Case: J.G. v. Rochester Board of Education

6:81-cv-00173 | U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York

Filed Date: March 6, 1981

Closed Date: 2002

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On March 6, 1981, parents on behalf of students in the Rochester City School District in Rochester, New York, filed a class action law suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and the Education of All Handicapped Children Act (EHA), 20 U.S.C. § 1401, et seq., in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York against the Rochester City School District and the New York State Department of Education. The class consisted of all stude…

On March 6, 1981, parents on behalf of students in the Rochester City School District in Rochester, New York, filed a class action law suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and the Education of All Handicapped Children Act (EHA), 20 U.S.C. § 1401, et seq., in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York against the Rochester City School District and the New York State Department of Education. The class consisted of all students in the City School District who were or might be disabled. The Monroe County Legal Assistance Corp., Public Interest Law of Rochester, and the Empire Justice Center represented the class. The plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as damages, alleging that the City School District's failure to provide a free, appropriate public education to special education students violated rights protected under the Constitution, in addition to State and federal statutes.

The plaintiffs complained that the City School District neglected special education and potential special education students by failing to promptly evaluate students for the presence of a disability, failing to promptly place students in appropriate programs, failing to provide appropriate special education programs, and failing to establish goals for special education students or monitor progress towards those goals. The complaint further alleged that the defendant failed to allow special education students to fully participate in extracurricular activities, failed to advise parents of their rights with respect to educating special education students, and failed to allow parental participation in the special education process.

Before answering the complaint the defendants moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the plaintiffs were required to exhaust all administrative remedies under the EHA. The District Court (Judge John T. Elfvin) denied the defendants' motion reasoning that the EHA provided for a cause of action seeking relief for system wide violations of the Act, therefore, the plaintiffs were not required to exhaust administrative remedies before filing the action.

After negotiation, the parties reached an agreement, which was entered as a consent order on August 11, 1983. The State defendants, however, refused to enter into and sign the consent decree. The overriding goal of the agreement was that the Rochester City School District would improve the way it provided special education services to special needs students. The improvements would be made by evaluating and placing students in special education programs in a more timely manner, monitoring student progress, facilitating and encouraging parent and student participation in the process, creating individualized educational programs, and conducting more thorough evaluations. The agreement was modified in 1989, by agreement of the parties, to incorporate changes in the state and federal regulations.

In July of 1986, District Court (Judge Telesca) granted the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the complaint against the State Department of Education without prejudice. The plaintiffs also moved for an award of attorneys' fees and costs, which the court denied, reasoning that because the plaintiffs were afforded full relief under the EHA, they could not recover attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 for the un-litigated constitutional claims. The plaintiffs appealed the denial of attorneys' fees, and while the appeal was pending the EHA was amended to provide for an award of attorneys' fees to the prevailing party. The appeal was withdrawn and the plaintiffs moved to reconsider the motion for attorneys' costs and fees. On December 3, 1986, the District Court (Judge Telesca) denied the plaintiffs' motion as regarding the State defendants, but granted the motion as regarding the Rochester City School District. J.G. v. Bd. of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. Dist., 684 F. Supp. 1452 (W.D.N.Y. 1986). The Rochester City School District appealed the decision. On September 29, 1987, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Judge Ellsworth Alfred Van Graafeiland) affirmed the District Court's decision regarding the award of attorneys' fees and costs, but modified the amount awarded. J.G. v. Bd. of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. Dist., 830 F.2d 444 (2d Cir. 1987).

In October 1991, the plaintiffs expressed concerns about the defendants' compliance with the Consent Decree. In response to those concerns, the parties negotiated an Enforcement Order, which provided for more timely referrals to the Committee on Special Education, for the development and implementation of Individualized Education Programs (IEP), for discipline policies and procedures, for the accessibility of all District programs to disabled students, and for an inclusion model to provide services in each special education students' home school or school of choice. The Order was entered by the District Court (Judge Telesca) on October 15, 1993.

In 1996, the plaintiffs complained that the defendants were not complying with either the 1983 Consent Decree, as amended, or the 1993 Enforcement Order. Specifically, the defendants were not evaluating potentially disabled children in a timely fashion, and therefore were not making timely placement recommendations. The plaintiffs further alleged that the parents of special education students were misinformed about the educational options for their children and were not allowed to participate in decisions that affected their children's placement in special education programs. The parties negotiated a new Consent Decree that focused mainly on the results. The Decree set specific standards in the categories of: (1) timely recommendations by the Committee on Special Education and the Committee on Preschool Special Education; (2) timely placement of students in appropriate programs once evaluations had occurred; (3) parental participation and satisfaction; (4) nondiscrimination and equal access; and (5) inclusion in mainstream curriculum and education in the least restrictive environment. The new agreement was accepted by the District Court (Judge Telesca) on May 1, 1997 and provided that the Consent Decree and the court's jurisdiction was to terminate on May 1, 2000.

