article: On June 20, 2011, Philadelphia school children with autism filed a class action lawsuit against the School District of Philadelphia in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504), the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) and relevant state law. The plaintiffs, represented by attorneys from the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia and private counsel, sought declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that the District's Automatic Autism Transfer Policy was illegal under the IDEA, Section 504 and the ADA. The challenged policy routinely transferred students with autism from school to school at a certain age solely because they were disabled as a result of autism. On October 31, 2011, the District Court (Judge Legrome D. Davis) denied the defendant's motion to strike class action allegations and motion to dismiss the suit. P.V. ex rel. Valentin v. Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia, 2011 WL 5127850 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2011). On February 19, 2013, Judge Davis granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment in part and denied in part. P.V. ex rel. Valentin v. Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia, 2013 WL 618540 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 19, 2013). The Court concluded that the policy violated the IDEA, but that it did not violate Section 504 or the ADA. The Court ordered the school district to alter its policy to meet the procedural requirements under the IDEA and provide parents the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the educational placement of their autistic children. In addition, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. P.V. ex rel. Valentin v. Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia, 289 F.R.D. 227, 228 (E.D. Pa. 2013). The class included all children with autism in the School District of Philadelphia in grades Kindergarten through eight who had been transferred, were in the process of being transferred, or were at risk of being transferred, as a result of the School District's upper-leveling process; the parents and guardians of those children; and future members of the class. The parties entered into settlement negotiations in May 2013. The parties filed their preliminary settlement agreement on April 15, 2014. The proposed class settlement: (1) required the district to publish a list of all of its schools with autistic-support classrooms and provide notice of these schools in two separate letters to the parents of children with autism, (2) allowed class members to retain their individual rights to challenge the circumstances of their particular transfers, and (3) provided for the court to retain jurisdiction over the agreement's settlement through Jan. 2, 2017, though the agreement was to remain enforceable after this time. The parties also agreed to $325,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs. The court granted final approval of the agreement on June 4, 2014. The settlement ended in 2017 without any further litigation. The case is now closed.
summary: On June 20, 2011, Philadelphia school children with autism filed a class action lawsuit against the School District of Philadelphia in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that the defendant's Automatic Autism Transfer policy violated the IDEA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the American with Disabilities Act and relevant state law. The parties settled on June 4, 2014 in an agreement that (1) required the district to publish a list of all of its schools with autistic support classrooms and provide notice of these schools in two separate letters to the parents of children with autism, (2) allowed class members to retain their individual rights to challenge the circumstances of their particular transfers, and (3) provided for the court to retain jurisdiction over the agreement's settlement through Jan. 2, 2017 though the agreement was to remain enforceable after this time. The parties also agreed to $325,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs.