. Dorfman, Sandra J. Staub, Amherst, MA, Center for Public Representation, Ira Burnim, Washington, DC, Jennifer Mathis, San Francisco, CA, and Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Washington, DC, were on brief, for appellants/cross-appellees.

Aaron M. Panner, Matthew M. Duffy, and Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C., Washington, DC, on brief for Former U.S. Department of Education Officials, Massachusetts Advocates for Children, Massachusetts Association for Mental Health, and Mental Health America, amici curiae.

Howard Schiffman, Thomas P. DeFranco, Washington, DC, and Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP on brief for National Disability Rights Network, American Association of People with Disabilities, and National Council on Independent Living, amici curiae.

Stephen L. Holstrom, and Lisa C. deSousa, Springfield, MA, with whom Edward M. Pikula, City of Springfield Law Department, Melinda M. Phelps, Springfield, MA, and Bulkley, Richardson & Gelinas LLP were on brief, for appellees/cross-appellants.

Before Torruella, Lynch, and Kayatta, Circuit Judges.

LYNCH, Circuit Judge.

These consolidated appeals raise significant questions about the overlap between Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 – 12134, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., about class certification in special education litigation, and about organizations’ standing to sue on behalf of certain constituents.

The underlying suit alleges that the City of Springfield, Massachusetts, and Springfield Public Schools (SPS) violated Title II of the ADA by unnecessarily segregating students with mental health disabilities in a separate and inferior school, the Springfield Public Day School (SPDS). S.S., then an SPDS student, brought the suit on his own behalf and on behalf of a class of all students with a mental health disability who are or have been enrolled at SPDS. Two associations, the Parent/Professional Advocacy League (PPAL) and Disability Law Center (DLC), joined S.S. as plaintiffs. They seek injunctive and declaratory relief, including an order that defendants provide the class plaintiffs with "school-based behavior services in neighborhood schools to afford them an equal educational opportunity and enable them to be educated in neighborhood schools."

The district court denied class certification. S.S. by S.Y. v. City of Springfield (S.S. II ), 318 F.R.D. 210, 224 (D. Mass. 2016). It later ruled that the associations had standing but granted the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the associations. S.S. by S.Y. v. City of Springfield (S.S. III ), 332 F. Supp. 3d 367, 379 (D. Mass 2018).

The plaintiffs’ consolidated appeal challenges the district court’s rulings that this suit was subject to the IDEA’s exhaustion requirement and that the proposed class did not satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) ’s requirements for certification. After briefly addressing a threshold issue related to the grant of a motion to intervene, we reject plaintiffs’ arguments that the district court erred as to class certification. The defendants’ appeal argues that the district court erred in concluding that PPAL and DLC had standing. We agree that these organizations lack standing to pursue the claims in the complaint, and we affirm the district court’s grant of judgment on the pleadings as to PPAL and DLC on that ground.

I.

To begin, we give background on the ADA and IDEA. We next turn to this suit’s history.

A. The ADA

Title II of the ADA states that "no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity." 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Title II’s regulations generally require a public entity to make "reasonable modifications" to its "policies, practices, or procedures" when necessary to avoid violations of Title II. 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7)(i).

Title II, as implemented by regulation, prohibits two types of discrimination relevant here. First, regulations implementing Title II prohibit inequality in services, programs, or activities provided by public entities. Public entities may not "[a]fford a qualified individual with a disability an opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit or service that is not equal to that afforded others" or "[p]rovide a qualified individual with a disability with an aid, benefit or service that is not as effective in affording equal opportunity to obtain the same result, to gain the same benefit, or to reach the same level of achievement as that provided to others." Id. § 35.130(b)(1)(ii)-(iii).

Second, the regulations require public entities to "administer services, programs, and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities." Id. § 35.130(d). "The most integrated setting" is defined as a setting that "enables individuals with disabilities to interact with nondisabled persons to the fullest extent possible." Id. pt. 35, app. B.

Interpreting Title II and the integration and reasonable modification regulations, the Supreme Court held in Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581, 119 S.Ct. 2176, 144 L.Ed.2d 540 (1999), that the ADA prohibits the unjustified institutionalization of people with mental disabilities

. Id. at 600, 119 S.Ct. 2176. The Court concluded that public entities must provide "community-based [services] for persons with mental disabilities," when "the affected persons do not oppose such" services, and the community placement "can be reasonably accommodated." Id. at 607, 119 S.Ct. 2176. Cases like this one challenging the separation of individuals with disabilities under the ADA are often called Olmstead cases.

B. The IDEA

The IDEA provides federal funds to assist states in educating children with disabilities "and conditions such funding upon a State’s compliance with extensive goals and procedures." Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Murphy, 548 U.S. 291, 295-96, 126 S.Ct. 2455, 165 L.Ed.2d 526 (2006) (quoting Bd. of Ed. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 179, 102 S.Ct. 3034, 73 L.Ed.2d 690 (1982) ). These conditions include the commitment to furnish a "[f]ree appropriate public education" (FAPE), 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1), and to do so in the "[l]east restrictive environment" (LRE), id. § 1412(a)(5).

As defined in the IDEA, a FAPE encompasses both "special education and related services." Id. § 1401(9). "Special education" is "specially designed instruction." Id. § 1401(29). "Related services" are the support services -- including "psychological" and "counseling services" -- "required to assist a child to benefit from" that instruction. Id. § 1401(26)(A). A state must also provide special education and related services "in conformity with the [child’s] individualized education program," or IEP. Id. § 1401(9)(D).

IEPs are "comprehensive plan[s]" developed by the child’s teachers, school officials, and parents. Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S. Ct. 988, 994, 197 L.Ed.2d 335 (2017). The IDEA requires that every IEP document the child’s "present levels of academic achievement," identify "measurable annual goals," and outline the "special education and related services" to be given so that the child can "advance appropriately toward [those] goals." 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(I), (IV).

Finally, every IEP must specify "the extent, if any, to which the child will not participate with nondisabled children in the regular class." Id. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(V). This requirement reflects the state’s obligation to educate children in the LRE, which the IDEA defines as:

(5) Least restrictive environment

(A) In general

To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities ... are educated with children who are not disabled, and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.

Id. § 1412(a)(5)(A).

The IDEA also details procedures for resolving disputes between parents and schools about the content of an IEP. Parents may file a complaint with the appropriate local or state educational agency, id. § 1415(b)(6), spurring a "[p]reliminary meeting," id. § 1415(f)(1)(B)(i), which, if unsuccessful in resolving the dispute, leads to a mediation process, id. § 1415(e), and then ultimately to a formal "due process hearing," id. § 1415(f)(1)(A).

Hearing officers can grant substantive relief, such as reimbursement for private school tuition or an order that a school district must offer the student an appropriate educational program. See Sch. Comm. of Burlington v. Dep’t of Educ. of Mass., 471 U.S. 359, 370, 105 S.Ct. 1996, 85 L.Ed.2d 385 (1985) (discussing both...