Federal Court Issues Decision Allowing OLRS' Class Action Special Education Funding Case to Proceed

This article was originally written in July 2004 and revised in May 2005.

The Ohio Legal Rights Service (OLRS) represents a plaintiff class of over 200,000 Ohio students with disabilities in the case of Doe v. State of Ohio, Case No. 2:91-cv-464 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. On August 27, 1993, plaintiffs asked to intervene in the lawsuit which had been originally filed by school districts. The original school district plaintiffs withdrew from the case after the DeRolph decision in Perry County school funding case.

Plaintiffs seek relief under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the U.S. Constitution. The central claim advanced by the Doe plaintiffs is that the Ohio's system of special education does not provide eligible children in Ohio a free appropriate public education (FAPE), and also discriminates against children with disabilities in other ways.

Beginning on January 10, 2001, the Court issued an order, staying the case in light of the DeRolph case and to avoid unnecessary litigation. When it became apparent that the DeRolph case was not going to resolve the issue of adequate funding to guarantee FAPE to the plaintiff class, the federal court lifted its stay order. On May 7, 2003, defendants moved for summary judgment. The Court and the parties agreed to bifurcate consideration of the defendants' motion so that the Court would consider only the legal barriers to the lawsuit and not the factual allegations.

On July 9, 2004, the Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion. The Court ruled that the IDEA claims could go forward. In reaching this result, the Court determined that exhaustion of administrative remedies was not required. In addition, the Court held that IDEA creates an express private right of action for the plaintiffs and that the defendant school officials are not immune from lawsuits under the 11th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

With regard to plaintiffs' Section 504 and Title II ADA claims, The Court ruled that the plaintiffs' could not proceed to trial on their Section 504 and Title II ADA claims, because they did not allege that defendants acted in bad faith or with gross misjudgment. This area is one that is controversial and different courts of appeals have ruled in different ways. The Doe court decided that the Sixth Circuit was among those courts that have ruled this way in the education context, even though this standard has not been applied generally to other 504 / ADA claims.

The Court also dismissed plaintiffs' claims under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However, the Plaintiffs also claimed that Ohio's funding disparity of not fully funding the special education cost formula, along with budget cuts that continue to target special education, constituted an arbitrary display of power that discriminates against children with disabilities in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As articulated by the Court:

The question is whether there is any rational basis for the State to guarantee 100 percent of the funds it determines are necessary to provide an adequate education for children without disabilities and only 87.5 percent of the funds it determines are necessary to provide an adequate education for disabled children. Defendants note that the new weighted system for funding special education is being phased in. By 2005, 90 percent of the recommended funding level will be guaranteed. See Ohio Rev. Code § 3317.013(F). However, 90 percent appears to be the cap; there is no indication that the State plans to guarantee 100 percent of the recommended funding level....

In this case, while there might well be a rational basis for the disparity in percentages of funding guaranteed by State, Defendants have not yet identified one, and the Court refuses to speculate as to what it might be. In the Court's view, Plaintiff's allegations, if true, are sufficient to overcome the presumption of rationality and are sufficient to state an Equal Protection claim.

As a result of the Court's decision, the plaintiffs will conduct discovery to gather more information and then decide whether to amend their complaint. No trial date has been set but the Court has scheduled a July 27, 2004 status conference with the parties.

Read the court's decision: Doe v. the State of Ohio (PDF file)

Note: The decision is available only in Adobe® Portable Document Format (PDF). To view and print PDF documents, you need to have Adobe® Reader®, a free software program, installed on your computer. Download Adobe® Reader®.

Return to top