University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
HOME
ABOUT
FOR TEACHERS
SEARCH
QUESTIONS
RECENT ADDITIONS
feedback/
suggestions
log in/
register
Case Profile
new search
page permalink
Case Name
Beth V. v. Carroll
ED-PA-0001
Docket / Court
2:93-cv-04418 ( E.D. Pa. )
State/Territory
Pennsylvania
Case Type(s)
Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Education
Case Summary
On August 16, 1993, several children with disabilities, by and through their parents, filed this class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Individuals with Disabilities ...
read more >
On August 16, 1993, several children with disabilities, by and through their parents, filed this class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"). The Plaintiffs, represented by the Education Law Center and private counsel, sought declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that the Pennsylvania Department of Education Division of Compliance ("DOC") failed to maintain a timely complaint resolution system as required by IDEA. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that the DOC failed to resolve complaints within the 60 day time limit, failed to monitor and enforce corrective orders, and failed to properly address all allegations made in various complaints.
On February 14, 1995, the Court (Judge Anita Blumstein Brody) granted summary judgment for the DOC, holding that there was no private right of action under IDEA or § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and that there was no indirect right of action under § 1983. Beth V. v. Carroll, 876 F.Supp. 1415 (E.D. Pa. 1995). On June 25, 1996, however, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (Judge Dolores Korman Sloviter) reversed the district court's ruling, noting that the Plaintiffs alleged system-wide failure, which may in certain cases waive the requirement that the plaintiffs exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit. Since the district court dismissed the case before exploring this option, the Third Circuit remanded the case for further consideration. Beth V. v. Carroll, 87 F.3d 80 (3rd Cir. 1996).
On November 12, 1996, the District Court granted class certification, however for for reasons not apparent, the case was put in "civil suspense" on February 28, 1997.
On August 12, 1998, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case. We have no firther information about this case.
Joshua Arocho - 07/30/2012
compress summary
- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Due Process
Defendant-type
Elementary/Secondary School
Disability
disability, unspecified
General
Classification / placement
Funding
Individualized planning
Record-keeping
Records Disclosure
Special education
Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)
Medical/Mental Health
Intellectual/Developmental Disability
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action
Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701
Indv. w/ Disab. Educ. Act (IDEA), Educ. of All Handcpd. Children Act , 20 U.S.C. § 1400
42 U.S.C. § 1983
Case Details
click to show/hide detail
Defendant(s)
Department of Education
Secretary of Education
U.S. Secretary of Education
Plaintiff Description
Pennsylvania children, parents, and representatives who had used, or would use, complaint resolution procedures required under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Class action status sought
Yes
Class action status granted
Yes
Filed Pro Se
No
Prevailing Party
Defendant
Public Int. Lawyer
Yes
Nature of Relief
None
Source of Relief
None
Order Duration
1993 - 1998
Filed
08/16/1993
Case Closing Year
1998
Case Ongoing
No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
See this case
at CourtListener.com
(May provide additional documents and, for active cases, real-time alerts)
Documents
click to show/hide detail
Court
Docket(s)
E.D. Pa.
11/30/1998
2:93−cv−04418
ED-PA-0001-9000.pdf
|
Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
E.D. Pa.
02/14/1995
Amplified Opinion Pursuant to Third Circuit Rule 3.1 (rev'd by 3rd Cir. 6/25/96)
(876 F.Supp. 1415)
ED-PA-0001-0002.pdf
|
WESTLAW
|
LEXIS
|
Detail
Source: Google Scholar
U.S. Court of Appeals
06/25/1996
Opinion of the Court
(87 F.3d 80)
ED-PA-0001-0001.pdf
|
WESTLAW
|
LEXIS
|
Detail
Source: Google Scholar
People
click to show/hide detail
show all people docs
Judges
Brody, Anita Blumstein
(E.D. Pa.)
show/hide docs
ED-PA-0001-0002 | ED-PA-0001-9000
Sloviter, Dolores Korman
(Third Circuit)
show/hide docs
ED-PA-0001-0001
Monitors/Masters
Putnam, Alfred W. Jr.
(Pennsylvania)
show/hide docs
ED-PA-0001-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers
Fieo, Alyssa R.
(Pennsylvania)
show/hide docs
ED-PA-0001-9000
Scanlon, Mary Gay
(Pennsylvania)
show/hide docs
ED-PA-0001-9000
Stotland, Janet F.
(Pennsylvania)
show/hide docs
ED-PA-0001-9000
Defendant's Lawyers
Edney, Marsha S.
(District of Columbia)
show/hide docs
ED-PA-0001-9000
Tesoro, Claudia M
(Pennsylvania)
show/hide docs
ED-PA-0001-9000
- click to show/hide ALL -
new search
page permalink
- top of page -
Contact
Report an Error
Privacy Policy