After the 1997 Consent Decree had expired on May 1, 2000, the District Court (Judge Telesca) issued an Order to Show Cause why a formal order terminating the Consent Decree and ending the case should not be entered. The plaintiffs argued that the court should retain jurisdiction, because the defendants were not in compliance with the consent decree, or state and federal law. The court, however, on January 14, 2002, held that the 1997 Consent Decree had expired under its own terms and dismissed the case with prejudice. J.G. v. Bd. of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. Dist., 193 F. Supp. 693 (W.D.N.Y. 2002). The case is closed.

Summary Authors

Kaitlin Corkran (6/15/2006)

People


Judge(s)
Attorney for Plaintiff

Feldman, Jonathan W. (New York)

Hetherington, Bryan D. (New York)

Munro, David A. (New York)

Attorney for Defendant

Kash, Louis N. (New York)

Kaufman, Adam D. (New York)

Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

6:81-cv-00173

Docket [PACER]

Jan. 23, 2003

Jan. 23, 2003

Docket

6:81-cv-00173

Class Action Complaint

March 6, 1981

March 6, 1981

Complaint

6:81-cv-00173

Partial Consent Judgment

Aug. 11, 1983

Aug. 11, 1983

Order/Opinion

6:81-cv-00173

Opinion

Dec. 3, 1986

Dec. 3, 1986

Order/Opinion

86-09083

Opinion

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Sept. 29, 1987

Sept. 29, 1987

Order/Opinion
5

6:81-cv-00173

Stipulation and Order on Motion for Enforcement and Further Relief

Oct. 15, 1993

Oct. 15, 1993

Order/Opinion
100

6:81-cv-00173

Modified Stipulation to Entry of Consent Decree

May 1, 1997

May 1, 1997

Settlement Agreement
123

6:81-cv-00173

Decision and Order

Jan. 14, 2002

Jan. 14, 2002

Order/Opinion

Docket

Last updated Jan. 18, 2024, 3:09 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link

ORDER REFERRING CASE to USMJ Jonathan W. Feldman for supervision, implementation and submission of a comprehensive three year plan. Plans to be submitted by the parties for consideration no later than 4/1/96. ( signed by USDJ Michael A. Telesca ) (CM) (Entered: 03/21/1996)

Feb. 27, 1996

Feb. 27, 1996

Status conference held before JWF (CM) (Entered: 03/21/1996)

March 4, 1996

March 4, 1996

Minute entry:, set Status Conference for 3:00 3/8/96 before JWF (CM) (Entered: 03/21/1996)

March 4, 1996

March 4, 1996

Status conference held before JWF (CM) (Entered: 03/21/1996)

March 8, 1996

March 8, 1996

Settlement conference held (JWF) (CM) (Entered: 04/03/1996)

March 26, 1996

March 26, 1996

Minute entry:, set Settlement Conference for 11:15 3/28/96 (JWF) (CM) (Entered: 04/03/1996)

March 26, 1996

March 26, 1996

Settlement conference held (JWF) (CM) (Entered: 04/03/1996)

March 28, 1996

March 28, 1996

Minute entry:, set Settlement Conference for 4:30 4/1/96 (JWF) (CM) (Entered: 04/03/1996)

March 28, 1996

March 28, 1996

95

LETTER ORDER granting request to extend time for counsel to contine working on the action. ( signed by USDJ Michael A. Telesca ) Notice and copy of order sent to Ruth Scott, Robert D. Stone, Kenneth Pawson, Louis N. Kash, David A. Munro, Bryan D. Hetherington, Elizabeth L. Schneider (CM) (Entered: 04/01/1996)

April 1, 1996

April 1, 1996

Settlement conference held (JWF) (CM) (Entered: 04/12/1996)

April 4, 1996

April 4, 1996

Minute entry:, set Settlement Conference for 2:30 4/9/96 (JWF) (CM) (Entered: 04/12/1996)

April 4, 1996

April 4, 1996

Settlement conference held before JWF. (CM) (Entered: 04/19/1996)

