Case 3:16-cv-00065-SRU Document 79-1 Filed 08/16/16 Page 1 of 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

ALICIA B. PPA, Through her Parent and Next Friend, Cynthia B. and TOBIAS J. PPA, Through his Parent and Next Friend, Robert J.,
Plaintiffs, v.
DANNEL MALLOY, in his Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Connecticut, DIANNA WENTZELL, in her Official Capacity as Commissioner of the State Dept. of Education, STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ALLAN B. TAYLOR in his Official Capacity as Chairperson of the Board of Education, STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, BETH SCHIAVINO-NARVAEZ, in her Official Capacity as Superintendent of Hartford Board of Education, HARTFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION, MATTHEW GEARY in his Official Capacity as Superintendent of Manchester Board of Education, MANCHESTER BOARD OF EDUCATION, JAMES THOMPSON, JR. in his Official Capacity as Superintendent of Bloomfield Board of Education, BLOOMFIELD BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Defendants.

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-00065 (SRU) AUGUST 16, 2016

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the Plaintiff, Tobias J., by and through his parent and next friend, Robert J., and Defendants Bloomfield Board of Education (“BBOE”) and James Thompson (collectively the “Bloomfield Defendants”) in the above captioned case, Alicia B. PPA, Through her Parent and Next Friend, Cynthia B., et. al. v. Dannel P. Malloy, et. at., 3:16-cv-00065-SRU (“Alicia

Case 3:16-cv-00065-SRU Document 79-1 Filed 08/16/16 Page 2 of 7
B.”) wish to resolve these matters and all pending disputes between them without further
litigation, administrative proceedings, expense or risk;
NOW THEREFORE, the Plaintiff and the Bloomfield Defendants (collectively the “parties”) hereby agree as follows:
1. The Bloomfield Defendants in Alicia B. shall make available to Tobias J. and Robert J. the sum of fourteen thousand, four hundred dollars ($14,400) as compensatory education, to be used for any of the following during the 2016-2017, 2017-2018, or 2018-2019 school years, or, in the case of college-related expenses, up to and including the 2019-2020 school year: a) Academic tutoring; b) Tuition for college preparatory courses, including SAT/ACT test preparation; c) Tuition for other courses in the areas of art and/other related electives which Tobias J. had no exposure to during his expulsion; and/or d) Tuition, books or fees for Tobias J.’s first year of college. Tobias J. and Robert J. shall submit invoices at least two weeks in advance of the necessary pay date for any of the above-referenced eligible expenses to the BBOE. Upon receipt, the BBOE shall pay the invoice directly and provide Tobias J. and Robert J. a copy of payment paperwork submitted.
2. The Bloomfield Defendants shall expunge the record of Tobias J.’s expulsion and all related records from his educational record. The Bloomfield Defendants shall also provide notice to the Manchester and Hartford Boards of Education that Tobias J.’s expulsion related records have been expunged from his educational record.
3. Prior to August 1, 2017, the Defendant Bloomfield Board of Education shall amend all applicable Board policies to implement the provisions of Public Act 16-147 that are related to the expulsion of students, as follows:
a) Requirement that parents and students receive five (5) day notice of expulsion hearings; b) Requirement that the hearing notice include information concerning:

Case 3:16-cv-00065-SRU Document 79-1 Filed 08/16/16 Page 3 of 7
i) A parent’s and student’s legal rights regarding expulsion procedures and right to education; ii) A student’s right to obtain counsel; iii) A parent’s right to postpone the expulsion proceeding up to one week in order to obtain counsel; and iv) Free or low cost legal services available locally and how to access those services; c) Requirement that all alternative educational opportunities during expulsion comply with Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-76j and include an individualized learning plan; d) Requirement that all students between the ages of 16 and 18 expelled for the first time be offered an alternative educational opportunity in compliance with Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-76j, regardless of their expulsion offense; and, e) Requirement that students transferring into the District during periods of expulsion receive an alternative educational opportunity, in compliance with Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-76j, pending a hearing by the BBOE regarding adoption of the student’s prior expulsion and after such hearing, if the BBOE adopts the student’s prior expulsion.
4. Prior to August 1, 2017, the Defendant Bloomfield Board of Education shall define the term “individualized learning plan” as used in Public Act 16-147, as follows:
An individualized learning plan shall: a) be based on an assessment of the pupil's strengths and academic and behavioral needs, if any; b) be created in a process that provides an opportunity for parent input; c) provide appropriate academic and behavioral interventions; d) ensure progress towards graduation, if applicable; e) contain a timeline and method for review of progress, including participation in standardized and district assessments; f) ensure information regarding regular progress monitoring is shared with the parent(s) and pupil;

