On May 22, 1992, four children with special-education needs and their parents filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs sued the Chicago Board of Education (CBE) and Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Represented by private counsel and counsel from Equip for Equality, Designs for Change, and the Northwestern University School of Law, the plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs alleged that the CBE and the ISBE implemented a policy to exclude children with disabilities from schools attended by their non-disabled peers and failed to provide essential services for disabled children who attended the schools.
On June 18, 1992, the plaintiffs petitioned for class certification. On February 1, 1993, the district court denied motions to dismiss and certified the class, which was defined as “all children who are enrolled in [CPS] and who are or will be classified as having a disability by [CPS], and who are therefore subject to [CPS’s] and ISBE’s illegal practice and policy of failing to educate children with disabilities.”
Four years later, on February 10, 1997, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, alleging that the ISBE violated the IDEA by failing to ensure that an adequate supply of qualified special education teachers was available and properly trained. In September 1997, the plaintiffs and the CBE reached a settlement, which the district court approved on January 16, 1998. The eight-year consent decree outlined a series of policies that the CPS would undertake to properly educate children with disabilities in the least restrictive environment:
- training and increases in special education staff
- implementation of individualized educational programs
- evaluation of progress of disabled students in a regular academic setting
- data collection of students’ educational performance
- court monitoring of the defendants' compliance and progress
On February 19, 1998, Judge Gettleman held that the ISBE had violated the IDEA. 995 F. Supp. 900. Judge Gettleman permanently enjoined the ISBE from further violations and ordered the IBSE to develop regulations for teacher certification to comply with the IDEA.
On June 22, 2000, the court-appointed Monitor, Kathleen C. Yannias, submitted comments on the ISBE’s proposed certification rules to submit them as peremptory rules under the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act. The district court accepted the Monitor’s recommendations on September 12, 2000. As a response, the ISBE and the plaintiffs entered into a consent decree, which mandated:
- that the district court would oversee the consent decrees until January 2006;
- that the district court would appoint a Monitor to oversee the implementation of the decrees and compliance with its terms;
- that the parties would establish district-wide targets and benchmarks by which CPS could show it was complying with the decrees; and
- that if CPS schools were unable to meet established targets, the schools could request exemptions from those targets.
The Monitor also determined that the maximum percentage of students with disabilities in any school in the CPS system could be no greater than 20% of the school's total student population by June 1, 2005.
On March 7, 2007, Judge Gettleman extended the term of the settlement to September 1, 2010 and confirmed the cap remained at 20%. The CBE appealed to the Seventh Circuit, claiming that the district court abused its discretion by reaffirming the 20% enrollment cap. The Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeal on August 8, 2008. Corey H. v. Bd. of Educ., 534 F.3d 683 (7th Cir. 2008).
The CBE filed motions to approve the exit reports that the schools have successfully implemented the programs. On November 4, 2009, Judge Gettleman denied the motions.
On November 18, 2010, the ISBE agreed to extend its obligations to prepare annual district-wide reports on the CBE's progress to achieving the goals of the settlement agreement.
On June 2, 2011, and November 23, 2011, Judge Gettleman rejected the CBE’s appeal of the Monitor’s recommendation from the ISBE’s 9th and 11th Annual District-Wide Findings and adopted those recommendations, respectively.
On March 2, 2012, the CBE moved to vacate the consent decree based on the Seventh Circuit's decision in
Jamie S. v. Milwaukee Public Schools, 668 F.3d 481 (7th Cir. 2012). On March 5, 2012, the CBE moved again to vacate the consent decree, this time arguing that it was in substantial compliance with the consent decree.
On July 19, 2012, Judge Gettleman denied the first motion. He lambasted the CBE's motion, calling it "near frivolous" and "both mystifying and disturbing, driven perhaps by considerations that have no place in the administration of CPS’s obligations under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act." He noted the motion was particularly bizarre given that the consent decree was set to expire in a few months (on September 1, 2012). 2012 WL 2953217.
October 29, 2012, Judge Gettleman denied the second motion. He noted that the timing of the second motion meant that the briefing would not be completed before the consent decree expired. Now that the consent decree had expired, the motion was now moot.
On March 1, 2013, the Monitor submitted the Final Report on the compliance by the CBE. On September 19, 2013, the Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeal by defendants because the case was moot. Finally, on October 9, 2013, Judge Gettleman entered his final opinion in this 21-year old litigation. He acknowledged that substantial progress had been made but that there was much more work to do. He also noted that the CBE's tactics in the final months of the litigation were disheartening, and he encouraged the parties to "seek dialogue rather than discord" in the future. 2013 WL 5567556.
On October 22, 2013, the plaintiffs moved for attorneys' fees. The docket does not indicate whether this motion was ever approved.
There have been no further updates in this case. There is no reason to believe it is ongoing.
Joshua Arocho - 06/12/2012
Jaclyn Adams
Susie Choi - 05/16/2017
compress summary
