CG v. Pennsylvania Department of Education
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22426
| 3rd Cir. | 2013Background
- Plaintiffs are a class of disabled Pennsylvania students challenging the state’s special education funding formula under IDEA, ADA, and RA.
- District Court bench trial found the funding formula did not deprive a FAPE and did not discriminate under the ADA or RA.
- The class is defined as districts with 17%+ disabled students and a market-value/personal-income ratio of .65+ (the “class districts”).
- Evidence showed class districts receive less funding per disabled student than nonclass districts and suggested worse educational outcomes in class districts, but key links to denial of FAPE or disability-based discrimination were not proven.
- District Court found no witness showed any student’s IEP was impaired by funding or that any FAPE denial resulted from the funding formula; any issues were attributed to program components or existing procedures, not funding.
- Appellate review is plenary for legal conclusions and de novo with facts accepted as true since no factual challenges were raised.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ADA/RA claims survive when IDEA-compliance does not prove a FAPE denial. | Kirkpatrick argues funding disparities violate ADA/RA despite no IDEA FAPE denial. | Kerr argues lack of evidence tying funding to ADA/RA discrimination; disparities do not equal denial of meaningful access. | ADA/RA claims fail; disparities do not prove disability-based denial of meaningful access. |
| What causation standard governs ADA/RA claims in this context (but-for vs sole cause). | Plaintiffs contend disparities affect disabled students and thus are discriminatory. | Defendants require a causal link showing disability-driven differential treatment in access to benefits. | Disparities alone insufficient without showing disability-based differential treatment in access to a program or benefit. |
| Whether the 16% eligibility assumption and resulting funding disparity violate ADA/RA. | Disparities stem from the funding formula using disability concentration as a metric. | Disparity does not automatically translate to meaningful access being denied; no evidence of deprivation of a service. | No ADA/RA violation shown; funding formula did not deprive class members of a program/benefit available to nonclass students. |
| Whether compliance with IDEA immunizes defendants from ADA/RA liability. | IDEA does not immunize against ADA/RA claims; remedies are separate. | IDEA compliance does not preclude ADA/RA liability. | IDEA compliance does not immunize; ADA/RA claims require independent showing of discrimination or lack of meaningful access. |
Key Cases Cited
- W.B. v. Matula, 67 F.3d 484 (3d Cir. 1995) (IDEA remedy does not immunize from ADA/RA challenges; FAPE exists within broader rights)
- Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (1985) (disparate impact not automatically dispositive; must provide meaningful access to benefits)
- Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581 (1999) (discrimination includes policies with differential effects; meaningful access standard applies)
- New Directions Treatment Servs. v. City of Reading, 490 F.3d 293 (3d Cir. 2007) (disability discrimination standard; but require meaningful access, not mere disparate impact)
- D.K. v. Abington Sch. Dist., 696 F.3d 233 (3d Cir. 2012) (illustrates IDEA-RA interplay and reasonable accommodations can satisfy RA)