United States v. State of Georgia
461 F.Supp.3d 1315
N.D. Ga.2020Background
- The United States sued the State of Georgia under Title II of the ADA, alleging that the Georgia Network for Educational and Therapeutic Support (GNETS) needlessly segregates thousands of students with behavior-related disabilities.
- GNETS is a statewide, 24-region program funded and regulated by the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) but implemented through local school districts and IEP teams; many students attend regional, self-contained GNETS centers or segregated GNETS classrooms.
- The Complaint alleges GaDOE plans, funds, licenses, monitors, and establishes eligibility and placement rules for GNETS and that state agencies administer Medicaid/EPSDT and behavioral-health services used by GNETS students.
- The case was initially stayed pending Eleventh Circuit review of DOJ standing; the Eleventh Circuit held the United States has standing (United States v. Florida), the stay was lifted, and Georgia renewed a motion to dismiss.
- The State moved to dismiss arguing (inter alia) that the State does not “administer” GNETS for Title II purposes, the Complaint fails to plead unlawful segregation, IDEA exhaustion bars the suit, the requested relief is an impermissible “obey-the-law” injunction, and the DOJ lacks standing. The court denied the motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State "administers" GNETS for Title II liability | GaDOE plans, funds, licenses, sets eligibility, monitors, and oversees GNETS statewide, so the State administers the program | Local districts run day-to-day operations and placements, so the State is merely a funder/overseer and not the administering entity | Complaint plausibly alleges the State administers GNETS; cannot dismiss on this ground |
| Whether Complaint alleges actionable segregation/discrimination under Title II integration mandate | GNETS places students in segregated centers/classrooms who could be served in general education; expert findings support that integration is appropriate | Plaintiff fails to allege unjustified isolation or other cognizable discrimination | Allegations (and investigative Letter of Findings) are sufficient at pleading stage to state an integration claim |
| Whether Olmstead requires a state treating-professional determination or proof that individuals oppose relocation | Plaintiff may rely on various evidence showing students can be served in integrated settings; Olmstead does not require a prior state professional determination or proof individuals oppose transfer to state a claim | Olmstead requires state professionals to determine community placement and requires proof that individuals do not oppose transfer | Court rejects the narrow Olmstead reading urged by State; such prerequisites are not required to plead a Title II integration claim |
| Whether IDEA exhaustion and IDEA compliance bar the Title II claim | The gravamen is systemic discrimination and segregation beyond individualized FAPE claims, so IDEA exhaustion is unnecessary | Alleged placements are IEP decisions; IDEA administrative remedies must be exhausted and compliance shields the State | Under Fry, exhaustion is not required when the claim is principally about discrimination (not denial of a FAPE); dismissal on exhaustion grounds denied |
| Whether requested equitable relief is an impermissible "obey-the-law" injunction and whether DOJ has standing | Seeks specific, structural remedial measures (declaratory and injunctive relief) to modify state systems and practices | Relief is merely a judicial command to follow the law; DOJ lacks standing to bring Title II claims | Court finds requested relief is more than an "obey-the-law" injunction and denies dismissal; follows Eleventh Circuit precedent that the United States has standing to enforce Title II (United States v. Florida) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard and reasonable inferences)
- Olmstead v. L.C., 521 U.S. 581 (integration mandate under Title II)
- Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Sch., 137 S. Ct. 743 (IDEA exhaustion vs. nondiscrimination claims)
- United States v. Florida, 938 F.3d 1221 (11th Cir. 2019) (Eleventh Circuit: United States has standing to enforce Title II)
- J.S. v. Houston County Bd. of Educ., 877 F.3d 979 (11th Cir. 2017) (segregation causes stigmatization and other non-FAPE injuries)
- Bacon v. City of Richmond, 475 F.3d 633 (4th Cir. 2007) (funding alone does not constitute administration for Title II liability)