Jamie S. v. Milwaukee Public Schools
668 F.3d 481
7th Cir.2012Background
- Under IDEA, states must identify, evaluate, and provide FAPE via IEPs for all resident disabled children; Wisconsin tracks IDEA and enforces via DPI § 115.90.
- In 2001 seven Milwaukee students sued MPS and DPI alleging widespread IDEA violations; district court certified a narrower class focusing on pre-IEP-entry denial/delay claims.
- Liability trial (Phase II) found MPS and DPI liable for systemic child-find violations occurring 2000–2005; expert Dr. Rogers-Adkinson relied on qualitative patterns from 200 files.
- DPI settled with the class, prompting a court-ordered remedial scheme; a hybrid IEP process and court-monitored compensatory education were authorized with significant projected costs.
- Remedial order created an independent monitor, class notices, and substantial individualized evaluations/remedies; MPS opposed but court approved; DPI settlement approved over MPS objection.
- Appeals focused on jurisdiction, class certification, liability, and DPI settlement; the Seventh Circuit vacated the class certification and related orders, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review orders | MPS argues appellate jurisdiction under 1292(a)(1) over remedial order; plaintiffs seek review of certification denial and August 19 orders. | Plaintiffs cannot review non-final or non-injunctive orders; DPI settlement intertwined with final relief. | Remedial order appeal proper; other interlocutory orders reviewable via pendent jurisdiction; disallow cross-appeal maneuvers. |
| Class certification standard under Rule 23 | Class should cover all Milwaukee disabled students with IDEA violations; pre/post-determination distinction excuses exhaustion for pre-determination claims. | Class definition is fatally indefinite and lacks commonality; exhaustion exception cannot manufacture a class-wide suit for individualized claims. | Class certification vacated; claims cannot be litigated on a class-wide basis under Rule 23(a)-(b). |
| Commonality and predominance under Rule 23 | Systemic child-find failures affect class members uniformly; common questions predominate. | Child-find inquiries are inherently child-specific; no common policy or practice tying all claims together. | Commonality and predominance lacking; class failed Rule 23 requirements. |
| DPI settlement authority and standing | Settlement binding DPI to mandate actions on MPS is permissible if authorized by statute. | DPI cannot unilaterally impose remedies on a nonparty district; settlement prejudices MPS’s rights and exceeds statutory authority. | Settlement vacated; DPI lacked unilateral authority to bind MPS; due process concerns and class inexistence require vacatur. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (Supreme Court, 2011) (commonality and class-wide relief require a common question capable of class-wide resolution)
- Doe ex rel. Brockhuis v. Ariz. Dep’t of Educ., 111 F.3d 678 (9th Cir. 1997) (systemic IDEA violations; informing exhaustion analysis)
- Adashunas v. Negley, 626 F.2d 600 (7th Cir. 1980) (indefiniteness and ascertainability problems in broad class definitions)
- Rochford v. End Rev. v. Rochford, 565 F.2d 975 (7th Cir. 1977) (class must be sufficiently definite; caution against open-ended certification)
- Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (Supreme Court, 1997) (settlement-class requirements; cohesion and Rule 23 standards)