Case 3:16-cv-00065-SRU Document 79-1 Filed 08/16/16 Page 4 of 7
g) ensure that, for any student transferring out of the District during a period of expulsion, a summary of work completed in the alternative educational opportunity is provided to the student’s new school district, upon notice to the District of the transfer; and h) describe support services to assist and facilitate the return to the student’s prior regular education environment at the end of expulsion.
5. The Defendant Bloomfield Board of Education shall, prior to September 1, 2017, provide teachers, administrators, and staff with professional development training on the above policy changes, including the rights of expelled students to an alternative educational opportunity.
6. The Bloomfield Defendants shall, for the school years 2016-17 and 2017-18, provide Plaintiffs’ counsel with data and information about the District’s progress in implementing this agreement as follows: a) The District will designate a staff person to prepare and provide Plaintiffs’ counsel with a report within 30 days of the end of the first semester of the school year, and then again, within 30 days of the end of the school year on the District’s progress in implementing the remedies described above. b) Each District update to Plaintiffs’ counsel will take the form of a memorandum with supporting documents that sets forth: i) efforts undertaken by the District during the previous semester to implement the agreement; ii) progress toward specific, measurable goals and outcomes, based upon standardized measurement tools, as agreed upon by the parties; iii) the results of those efforts; and iv) the District’s plans for implementing the agreement for the next and subsequent school years.
7. The parties to this Agreement hereby expressly acknowledge that said payment represents part of a compromise resolution of all allegations made by the Plaintiffs,

Case 3:16-cv-00065-SRU Document 79-1 Filed 08/16/16 Page 5 of 7
Tobias J, and his Parent, Robert J. against the Bloomfield Defendants, that the Defendants have violated Tobias J.’s and Robert J.’s rights under any and all applicable state and federal law, compensatory education services, including any and all claims that were raised or could have been raised in Alicia B PPA, Through her next friend, Cynthia B., et. al. v. Dannel P. Malloy, et. al. by Tobias J and/or Robert J. against the Bloomfield Defendants through 2019-2020, unless Tobias J. returns to the Bloomfield School District as a student before such time.
8. The Bloomfield Defendants agree to pay $20,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs in settlement of this matter to the Center for Children’s Advocacy within 30 days of the execution of this Agreement. Plaintiffs waive any and all rights to apply for any additional fees and expenses in connection with all claims and potential claims resolved through this Settlement Agreement. Under no circumstances will the Bloomfield Defendants have any further liability to pay Plaintiffs’ additional attorneys fees, costs or expenses in connection with such claims, unless the Plaintiffs must return to court pursuant to paragraph 10 of the Settlement Agreement.
9. This Settlement Agreement will be submitted to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Underhill, J.) for its approval. If the settlement is not approved by the Court, this settlement agreement will be void ab initio and the litigation of Plaintiffs’ court claims against the Bloomfield Defendants will continue.
10. Notwithstanding the dismissal of the underlying action, the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut will retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Settlement Agreement until such time as the monies described in paragraph 1 have been set aside by the Bloomfield Defendants, the policy revisions set forth in paragraphs 3 and 4 have been completed, the professional development set forth in paragraph 5 has been completed, and the monitoring and reporting described in paragraph 6 has been completed. Under no circumstances shall this Settlement Agreement be construed to convey jurisdiction upon the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut for alleged future violations of the policies described in

Case 3:16-cv-00065-SRU Document 79-1 Filed 08/16/16 Page 6 of 7
paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Agreement, or any other violation of any policy of the Board. The parties agree that neither party will apply for an award of fees or expenses in connection with monitoring compliance with this Settlement Agreement. In no event shall the Court’s retention of jurisdiction continue past September 1, 2020.
11. This Agreement contains the complete agreement of the parties and cannot be modified or amended except by further written agreement of the parties, approved by the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.

