Parent/Professional Advocacy League v. City of Springfield
934 F.3d 13
| 1st Cir. | 2019Background
- Plaintiff S.S., joined by advocacy organizations PPAL and DLC, sued the City of Springfield and Springfield Public Schools under Title II of the ADA alleging unnecessary segregation and inferior services at the Springfield Public Day School (SPDS) and seeking injunctive relief to provide school-based behavior services (SBBS) in neighborhood schools.
- S.S. had pursued IDEA procedures (BSEA) before filing; BSEA dismissed classwide ADA claims and found S.S.’s IEP provided a FAPE.
- The district court denied class certification, reasoning unnamed class members had not exhausted IDEA remedies and that Rule 23(a) commonality was lacking.
- The district court later granted judgment on the pleadings dismissing PPAL and DLC’s claims after concluding they were subject to IDEA exhaustion (despite initially finding the organizations had standing).
- On appeal, the First Circuit (1) applied Fry to hold the complaint seeks relief “also available” under the IDEA and therefore is generally subject to IDEA exhaustion; (2) affirmed denial of class certification for lack of commonality and because exhaustion by a single representative was insufficient here; and (3) held PPAL and DLC lack prudential associational standing to litigate these broad claims on behalf of numerous constituents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fry/§1415(l) requires IDEA exhaustion for these ADA claims | Fry does not apply; claims are Olmstead-style discrimination not seeking relief available under IDEA | Complaint contests adequacy of special-education services and placement; Fry requires exhaustion when gravamen concerns denial of a FAPE | Held: Fry applies — complaint seeks relief available under IDEA; exhaustion required (absent futility exception not shown) |
| Whether systemic-futility exception to exhaustion applies | Case alleges systemic failures; exhaustion would be futile | Plaintiffs’ allegations are not of a uniform, systemwide policy threatening IDEA’s goals | Held: No systemic exception — plaintiffs did not plead the kind of uniform, high-level policy or systemwide failure needed to excuse exhaustion |
| Whether a class may be certified despite differing exhaustion statuses | Only the class representative need exhaust; class-wide relief appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2) | Many individualized determinations required; lack of a common policy or uniform practice defeats commonality | Held: Denied certification — Rule 23(a)(2) commonality fails because no common policy/practice or common answers; single representative’s exhaustion insufficient here |
| Whether PPAL and DLC have associational standing to sue for constituents | Organizations may represent constituents and Congress empowered P&A (PAIMI) to litigate for individuals | Suits implicate prudential limits and require individualized participation/exhaustion; PAIMI does not abrogate prudential concerns for this kind of systemic, large-scale suit | Held: Organizations lack prudential associational standing to pursue these broad claims on behalf of numerous unexhausted constituents; judgment for defendants affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999) (ADA prohibits unjustified segregation of persons with mental disabilities)
- Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Schs., 137 S. Ct. 743 (2017) (IDEA exhaustion required when gravamen of complaint seeks relief also available under the IDEA)
- Endrew F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. RE–1, 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017) (FAPE requires an IEP reasonably calculated to enable appropriate progress)
- Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992 (1984) (IDEA initially construed to preclude other statutory claims; later addressed by Congress adding exhaustion provision)
- Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (commonality requires a common question capable of classwide resolution producing common answers)
- United Airlines, Inc. v. McDonald, 432 U.S. 385 (1977) (member of putative class may intervene to appeal denial of class certification)
- García‑Rubiera v. Calderón, 570 F.3d 443 (1st Cir. 2009) (standard of review for class-certification denials)