April 9, 1996

April 9, 1996

Minute entry:, set Settlement Conference for 2:00 4/18/96 (JWF) (CM) (Entered: 04/19/1996)

April 9, 1996

April 9, 1996

Settlement conference held (JWF) (CM) (Entered: 05/01/1996)

April 18, 1996

April 18, 1996

Settlement conference held (JWF) (CM) (Entered: 05/21/1996)

May 9, 1996

May 9, 1996

96

MOTION by plaintiffs for contempt. Motion Hearing set for 9:00 7/10/96 (CM) (Entered: 06/04/1996)

June 3, 1996

June 3, 1996

97

MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in support of [96-1] motion for contempt. by K.M., A.M., M.W., J.G. (CM) (Entered: 06/04/1996)

June 3, 1996

June 3, 1996

98

JOINT DECLARATION of Elizabeth Schneider, Esq. and Bryan Hetherington, Esq., on behalf of J.G., M.W., A.M., K.M., Re: [96-1] motion for contempt. by K.M., A.M., M.W., J.G. (CM) (Entered: 06/04/1996)

June 3, 1996

June 3, 1996

Minute entry:, Motion Hearing reset for 8/7/96 for [96-1] motion for contempt (MAT). (CM) (Entered: 07/12/1996)

July 10, 1996

July 10, 1996

Minute entry:, Motion Hearing set for 9/12/96 for [96-1] motion for contempt (MAT) (CM) (Entered: 08/08/1996)

Aug. 7, 1996

Aug. 7, 1996

Deadline updated; Motion Hearing set for 9:00 11/13/96 for [96-1] motion for contempt before MAT pursuant to notice. (CM) (Entered: 09/10/1996)

Sept. 9, 1996

Sept. 9, 1996

Minute entry:, Motion Hearing set for 11/13/96 for [96-1] motion for contempt (MAT). (CM) (Entered: 09/13/1996)

Sept. 12, 1996

Sept. 12, 1996

99

LETTER submitted by Bryan Hetherington, Esq. and Louis Kash, Esq. withdrawing, without prejudice, plaintiffs' motion for contempt. (CM) (Entered: 10/30/1996)

Oct. 29, 1996

Oct. 29, 1996

Deadline updated; withdrawing [96-1] motion for contempt pursuant to document #99. (CM) (Entered: 10/30/1996)

Oct. 29, 1996

Oct. 29, 1996

Minute entry: [96-1] motion for contempt withdrawn (MAT) (CM) (Entered: 11/13/1996)

Nov. 13, 1996

Nov. 13, 1996

100

MODIFIED STIPULATION and ORDER TO ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE signed by USDJ Michael A. Telesca . Notice and copy of order sent to Ruth Scott, Robert D. Stone, Kenneth Pawson, Louis N. Kash, David A. Munro, Bryan D. Hetherington, Elizabeth L. Schneider . (CM) (Entered: 05/01/1997)

May 1, 1997

May 1, 1997

Minute entry:, Status Conference adjourned without date (MAT) (CM) (Entered: 05/05/1997)

May 1, 1997

May 1, 1997

Status conference held (MAT) (CM) (Entered: 04/22/1998)

April 22, 1998

April 22, 1998

101

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Show Cause Hearing set for 10:00 2/15/01 ( signed by Senior USDJ Michael A. Telesca ) Notice and copy sent to Ruth Scott, Robert D. Stone, Kenneth Pawson, Louis N. Kash, David A. Munro, Bryan D. Hetherington, Elizabeth L. Schneider . (TO) (Entered: 01/30/2001)

Jan. 30, 2001

Jan. 30, 2001

102

Minute entry: Order to show cause hearing reset for 4/24/01 (MAT) (TO) (Entered: 02/20/2001)

Feb. 15, 2001

Feb. 15, 2001

103

RESPONSE/AFFIDAVIT by Dr. Clifford Janey, Supr. of Schools for the Rochester City School District to [101-1] order to show cause and in support of terminating the consent decree (TO) (Entered: 04/16/2001)

April 13, 2001

April 13, 2001

104

RESPONSE/AFFDAVIT by Marie Cianca Director for the education of exceptional children for the Rochester City School District to [101-1] order to show cause and in support to terminating the consent decree (TO) (Entered: 04/16/2001)

April 13, 2001

April 13, 2001

Exhibits received related to doc.'s #103 and 104. (TO) (Entered: 04/16/2001)