Dated this 16th day of August, 2016 Dated this 16th day of August, 2016

FOR THE PLAINTIFF TOBIAS J. THROUGH
HIS NEXT FRIEND ROBERT J.
_______/s/___________________________
Marisa M. Halm Martha Stone Center for Children’s Advocacy, Inc. UCONN School of Law 65 Elizabeth Street Hartford, CT 06105-2290
Hannah Benton Eidsath Michael Harris National Center for Youth Law 405 14th Street, Floor 15 Oakland, CA 94612
Erica R. Iverson K&L Gates LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022

Case 3:16-cv-00065-SRU Document 79-1 Filed 08/16/16 Page 7 of 7
FOR THE DEFENDANTS BLOOMFIELD BOARD OF EDUCATION AND JAMES THOMPSON
By _______/s/______________ Christine L. Chinni Chinni & Meuser One Darling Drive Avon, CT 06001

 
 Case 3:16-cv-00065-SRU Document 107 Filed 12/14/16 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

ALICIA B. PPA, Through her Parent and Next Friend, Cynthia B. and TOBIAS J. PPA, Through his Parent and Next Friend, Robert J.,
Plaintiffs, v.
DANNEL MALLOY, in his Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Connecticut, DIANNA WENTZELL, in her Official Capacity as Commissioner of the State Dept. of Education, STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ALLAN B. TAYLOR in his Official Capacity as Chairperson of the Board of Education, STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, BETH SCHIAVINO-NARVAEZ, in her Official Capacity as Superintendent of Hartford Board of Education, HARTFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION, MATTHEW GEARY in his Official Capacity as Superintendent of Manchester Board of Education, MANCHESTER BOARD OF EDUCATION, JAMES THOMPSON, JR. in his Official Capacity as Superintendent of Bloomfield Board of Education, BLOOMFIELD BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Defendants.

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-00065 (SRU) December 14, 2016

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL Plaintiffs, Alicia B., by and through her next friend Cynthia B., and Tobias J., by and through his next friend Robert J. (the “Plaintiffs”), and Defendants Beth Schiavino-Narvaez, in her official capacity as Superintendent of Hartford Public Schools and the Hartford Board of Education (the “Defendants”) (Collectively the “Parties”) in the above-referenced matter, do
1

Case 3:16-cv-00065-SRU Document 107 Filed 12/14/16 Page 2 of 4
hereby stipulate, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the following terms and conditions:
1. The Parties agree to settle and compromise the claims against Defendants Ms. Schiavino-Narvaez \and the Hartford Board of Education under the terms and conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreements, attached as Attachment A and Attachment B (permission requested to file under seal).
2. In consideration of these Settlement Agreements, the Plaintiffs agree that the claims against Defendants Ms. Schiavino-Narvaez and the Hartford Board of Education shall be dismissed with prejudice in full satisfaction of any and all claims brought against these Defendants in this case.
3. The undersigned counsel represent that they are authorized to enter into this Stipulation on behalf of their clients.
4. Execution of this Stipulation by counsel for the Plaintiffs and counsel for the Defendants shall constitute a dismissal of the claims against Defendants Ms. Schiavino-Narvaez and the Hartford Board of Education with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
5. This Stipulation shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties hereto and their respective successors and assignees.
6. The Parties agree that a facsimile of the signatures of the parties and counsel will be the same as the original.
7. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Stipulation and to conduct such further proceedings and award relief as may be necessary to resolve any breach of the attached Settlement Agreements by either of the Parties.

Case 3:16-cv-00065-SRU Document 107 Filed 12/14/16 Page 3 of 4
8. This Stipulation, read in accordance with the Settlement Agreements attached as
Attachment A and Attachment B, shall become effective upon the Court’s Order
and shall be the final expression of the Parties’ full and voluntary settlement
agreement.
9. This Stipulation may not be altered, modified, withdrawn, waived, rescinded or
supplemented in any way except by written instrument executed by duly
authorized representatives of all parties.
THE PLAINTIFFS ALICIA B., CYNTHIA B., TOBIAS J. & ROBERT J.
By ___/s/__________ Martha Stone (ct00080) Marisa Halm Center for Children’s Advocacy, Inc. UCONN School of Law 65 Elizabeth Street Hartford, CT 06105-2290 mstone@kidscounsel.org
Hannah Benton Eidsath (ct30020) Michael Harris (admitted pro hac vice) National Center for Youth Law 405 14th Street, Floor 15 Oakland, CA 94612 hbenton@youthlaw.org
Priya Chadha (admitted pro hac vice) Luke E. Steinberger (admitted pro hac vice) K&L Gates LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 priya.chadha@klgates.com

