Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

TONYA K. v. CHICAGO BD. OF EDUC.

December 8, 1982

TONYA K. BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, DIANE K., CLEO C., JR., BY HIS FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, CLEO C., SR., DENNIS A. BY HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, RAMONA M., ON THEIR OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
CHICAGO BOARD OF EDUCATION, ANGELINE CARUSO, INTERIM SUPERINTENDENT OF THE CHICAGO BOARD OF EDUCATION, ALBERT BRIGGS, ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT FOR PUPIL PERSONNEL SERVICES AND SPECIAL EDUCATION OF THE CHICAGO BOARD OF EDUCATION, AND DONALD G. GILL, ILLINOIS SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: William T. Hart, District Judge.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This is a class action brought by three handicapped children, Tonya K., Cleo C., Jr. and Dennis A. ("named plaintiffs"), who have been excluded from the Chicago public schools due to their handicaps but who have not been placed in appropriate private educational programs. The defendants are the Chicago Board of Education, its Interim General Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel Services and Special Education and the Illinois Superintendent of Education ("defendants").

Federal jurisdiction is asserted pursuant to the Education of All Handicapped Children Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq. and implementing regulation 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.1 et seq.; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 and implementing regulations 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.1 et seq.; and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution; and pendent jurisdiction pursuant to Article 14 of the Illinois School Code, Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 122, §§ 14-1.01 et seq. The named plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of all similarly situated handicapped children, ages three to twenty-one. The named plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to timely place them in private residential educational settings in violation of administrative orders and their rights to a free appropriate education.

The matter currently is before the Court on a motion for class certification. The class proposed is

  all handicapped children, ages 3 through 21 who a)
  have been excluded, are being, or will be excluded
  from the defendant Chicago Board of Education public
  schools because of their handicap, b) have been, are
  being or will be determined by either the Chicago
  defendants or through the state administrative
  process to need placement in a private educational
  facility and c) have not been, are not being and will
  not be placed in such facilities by the Chicago
  defendants in a timely manner.

The motion makes no distinction between members who require placement in a private residential facility and those who require education in a private day facility.

The defendants object to class certification for six reasons:

1) A class composed of future claimants is overbroad and indefinite;

2) The allegation of "untimely" placement is untenable where, as here, the class will include members with multiple handicaps requiring individually tailored responses;

3) Numerosity is lacking as "untimeliness" of placement is unascertainable;

4) Typicality is lacking since the named plaintiffs need residential care but seek to represent members who need day placement as well as members requiring residential care;

5) No factual or legal question is common to the class due to the unidentical problems and needs of its members; and

6) The claim is moot since the named plaintiffs have been placed.*fn1

For the reasons stated below, the Court finds that the class sought to be certified meets the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2). Accordingly, the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.