G.T. v. The Board of Education of the County of Kanawha, 117 F.4th 193

Background

Plaintiffs G.T. and K.M., students receiving special education in Kanawha County, sued the Board of Education on behalf of a class alleging systemic failure to provide effective behavioral supports, causing unjustified disciplinary removals and IDEA/ADA/§504 violations.
The district court certified a Rule 23(b)(2) class defined as "all Kanawha County Schools students with disabilities who need behavior supports and have experienced disciplinary removals from any classroom."
Plaintiffs relied on expert review of student records and suspension-rate disparities to argue a cohesive pattern of failures (identification, development/implementation of behavior supports, monitoring, training) affecting the class.
The Board petitioned under Rule 23(f); the Fourth Circuit reviewed whether Rule 23(a)(2) commonality was satisfied and whether the record showed a uniform policy or well-defined practice driving alleged violations.
The Fourth Circuit (majority) reversed class certification, holding plaintiffs failed to identify a common contention (a uniformly applied policy or well-defined practice) apt to resolve all class members’ claims in one stroke; Judge Wynn dissented in part, arguing injunctive, risk-of-harm theory and remand for standing findings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Rule 23(a)(2) commonality — whether the proposed class presents common questions apt to drive resolution	The Board’s systemic failures (identification, implementation, monitoring, training) create common questions and a cohesive pattern affecting all class members	No single uniform policy or consistent practice ties the individual IDEA determinations together; claims are individualized	Held: Commonality not satisfied. Plaintiffs failed to identify a uniform policy or well-defined practice that would produce common answers for all class members.
2. Sufficiency of expert-identified pattern (record review / suspension disparities) to supply common "glue"	Expert evidence showing recurring deficiencies and disproportionate suspensions demonstrates a systemic, classwide problem	Pattern of individualized failings cannot substitute for a uniform driver; Wal‑Mart requires a common contention that resolves liability for all members	Held: Expert-identified patterns insufficient; reliance on disparate individualized deficiencies does not meet Wal‑Mart commonality standard.
3. Timeliness/forfeiture and merits of arguing IDEA requires districtwide policies (new appellate theory)	Even if first raised on appeal, plaintiffs say IDEA requires the Board to enact policies on identification, implementation, monitoring, and training; failure to enact those policies is itself a common IDEA violation	Plaintiffs forfeited the new framing; and even if considered, merely alleging absent policies raises only superficial common questions that do not resolve individualized harms	Held: Court declined to consider the new argument as raised for first time; alternatively, ruled it would not cure commonality because different policy failures produce different individual harms.
4. Injunctive/risk-of-harm theory and standing — can plaintiffs seek classwide preventative relief based on risk that IDEA rights will be denied?	Plaintiffs (and dissent) argue injunctive relief may target systemic policy failures that place all class members at substantial risk of future FAPE denials; such a risk-of-harm theory can supply commonality and classwide relief; remand needed to decide standing	Majority treats IDEA relief as remedial for past FAPE denials and emphasizes individualized past-harm inquiry; standing for each asserted policy-based risk must be shown	Held: Majority did not accept risk-of-harm theory as resolving commonality here and reversed certification; dissent would permit class theory but would remand for district court findings on plaintiffs’ standing for each policy claim.

Key Cases Cited

Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (commonality requires a common contention capable of resolving central issues for all class members in one stroke)
Jamie S. v. Milwaukee Pub. Schs., 668 F.3d 481 (7th Cir. 2012) (IDEA class failed commonality absent proof of districtwide policy driving violations)
DL v. District of Columbia, 713 F.3d 120 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (vacating IDEA class certification where no single uniform policy bridged diverse claims)
Parent/Professional Advoc. League v. City of Springfield, 934 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2019) (plaintiffs must identify a uniform policy or well‑defined practice as the common driver)
Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist. RE‑1, 580 U.S. 386 (2017) (FAPE standard: educational program reasonably calculated to enable progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances)
Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds, 568 U.S. 455 (2013) (courts may consider merits questions only insofar as they bear on Rule 23 prerequisites)
EQT Prod. Co. v. Adair, 764 F.3d 347 (4th Cir. 2014) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard; courts must faithfully apply Rule 23 requirements)
TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 33 (2021) (risk‑of‑harm standing discussion cited by dissent concerning Article III standing for injunctive relief)