Case 3:16-cv-00065-SRU Document 107 Filed 12/14/16 Page 4 of 4
THE DEFENDANTS BETH SCHIAVINO-NARVAEZ and HARTFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION By ________/s/_________ Melinda Kaufmann (ct26712) Stephen M. Sedor (ct21117) Pullman & Comley, LLC 850 Main Street P.O. Box 7006 Bridgeport, CT 06601-7006
So Ordered, this ____ day of ______, 2016.
_________________________________________________Hon. Stefan R. Underhill

 
 Case 3:16-cv-00065-SRU Document 135 Filed 07/16/18 Page 1 of 11

ALICIA B. PPA, Through her Parent and Next Friend, Cynthia B. and TOBIAS J. PPA, Through his Parent and Next Friend, Robert J.,
Plaintiffs,
DANNEL MALLOY, in his Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Connecticut, DIANNA WENTZELL, in her Official Capacity as Commissioner of the State Dept. of Education, STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ALLAN B. TAYLOR in his Official Capacity as Chairperson of the Board of Education, STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, BETH SCHIAVINO-NARVAEZ, in her Official Capacity as Superintendent of Hartford Board of Education, HARTFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION, MATTHEW GEARY in his Official Capacity as Superintendent of Manchester Board of Education, MANCHESTER BOARD OF EDUCATION, JAMES THOMPSON, JR. in his Official Capacity as Superintendent of Bloomfield Board of Education, BLOOMFIELD BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Defendants.

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-00065 (SRU)

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiffs, Alicia B., by and through her next friend Cynthia B., and Tobias J., by and through his next friend Robert J. (the "Plaintiffs"), and Defendants Dannel Malloy, in his Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Connecticut, Dianna Wentzell, in her Official Capacity as Commissioner of the State Dept. of Education, State Department of Education,
1

Case 3:16-cv-00065-SRU Document 135 Filed 07/16/18 Page 2 of 11
Allan B. Taylor in his Official Capacity as Chairperson of the Board of Education, and the State Board of Education (the "State Defendants") (Collectively the "Parties") in the abovereferenced matter, do hereby stipulate, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the following terms and conditions:
1. The Plaintiffs and State Defendants agree to settle and compromise the claims against the State Defendants under the terms and conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement, attached hereto.
2. In consideration of the State Defendants' entry into this Stipulation and the Settlement Agreement, the Plaintiffs agree that the claims against the State Defendants shall be dismissed with prejudice in full satisfaction of any and all claims they brought, or which they could have brought, against the State Defendants in this case.
3. The undersigned counsel represent that they are authorized to enter into this Stipulation on behalf of their clients.
4. Execution of this Stipulation by counsel for the Plaintiffs and counsel for the State Defendants shall constitute a dismissal of the claims against the State Defendants with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
5. This Stipulation shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties hereto and their respective successors and assignees.
6. The Parties agree that an electronic reference to the signatures of the parties and counsel will be the same as the original.
7. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce certain terms of this Stipulation and the Settlement Agreement as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
2

Case 3:16-cv-00065-SRU Document 135 Filed 07/16/18 Page 3 of 11

8. This Stipulation, read in conjunction with the Settlement Agreement attached, shall become effective upon the Court's Order and shall be the final expression of the Parties' full and voluntary settlement agreement.
9. This Stipulation and attached Settlement Agreement constitute the sole and complete agreement of the parties.

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS ALICIA B. THROUGH HER NEXT FRIEND CYNTHIA B. & TOBIAS J. THROUGH HIS NEXT FRIEND ROBERT J.

By

/s/

MarisaM. Halm (ct27601) Martha Stone

Center for Children's Advocacy, Inc.

65 Elizabeth Street

Hartford, CT 06105-2290

Hannah Benton Eidsath Michael Harris (admitted pro hac vice) National Center for Youth Law 405 14th Street, Floor 15 Oakland, CA 94612

Priya Chadha (admitted pro hac vice) Luke E. Steinberger (admitted pro hac vice) K&L Gates LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022
FOR THE DEFENDANTS DANNEL MALLOY, DIANNA WENTZELL, STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ALLAN B. TAYLOR & STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

3

Case 3:16-cv-00065-SRU Document 135 Filed 07/16/18 Page 4 of 11

FOR THE DEFENDANTS DANNEL MALLOY STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ALLAN B. TAYLOR STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION DIANNA WENTZELL

By

/_s[

Walter Menjivar Assistant Attorney General Federal Bar No. ct29319 walter.menjivar@ct. gov

Ralph E. Urban Assistant Attorney General Federal Bar No. ct00349 ralph.urban@ct. gov

Office of the Attorney General 55 Elm Street, P.O. Box 120 Hartford, CT 06141-0120 Tel: (860) 808-5210 Fax: (860) 808-5385

So Ordered, this day of

, 2018.