April 13, 2001

April 13, 2001

105

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE [0-0] exhibits, [104-1] miscellaneous response, [103-1] miscellaneous response upon Bryan Hetherington, Esq., Public Interest Law Office (TO) (Entered: 04/16/2001)

April 13, 2001

April 13, 2001

106

AFFIDAVIT by Michael Looby attorney Roch. Brd. of Edu. in support of terminating the consent decree (TO) (Entered: 04/19/2001)

April 18, 2001

April 18, 2001

107

DECLARATION by Jonathan Feldman and Bryan Hetherington, Esq. attorney for plaintiffs J.G., M.W., A.M., K.M. Re: [101-1] order to order to show cause (TO) (Entered: 04/19/2001)

April 19, 2001

April 19, 2001

108

MEMORANDUM by J.G., M.W., A.M., K.M. in response [101-1] order to show cause (TO) (Entered: 04/19/2001)

April 19, 2001

April 19, 2001

109

REPLY/RESPONSE by Marie Cianca [107-1] affirmation by Jonathan Feldman and Bryan Hetherington attorney for plaintiffs K.M., A.M., M.W., J.G. (TO) (Entered: 04/24/2001)

April 23, 2001

April 23, 2001

110

Minute entry: Order to show cause re: consent decree; court holds matter in abeyance until 11/1/01 at 10:00; for status report; def. to provide the court with monthly status reports commencing 6/1/01 (MAT) (TO) (Entered: 05/10/2001)

April 24, 2001

April 24, 2001

111

Letter by Roch. City School re: Rochester City School District's third monthly report detailing the ongoing process to foster sucess for students with disabilities (TO) (Entered: 08/02/2001)

Aug. 1, 2001

Aug. 1, 2001

113

Letter RESPONSE by Feldman attorney for J.G., M.W., A.M., K.M. to [112-1] letter (TO) (Entered: 08/09/2001)

Aug. 8, 2001

Aug. 8, 2001

114

ORDER granting plaintiffs' July 2001 application for attorneys' fees in the reduced amount of $12,950.00 and plaintiffs' August 2001 Application for fees in the amount of $2,767.50 ( signed by Senior USDJ Michael A. Telesca ) Notice and copy of order sent to Ruth Scott, Donald T. Schmitt, Jonathan Feldman, Bryan D. Hetherington (JL) (Entered: 08/28/2001)

Aug. 27, 2001

Aug. 27, 2001

Deadline updated; reset Status Report deadline to 10:00 11/27/01 pursuant to notice (MAT) (TO) (Entered: 09/27/2001)

Sept. 26, 2001

Sept. 26, 2001

115

LETTER by Roch. City School Dist. regarding a typographical error in the headings on at the top of the table on page 3 of the October Report filed 10/1/01 (caption should read: 2001-2002 Percent Included) (TO) (Entered: 10/04/2001)

Oct. 3, 2001

Oct. 3, 2001

116

MOTION by Rochester City School Dist. to Extend Time to file monthly report (TO) (Entered: 11/02/2001)

Nov. 1, 2001

Nov. 1, 2001

118

Minute entry: status re: Consent decree reset Status Conference for 11/27/01 (MAT) (TO) (Entered: 11/15/2001)

Nov. 1, 2001

Nov. 1, 2001

117

LETTER by Rochester City School District regarding the sixth monthly report detailing the Rochester City School ongoing process to ensure success for students with disabilities, with attached report (TO) (Entered: 11/06/2001)

Nov. 5, 2001

Nov. 5, 2001

119

SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT DECLARATION OF Jonathan Feldman and Bryan Hetherington in RESPONSE by J.G., M.W., A.M., K.M. to [101- 1] order to show cause (TO) (Entered: 11/20/2001)

Nov. 19, 2001

Nov. 19, 2001

120

BRIEF by Roch. Brd. of Edu. for the Roch. City School Dist. (TO) (Entered: 11/21/2001)

Nov. 20, 2001

Nov. 20, 2001

121

Minute entry: [101-1] order to show cause under advisement (MAT) (TO) (Entered: 11/28/2001)

Nov. 27, 2001

Nov. 27, 2001

122

LETTER by Rochester City School Dist. re: payments made to PILOR with attached 5 page spreadsheet, entitled "Transaction Listing" (TO) (Entered: 12/10/2001)

