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.

McFadden v. Board of Education For Illinois School District U-46

August 8, 2008

DEONTE, DANIELLE, DANIEL, DINAH AND DEANNA MCFADDEN, MINORS, BY THEIR PARENT AND NEXT FRIEND, TRACY MCFADDEN; KAREN, RODOLFO AND KIARA TAPIA, MINORS, BY THEIR PARENT AND NEXT FRIEND, MARIELA MONTOYA; MARIANA, YELITZA AND JOCELYN BURCIAGA, MINORS, BY THEIR PARENT AND NEXT FRIEND, GRISELDA BURCIAGA; ASHLEY, AMBRY AND KASHMIR IVY, MINORS, BY THEIR PARENT AND NEXT FRIEND, BEVERLY IVY; AND JOSE AND KRISTIANNE SIFUENTES, MINORS, BY THEIR PARENT AND NEXT FRIEND, IRMA SIFUENTES, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR ILLINOIS SCHOOL DISTRICT U-46, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Robert W. Gettleman

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs, minority and limited English proficient ("LEP") students in Illinois School District U-46 ("District"), have filed a four-count putative class action against defendant Board of Education for the District ("Board"). Plaintiffs' second amended complaint alleges that minority students in the District are enduring discriminatory burdens and diminished educational benefits not suffered in the same proportion by white students, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution (Count I), the Equal Protection Clause of the Illinois Constitution (Count II), and the Illinois Civil Rights Act of 2003, 740 ILCS 23/5(a)(1) (Count III). Plaintiffs also allege that Hispanic LEP students are suffering from the District's failure to take "appropriate action" to eliminate language barriers in violation of the Equal Education Opportunity Act of 1974 ("EEOA"), 20 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq. (Count IV).

This court denied defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' first amended complaint in a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated July 25, 2005. Leslie v. Board of Education for Illinois School Dist. U-46, 379 F. Supp. 2d 952 (N.D. Ill. 2005). This court then denied plaintiffs' first motion for class certification in a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 13, 2006. McFadden v. Board of Education for Illinois School Dist. U-46, 2006 WL 681054 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 13, 2006). That motion sought to certify two classes: (1) "all current Hispanic and African-American [District] students" (the "Minority class"); and (2) "all current Hispanic U-46 students who are receiving English Language Learner ("ELL") services, or who have or who have received ELL services within the past three years (the "LEP class")." The court found significant problems with the named plaintiffs' typicality and adequacy as representatives of the proposed classes. Plaintiffs then filed a second amended complaint, which defendants moved to dismiss. This court denied defendant's motion in part on October 3, 2006.*fn1 McFadden v. Board of Education for Illinois School Dist. U-46, unpub., 05 C 760 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 3, 2006).

Plaintiffs then filed a second motion for class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). Plaintiffs seek to certify the following classes:

(1) All current Hispanic and African-American [District] students who have been subjected to or continue to be subjected to the District's racial discrimination in student assignment and provision of programs and services resulting in instability of student assignments, assignment to non-neighborhood schools, assignment to overcrowded schools, transportation burdens, closure of Illinois Park School, program deficiencies in Limited English Proficiency ("LEP") services, or education deficiencies arising from the above conditions.

(2) All current Hispanic U-46 students who are receiving LEP services, or who have received LEP services by the District in the past four years, or who should have but did not receive LEP services, and who have been subjected to or continue to be subjected to deficiencies in the District's LEP services in the area of identification, exiting/transitioning, parent information, special education, or assignment to non-neighborhood schools.

Defendant opposes the motion, arguing that the named plaintiffs fail to satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2). For the reasons discussed below, plaintiffs' motion for class certification is granted.

FACTS

Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs are Hispanic and African-American students (and their parents as next friends) at elementary, middle, and high schools in the District. Plaintiffs attend ten different schools at various levels: one plaintiff attends pre-school; eight attend elementary school; three attend middle school; and six attend high school. Of the named plaintiffs, nine receive LEP services, one receives special education services, and two receive both LEP and special education services.

The three Montoya children are Hispanic and are enrolled at the elementary level. All three receive or have received LEP services from the District, and one child receives both LEP and special education services. The three Burciaga children are Hispanic, and all receive LEP services. Two are enrolled in middle school and one is enrolled in elementary school. The Sifuentes students are Hispanic; one is in high school and one is in elementary school.

According to plaintiffs, one Sifuentes child should have been identified for LEP services, but the District ignored Irma Sifuentes's requests for such services.

The McFadden children are African-American. One is enrolled in high school, one is enrolled in middle school, two are enrolled in elementary school, and one is enrolled in pre-school. One McFadden child also receives special education services. The three Ivy children are ...


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.