Hon. Stefan R. Underhill

4

Case 3:16-cv-00065-SRU Document 135 Filed 07/16/18 Page 5 of 11

ALICIA B. PPA, Through her Parent and Next Friend, Cynttya B. and TOBIAS J, PPA, Through his Parent and Next Friend, Robert J.,
Plaintiffs, V. DANNEL MALLOY, in his Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Connecticut, DIANNA WENTZELL, in her Official Capacity as Commissioner of the State Dept. of Education, STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ALLAN B. TAYLOR in his Official Capacity as Chairperson of the Board of Education, STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, BETH SCHIAVINO-NARVAEZ, in her Official Capacity as Superintendent of Hartford Board of Education, HARTFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION, MATTHEW GEARY in his Official Capacity as Superintendent of Manchester Board of Education, MANCHESTER BOARD OF EDUCATION, JAMES THOMPSON, JR. in his Official Capacity as Superintendent of Bloomficld Board of Education, BLOOMFIELD BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Defendants,

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-00065 (SRU)

.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

WHEREAS, the Plaintiffs, Alicia B., by and through her parent, Cynthia B., and Tobias

J., by and through his parent, Robert J. (collectively, the "Plaintiffs") and Defendants Dannel

Malloy, State Board of Education, Allan B. Taylor, State Department of Education ("SDE"), and

Commissioner Dianna Weiitzell (collectively, "State Defendants") in the above captioned case,

Alicia B. PPA, Through her next friend, Cynthia B., et al. v. Dannel P. Malloy, el al., 3:16-ev~

1

Case 3:16-cv-00065-SRU Document 135 Filed 07/16/18 Page 6 of 11
00065-SRU ("Alicia B.") wish to resolve these matters and all pending disputes between them without further litigation, administrative proceedings, expense or risk;
WHEREAS SDE convened the Alternative Schools Conrniittee, which Plaintiffs' counsel participated in, to develop standards and best practices for the education of students who have been expelled;
WHEREAS SDE wrote the standards entitled "Standards For Educational Opportunities for Students Who Havo Been Expelled, 12/19/17 Revision," (hereinafter "Standards"), attached as an Exhibit herein;
WHEREAS the State Board of Education approved the Standards on January 3,2018 in accordance with Connecticut Public Act 17-220;
WHEREAS the Commissioner of Education issued these Standards with a written cover memo to Local Education Agencies ("LEAs"), boards of education and school districts on February 21,2018.
NOW THEREFORE, the State Defendants and the Plaintiffs (collectively, the "Parties") hereby agree as follows:
1, SDE will issue an agency guidance memorandum to LEAs, boards of education and school districts by September 1,2018 providing guidance related to the expulsion-related provisions of Connecticut Public Act 16-147. The guidance memorandum will also address the process and timeline for district adoption of a prior expulsion hearing decision under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-233d for students who transfer school districts during periods of expulsion,
2. No later than September 1,2018, SDE will issue the "Placement in Alternative Education Settings for Students who have been Expelled; Best Practice Guidelines for Program Implementation," (hereinafter "Guidelines") and circulate the Guidelines to LEAs, boards of education and school districts at the same time. The Guidelines will address best practices for the education the student shall receive if expelled.
2

Case 3:16-cv-00065-SRU Document 135 Filed 07/16/18 Page 7 of 11
3. SDE will submit to the State Board of Education a proposed Board Policy Statement concerning the importance of reducing expulsions and dispropoitionality in expulsions, among other points, in Connecticut for consideration by the State Board no later than its December 2018 regular meeting. Within 15 days after such time as the State Board issues a final Policy Statement, SDE will circulate it to LEAs, boards of education and school districts,
4. No later than September 1,2018, SDE shall facilitate state oversight of alternative educational opportunities by publishing on its website, in a manner easily accessible to students and families, materials consistent with Connecticut Public Act 16-147 and Connecticut Public Act 17-220 providing information for students and parents about student rights to education during periods of expulsion. SDE will also provide these materials via electronic mail to a list of agreed-upon community and legal organizations. SDE will publish resources as part of the Guidelines (see Paragraph 2 above). SDE agrees to consider recommendations from the Plaintiffs' counsel for inclusion in these resources, but SDE alone decides the content of its publications and websites.
5. On an annual basis, as set forth below, SDE will analyze suspension and expulsion data to identify dislricts with meaningful disparities in regard to rates of these punishments and racial disparities in suspensions/expulsions. SDE will determine the appropriate methodology and measures for conducting this analysis, Within 30 days of the execution of the settlement agreement, SDE will share the methodology and measures chosen with Plaintiffs and their counsel. SDE agrees to consider written feedback from Plaintiffs and their counsel on the methodology and measures chosen, provided such feedback is received within 15 days after SDE shares its methodology. SDE will have final decision making authority on the methodology and measures for conducting this analysis.
SDE will develop a tiered monitoring and recommended remediation approach of progressive intervention generally consisting of guidance for all districts, including sharing of resources pertaining to restorative and culturally responsive practices, and, as justified by
3

