University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Black Parallel School Board v. Sacramento City Unified School District ED-CA-0035
Docket / Court 2:19-at-00821 ( E.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Education
Attorney Organization National Center for Youth Law
NDRN/Protection & Advocacy Organizations
Case Summary
On September 5, 2019, the Black Parallel School Board and three students in the Sacramento City Unified School District (SCUSD) filed a class action in United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The plaintiffs sued SCUSD and a selection of its officers under Section 504 of ... read more >
On September 5, 2019, the Black Parallel School Board and three students in the Sacramento City Unified School District (SCUSD) filed a class action in United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The plaintiffs sued SCUSD and a selection of its officers under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), and state law. Represented by Disability Rights California, the National Center for Youth Law, Western Center on Law and Poverty, and the Equal Justice Society, the plaintiffs sought a court order for injunctive relief against SCUSD, declaratory judgment, class certification, and attorneys' fees. Specifically, they requested that SCUSD reform its policies and procedures to identify, offer, and provide accommodations and modifications to all eligible students. The plaintiffs claimed that SCUSD created and perpetuated an unlawful school system that results in modern-day segregation and mistreatment of students with disabilities, particularly Black students with disabilities, in violation of the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, Civil Rights Act, and Fourteenth Amendment.

In 2017, the Council of Great City Schools, a coalition of 75 of the nation’s largest urban public school systems, had released a report regarding the inadequate special education accommodations in the SCUSD. In 2018, nonprofit advocacy groups expressed their disappointment regarding SCUSD’s continuing failures and demanded immediate action. The plaintiffs' class-action lawsuit claimed that SCUSD had been notified of its discriminatory conduct years ago through the 2017 report, but SCUSD had not taken effective steps to eradicate the problems.

As of October 2019, the case is ongoing.

Elisabeth Ng - 10/24/2019


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Equal Protection
Defendant-type
Elementary/Secondary School
Disability
disability, unspecified
Integrated setting
Least restrictive environment
Mental impairment
Discrimination-area
Accommodation / Leave
Discrimination-basis
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
Race discrimination
General
Access to public accommodations - governmental
Disparate Impact
Disparate Treatment
Education
Effective Communication (ADA)
Failure to train
Individualized planning
Pattern or Practice
Racial segregation
Reasonable Accommodations
Reasonable Modifications
Record-keeping
Special education
Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)
Medical/Mental Health
Intellectual disability/mental illness dual diagnosis
Intellectual/Developmental Disability
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Race
Black
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights (PAIR), 29 U.S.C. § 794e
State law
Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.
Defendant(s) Sacramento City Unified School District
Sacramento City Unified School District Board of Education
Plaintiff Description The Black Parallel School Board and students in the Sacramento City Unified School District (SCUSD).
Indexed Lawyer Organizations National Center for Youth Law
NDRN/Protection & Advocacy Organizations
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Pending
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party None Yet / None
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief None yet
Source of Relief None yet
Filed 09/05/2019
Case Ongoing Yes
Court Docket(s)
E.D. Cal. 2:19-at-00821
ED-CA-0035-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/05/2019
Source: Bloomberg Law
General Documents
E.D. Cal.
Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief [ECF# 1]
ED-CA-0035-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/05/2019
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
show all people docs
Plaintiff's Lawyers Claycomb, Bridget (California) show/hide docs
ED-CA-0035-0001 | ED-CA-0035-9000
Dozier, Antionette D (California) show/hide docs
ED-CA-0035-0001 | ED-CA-0035-9000
Harris, Michael (California) show/hide docs
ED-CA-0035-0001 | ED-CA-0035-9000
Munson, Carly Jean (California) show/hide docs
ED-CA-0035-0001 | ED-CA-0035-9000
Paterson, Eva Jefferson (California) show/hide docs
ED-CA-0035-0001
Rothschild, Richard (California) show/hide docs
ED-CA-0035-0001 | ED-CA-0035-9000
Tawatao, Rau Mona (California) show/hide docs
ED-CA-0035-0001 | ED-CA-0035-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -