46 F. Supp. 3d 455
D. Del.2014Background
- Delaware closed Reach Academy for Girls, the state's only public all-girls school, by not renewing its charter in November 2013.
- Reach and students sued DOE and Secretary Murphy alleging equal protection, Title IX, due process, and state-law claims under 14 Del. C. §§ 506 and 514A.
- Delaware amended charter laws in 2008 to permit single-sex charters with a sunset for new applications, later modified in 2013; Reach was approved in 2009 and faced probation in 2011 before improvement in 2012-2013.
- Reach’s DCAS scores in 2013 placed it in the lowest rating category, prompting renewal concerns and CSAC recommendations against renewal.
- A July 2013 statutory/Dept. process changes shortened Reach’s renewal preparation time and altered renewal reporting timelines, affecting its procedures.
- The court granted in part Reach’s preliminary injunction to extend Reach’s charter for one school year pending resolution of the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of Reach to sue | Reach (as charter holder/sponsor) has standing against the state. | Delaware law treats charter schools as equivalent to public school districts with no standing distinction. | Reach lacks standing; claims must be dismissed. |
| Discrimination claims viability (Equal Protection and Title IX) | Sunsetting 506(a)(3) and sole all-girls closure discriminate against Delaware girls, violating Equal Protection and Title IX. | Single-sex options can exist if education is substantially equal; no per se violation for a single-gender school. | Claims are likely to succeed for Individual Plaintiffs; segregation benefits justify heightened scrutiny and potential liability. |
| Procedural due process and state-law renewal procedures | Defendants failed to provide adequate notice/assistance under 14 Del. C. § 506 and § 514A and due process protections. | Section 1983 due process does not guarantee that state procedures be perfect; adequate notice given. | Procedural due process and related state-law claims are dismissed. |
| Timeliness/viability of §506 and §514A claims | Defendants violated statutory duties by timing renewal guidance and assistance. | Certain timing provisions post-date relevant events and are not retroactive to Reach’s renewal year. | Count VIII (timing/assistance claims) dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996) (stricter scrutiny for gender-based classifications; important for equal protection analysis)
- Williams v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 289 U.S. 36 (1933) (standing and municipal entities as political subdivisions)
- Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939) (governmental status of municipal entities and standing principles)
- Pocono Mountain Charter School v. Pocono Mountain Sch. Dist, 908 F. Supp. 2d 597 (M.D. Pa. 2012) (charter schools as political subdivisions; standing against the state)
- Project Reflect, Inc. v. Metro. Nashville Bd. of Pub. Educ., 947 F. Supp. 2d 868 (M.D. Tenn. 2013) (sponsor vs. school distinction affects standing in Tennessee context)
- Robb v. City of Philadelphia, 733 F.2d 286 (3d Cir. 1984) (two-stage due process inquiry for § 1983 claims)
- Mullen v. Thompson, 31 F. App’x 77 (3d Cir. 2002) (due process rights hinge on state-law created property interests)
- Punnett v. Carter, 621 F.2d 578 (3d Cir. 1980) (standard for evaluating mandatory preliminary injunctions)
- Hart Intercivic, Inc. v. Diebold, Inc., 2009 WL 3245466 (D. Del. 2009) (context for evaluating status-quo in preliminary injunctions)