Case 3:16-cv-00065-SRU Document 135 Filed 07/16/18 Page 8 of 11
the particular circumstances, more significant interventions for some districts, to be determined by SDE. SDE in its sole and complete discretion will determine what circumstances will trigger which tier of intervention and what such intervention will involve, SDE will determine the tiers annually beginning in December 2020 and will publish the results on its website. SDE will report the tiers annually to the State Board of Education ("SBE"), beginning in December 2020. Beginning no later than December 2021, SDE will include in its annual reporting on the website and to the SBE information concerning the progress ,of districts in Tier 3 toward improvement.
6. Defendants agree to pay $50,000 in fees and costs in settlement of this matter. Plaintiffs waive any and all rights to apply for any additional fees and expenses in connection with all claims and potential claims resolved through this Settlement Agreement. Under no circumstances will Defendants have any further liability to pay Plaintiffs' additional attorneys' fees, costs or expenses in connection with such claims, unless the Plaintiffs must return to court pursuant to paragraph 9 of the Settlement Agreement.
7. The parties to this Agreement hereby expressly acknowledge that this agreement represents a compromise resolution of all allegations made by the Plaintiffs against the State Defendants in \\\Q Alicia B. case, and does not in any way constitute any admission that the state defendants, collectively or singularly violated the law in any way,
8. This Settlement Agreement will be submitted to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Underhill, J.) for its approval, If thesettlement is not approved by the Court, this settlement agreement will be void ah initio and the litigation of Plaintiffs' claims against the State Defendants will continue.
9. Notwithstanding the dismissal of the underlying action, the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut will retain jurisdiction until March 31,2022 to enforce reasonable compliance with (i) the dates set forth in paragraphs 1 through 5 of this Settlement Agreement; and (ii) the single, one-timepayment of attorneys' fees and costs setforth in
4

Case 3:16-cv-00065-SRU Document 135 Filed 07/16/18 Page 9 of 11
paragraph 6, Under no circumstances shall this Settlement Agreement be construed to convey jurisdiction upon the United States District Courtfor the District of Connecticut for alleged violation of any other provision or term of this Agreement, Plaintiffs may, upon motion to the Court, assert a claim of noncompliance with this Agreement as set forth in sub­ divisions (i) and (ii) of this paragraph 9, however, prior to bringing any such motion, Plaintiffs will be required to serve written notice on the Defendants detailing iheir claim(s) of noncompliance. Within thirty (30) days thereafter, or as such time as mutually agreed upon, the parties shall confer by telephone or in person in a good faith effort to resolve the dispute. If the parties are unable to resolve the dispute, Plaintiffs may file a motion with this Court . alleging a claim of substantial noncompliance and shall specify the relief sought. Any such motion shall detail any and all efforts to resolve the dispute prior to seeking Court intervention, Plaintiffs shall not be entitled to attorney fees or costs related to such motion or proceedings thereon, unless the Court finds substantial noncompliance by the Defendants and issues orders correcting such noncompliance.
10. This Agreement contains the complete agreement of the parties and cannot be modified or amended except by further written agreement of the parties, approved by the United States District Court for tfie District of Connecticut.
11. Except as set forth in paragraphs 8 and 9 hereof, for due and sufficient consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, this Agreement resolves and settles all claims which have been made or which could have been made by the Plaintiffs, in any forum whatsoever, known or unknown, including any claims for attorneys' fees and costs except as provided for in paragraphs 6 and 9 hereof, against the State Defendants, and (heir agents, employees and successors, arising out of or in connection with the education of the Plaintiffs through the date of this Agreement, It is specifically intended that this Agreement is a waiver of any claim, known or unknown, which the Plaintiffs may have against the State Defendants, their agents, employees and successors under state or federal law through the date of this Agreement.
5

Case 3:16-cv-00065-SRU Document 135 Filed 07/16/18 Page 10 of 11

12, The signatories to this Agreement represent and warrant that they are duly authorized to enter into this Agreement, This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original and which, when taken together, shall constitute one and the same instrument. A fax, copy or electronic signature page shall constitute an original.

