On July 30, 1998, a group of parents filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of their minor children in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, challenging the Los Angeles Unified School District's implementation of Proposition 227, a state initiative restricting use of ...
read more >
On July 30, 1998, a group of parents filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of their minor children in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, challenging the Los Angeles Unified School District's implementation of Proposition 227, a state initiative restricting use of bilingual education in public schools to teach students that were limited in English proficiency. Plaintiffs alleged that Proposition 227 (titled "English Language Education for Immigrant Children") violated the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as class certification. Attorneys for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund and the ACLU provided representation to the plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs sought an emergency Temporary Restraining Order, which was denied. Plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint which alleged (1) that defendants failed to take appropriate action to address English learning needs of limited education proficiency (LEP) students and (2) that national origin minorities were deprived of a language program that provided them with an opportunity to acquire English skills.
On April 23, 1999, the District Court (Judge Lourdes G. Baird) certified a class consisting of "all current and future public school children who will be enrolled in the Los Angeles Unified School District, who have language barriers that impede their equal participation in the District's instructional programs and have been designated as limited English proficient (LEP) students." Doe v. Los Angeles Unified School District, 48 F. Supp. 2d. 1235 (C.D. Cal. 1997).
Shortly thereafter, the Court encouraged the parties to engage in settlement negotiations. Initial court settlement conferences were not fruitful, but negotiations apparently continued through 2003. During that time, the parties filed various status reports with the Court to update the progress made on settlement.
The PACER docket reflects that in lieu of filing a proposed settlement agreement and having a fairness hearing, the parties filed a joint motion to decertify the class in February 2003. The case then proceeded in the name of the individual plaintiff only. Thereafter, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the case without prejudice. The Court granted that motion by order dated August 18, 2003. It is assumed that the parties reached a private settlement agreement, but this cannot be confirmed from the docket.Stephen Imm - 08/21/2007