LAS VEGAS (CN) - Parents of students with disabilities in the nation's fifth-largest school district overcame arguments Thursday that their purported class action should be dismissed.
The parents argue the Nevada Department of Education and the Clark County School District denied some 40,000 students their right to appropriate public education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, called "IDEA," and violated the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The school district has policies that disrupt identifying students who need special education and doesn't provide proper accommodations for those with dyslexia, behavioral management needs and autism, the parents claim.
"Plaintiffs identify [the school district's] policy of ignoring staffing shortages, using long-term substitutes, non-certified staff, and non-certified paraprofessionals to provide services to students with disabilities," U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro said in her ruling. "They describe the district's policy of removing staff from classrooms and leaving special education students without sufficient support."
The state and county defendants made different arguments for why the judge should dismiss the class action.
The school district said the parents failed to state a claim, adding that they didn't prove every element needed for a class action. It said the parents didn't properly claim the school district discriminated against the students by reason of their disabilities, a necessary element.
However, the judge pointed to "numerous" claims the school district didn't provide disability-specific services as a reasonable accommodation, including that it has no resources for those with dyslexia. She denied the motion to dismiss the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims.
Turning to the IDEA claim, Navarro also found sufficient accusations in the class action.
"It provides specific alleged examples of policies and practices that violate the IDEA, including a policy of instructing general education teachers not to tell parents that their children may need evaluation for special education services," the judge said.
Navarro also disagreed with the school district's argument that she should decide now whether to certify the class. The district said it's uncertain whether the plaintiffs meet the requirements, an argument the judge said highlights her decision that it's premature to decide the issue.
Pivoting to the state Department of Education's motion to dismiss, Navarro listed its arguments and turned them down one by one.
The state said the parents have no standing for their IDEA claims as there's no private right of action. Also, they didn't exhaust the IDEA administrative process.
The judge ruled that while M.M. v. Lafayette School District, a 2014 Ninth Circuit case, found IDEA doesn't provide a private right of action, it made no decision on whether it could be an implied right. Also, Lafayette focused on one student's rights, not a class arguing systemic problems.
The state also said the judge should dismiss the class action, as parents didn't properly exhaust their administrative path.
"The Ninth Circuit has made clear that exhaustion requirements are not absolute and has identified certain exceptions to the exhaustion rule for situations in which exhaustion serves 'no useful purpose," Navarro said.
It isn't required when the process would prove futile, comes from a policy that clashes with law or is unlikely to provide relief, the judge said.
"Plaintiffs are not challenging a specific state policy but are instead asserting that [the state] has failed to ensure that [the school district] is complying with the law," Navarro added. "Plaintiffs are therefore seeking to hold [the state] accountable for its failure to comply with its administrative oversight responsibilities - the same responsibilities that the Ninth Circuit has explained are aided by the very administrative scheme plaintiffs want to avoid."
The judge also disagreed with the argument that she should dismiss Jhone Ebert, school district superintendent, as a defendant because the claims are redundant. The claims against the superintendent are separate from those made against the state, Navarro said.
Attorneys for neither side could be reached for comment as of publication time.
Source: Courthouse News Service