Dated this [^^"day

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS ALICIA B. AND CYNTHIA B. TOBIAS I AND ROBERT J,

Marisa Halm

MartHa Stone

CENTER FOR CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY

UCONN School of Law

65 Elizabeth Street

'

Hartford, CT 06105

Hannah Benton Eidsath Michael Harris (admittedpro hac vice) NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW 405 14th Street, 15th Floor Oakland, CA 94612-2701 hbenton@youthlaw. org mharris@youthlaw.org

6

Case 3:16-cv-00065-SRU Document 135 Filed 07/16/18 Page 11 of 11

Priya Chadha (admitted pro hac vice) Luke E. Steitibcrger (admitted pro hac vice) K&L GATES LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 536-3900 Fax: (212) 536-3901 priya, chadha@klgates.com

Dated this j 3 day of $2018 Approved, It is so ordered.

FOR THE DEFENDANTS DANNEL MALLOY STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ALLAN B. TAYLOR STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION DIANNA WENTZELL By Walter Menjivar ^ Ralph Urban Office of the Attorney General 55 EJm Street Hartford, CT 06106 Tel: (860) 808-5318 Fax: (860) 808-5387 waiter,menjivar@ct,gov ralph, urban@ct.gov
Stefan R, Underbill, U.S.D.J. Date

7

 
 ALICIA B., PPA Through her Parent and Next Friend, CYNTHIA B., ET AL
PLAINTIFFS
v.
DANNEL MALLOY, ET AL
DEFENDANTS

SUPERIOR COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD DECEMBER 15,2015

STATE OF CONNECTICUT: ss:
COUNTY OF HARTFORD :

HARTFORD

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO PROSECUTE SUIT THROUGH A PSEUDONYM Pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book Section 11-20A(h)(2) and (3), Plaintiffs in the above captioned matter respectfully apply to this Court Ex Parte for permission to prosecute the action in the pseudonyms of Tobias J., Robert J., Alicia B., and Cynthia B., which are the names Plaintiffs seek to assume for purposes of anonymity and privacy. (See Affidavits of Plaintiffs, attached hereto as Attachments A-D.) Practice Book Section 11-20A(h)(2) empowers the Court to authorize the use of pseudonyms where the public's interest in knowing the identity of parties to a civil action is overridden by the necessity of preserving the identity and/or interests of a party to the matter. In this case, the necessity of preserving the privacy of minor Plaintiffs' identity outweighs the public's interest in knowing the names of Plaintiffs and their next friends, who are their parents.

Plaintiffs Tobias J. and Alicia B. are Black students, ages fifteen and thirteen years old, who have been expelled from their respective schools. During the period when Plaintiffs were expelled, they received alternative education, which the school district defendants are required to provide and the State defendants are responsible for guaranteeing. Plaintiffs allege the alternative education provided failed to meet Connecticut's constitutional guarantee of an adequate education. They further allege that the sub-standard alternative education offered to expelled children, who are disproportionately Black, violates the equal protection guarantees of the Connecticut and U.S. Constitutions.
Plaintiffs have a critical need to preserve the confidentiality of their identities. Plaintiff students are current students in Hartford Public Schools, and they allege facts regarding the alternative education that Hartford Public Schools provides. As current students in the school system, Plaintiffs are vulnerable to retaliation by the defendants. The fear of retaliation is justified based on previous discriminatory treatment by one or more of the Defendant school districts. (See Affidavits C and D of Tobias J. and Robert J. respectively, attached hereto).
Plaintiffs also have a strong privacy interest in protecting information regarding their expulsions. Disclosure of Plaintiffs' identities would allow the public, including fellow students, teachers, administrators, and community members, to learn of Plaintiffs' disciplinary history. Additionally, Plaintiff Tobias J. 's expulsion is directly related to juvenile court records. Disclosure of his identities would also allow the public, including fellow students, teachers, administrators, and community members, to learn of his juvenile court history. Plaintiffs reasonably believe this disclosure would subject them and their families to social stigmatization, public ridicule, and discrimination by those inside and outside the school community.
2