Dec. 7, 2001

Dec. 7, 2001

123

ORDER, that the 1997 Consent Decree has expired by its own terms and that this court lacks jurisdiction over the expired decree to Dismiss case with prejudice ( signed by Senior USDJ Michael A. Telesca ) Notice and copy of order sent to Ruth Scott, Donald T. Schmitt, Jonathan Feldman, Bryan D. Hetherington, Mike Looby (TO) (Entered: 01/14/2002)

Jan. 14, 2002

Jan. 14, 2002

124

JUDGMENT ( signed by Clerk ). Notice and copy of judgment sent to Ruth Scott, Donald T. Schmitt, Jonathan Feldman, Bryan D. Hetherington, Mike Looby (TO) (Entered: 01/14/2002)

Jan. 14, 2002

Jan. 14, 2002

Case closed (TO) (Entered: 01/14/2002)

Jan. 14, 2002

Jan. 14, 2002

125

MOTION by J.G., M.W., A.M., K.M. to Amend [124-1] judgment order, [123-1] order to Dismiss case with prejudice (TO) (Entered: 01/16/2002)

Jan. 16, 2002

Jan. 16, 2002

Deadline updated; [125-1] motion to Amend [124-1] judgment order, [123-1] order to Dismiss case with prejudice submitted on 2/21/02; pursuant to notice (MAT) (TO) (Entered: 01/17/2002)

Jan. 17, 2002

Jan. 17, 2002

126

AFFIRMATION by Michael Looby attorney for Roch. City School District in opposition to [125-1] motion to Amend [124-1] judgment order, [123-1] order to Dismiss case with prejudice by K.M., A.M., M.W., J.G. (TO) (Entered: 02/11/2002)

Feb. 8, 2002

Feb. 8, 2002

127

Minute entry: [125-1] motion to Amend [124-1] judgment order, [123-1] order to Dismiss case with prejudice submitted (MAT) (TO) (Entered: 02/22/2002)

Feb. 21, 2002

Feb. 21, 2002

128

ORDER denying [125-1] motion to Amend [124-1] judgment order, [123-1] order to Dismiss case with prejudice ( signed by Senior USDJ Michael A. Telesca ) Notice and copy of order sent to Ruth Scott, Donald T. Schmitt, Jonathan Feldman, Bryan D. Hetherington (TO) (Entered: 03/13/2002)

March 12, 2002

March 12, 2002

129

NOTICE OF APPEAL by J.G., M.W., A.M., K.M. . Fee Status: 105.00 (MMG) (Entered: 04/03/2002)

April 3, 2002

April 3, 2002

130

FILED USCA Form D. by plaintiffs. (MMG) (Entered: 04/03/2002)

April 3, 2002

April 3, 2002

Notice of appeal and certified copy of docket to USCA: [129-1] appeal by K.M., A.M., M.W., J.G. (MMG) (Entered: 04/09/2002)

April 9, 2002

April 9, 2002

Received USCA Scheduling Order Re: [129-1] appeal by K.M., A.M., M.W., J.G. USCA NUMBER: 02-7398 Appeal record due on 6/4/02 (MMG) (Entered: 05/17/2002)

May 17, 2002

May 17, 2002

Certified and transmitted index to record on appeal to U.S. Court of Appeals: [129-1] appeal by K.M., A.M., M.W., J.G.(USCA# 02-7398) (MMG) (Entered: 06/06/2002)

June 6, 2002

June 6, 2002

131

MANDATE OF USCA (certified copy) affirming the Judgment of District Court therefore, dismissing the appeal. Re: [129-1] appeal by K.M., A.M., M.W., J.G. (USCA# 02-7398) (MMG) (Entered: 01/22/2003)

Jan. 21, 2003

Jan. 21, 2003

132

ORDER making Mandate from USCA, Second Circuit the Judgment of this Court. ( signed by Senior USDJ Michael A. Telesca ) Notice and copy of order sent to Ruth Scott, Donald T. Schmitt, Jonathan Feldman, Bryan D. Hetherington (USCA# 02-7398) (MMG) (Entered: 01/25/2003)

Jan. 23, 2003

Jan. 23, 2003

Case Details

State / Territory: New York

Case Type(s):

Education

Special Collection(s):

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: March 6, 1981

Closing Date: 2002

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

All students in the Rochester School District who were or might be disabled

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

Legal Services/Legal Aid

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Rochester Board of Ed. (Rochester, Monroe), School District

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Indv. w/ Disab. Educ. Act (IDEA), Educ. of All Handcpd. Children Act , 20 U.S.C. § 1400

State law

Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201

Constitutional Clause(s):

Equal Protection

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Order Duration: 1997 - 2000