The sensitive nature of matters involving school discipline and juvenile court proceedings is recognized and protected by federal and state law. The federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act protects the privacy rights of parents and children by limiting access to education records, including disciplinary records, without parental consent. 34 C.F.R. § 99.2-99.3. Connecticut requires all records of cases ofjuvenile matters be confidential. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-124. Connecticut recognizes "an overriding public interest in protecting children and preserving their reputations from public exposure." Doe v. Roe, 2013 Conn. Super. LEXIS 66 (Conn. Super. Ct. Jan. 7, 2013, attached hereto as Attachment E). Plaintiff students' privacy interests regarding their disciplinary and juvenile court history will be protected through the use of fictitious names. These privacy interests will also be protected through the use of fictitious names for their parents, as the public, including other students, teachers, administrators, and community members, would be easily able to identify Plaintiff students through their parents' true names.
Fictitious names are necessary to preserve Plaintiffs' anonymity and privacy. The population of expelled students in Connecticut and in the three named school districts is small, and Plaintiffs reasonably believe that members of the public could identify them if they file using their true initials.
WHEREFORE, as the Plaintiffs' privacy interests will be protected by the use of fictitious names Tobias J., Robert 1., Alicia B., and Cynthia B., and the Plaintiffs' privacy interests greatly exceeds the public's interest in knowing the identity of the parties to this civil action, the Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court grant the Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for Permission to Prosecute Suit Through a Pseudonym.
3

In accordance with Practice Book § 11-20A(h)(2), the plaintiffs request that the motion
be granted allowing prosecution through a pseudonym.
:p~:~
Marisa/,~lm,~ Martha Stone, Esq. Center for Children's Advocacy 65 Elizabeth Street Hartford, CT 06105 (860) 570-5327 (860) 570-5256 fax mhalm@kidscounsel.org Juris No.: 421708
Hannah Benton Eidsath, Esq. National Center for Youth Law 405 14th Street, 15th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 835-8098 (51 0) 835-8099 Fax hbenton@youthlaw.org Juris No.: 428982
Walter P. Loughlin, Esq. K&L Gates, LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10022 (212) 536-4065 (212) 536-3901
- Walter.Lmw.......:hlin-.@...:_.... klaates.com
Juris No.: 372525
ORDER
The foregoing order, having been heard, is hereby ordered: GRANTED I DENIED
2

ATTACHMENT A

ALICIA B., PPA Through her Parent and Next Friend, CYNTHIA B., ET AL
PLAINTIFFS
v.
DANNEL MALLOY, ET AL
DEFENDANTS

SUPERIOR COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD DECEMBER 10,2015

STATE OF CONNECTICUT: ss:
COUNTY OF HARTFORD :

HARTFORD

AFFIDAVIT OF ALICIA B. IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO USE PSEUDONYM I, Alicia B. being duly sworn, hereby depose and say:
1. I am Alicia B., the student referred to in the complaint in the above-captioned case. Alicia B. is a false name I am using to bring this case.
2. I live in Hartford. Connecticut with my mother, Cynthia B., who brings this case as my parent and next friend. My mother is using the false name, Cynthia B., to bring this case
on my behalf. 3. I am referred to as Alicia B. in the Complaint because I believe if my name or initials are
used in this case, people will be able to figure out who I am, especially the students and teachers at my current schooL the students and teachers at my previous school, and other

people who live in Hartford. I do not want people to try to connect my name with the very personal information in court documents from this case. 4. As of the date of the signing of this affidaYit, I have been expelled from Hartford Public Schools once, and recommended for expulsion two times. 5. During the 2013-14 school year, when I was a sixth grade student at SAND School in Hartford. Connecticut. I was involved in a fight at school. I was expelled on April 17, 2014 for 180 days as a result of a hearing at which neither my mom or myself were present. I did not want to be expdleJ. and I asked the hearing ofticer to re-open the case. which she did. Even after I presented my side of the story. the hearing officer did not change her mind. On June 25.2014. my expulsion \Vas affirmed. I was upset, sad and mad about being expelled. 6. At the start of the 2014-15 school year. I \vas still expelled. I could not go to SAND School where my friends were. Instead. I had to go to New Visions, the alternative school in Hartford where students who are expelled are sent. 7. During this 2015-16 school year, I am an eighth grader at SAND School. The school wanted to expel me again as a result of an incident that occurred on October 27,2015. I already served a 10 day suspension for this incident. I went to an expulsion hearing in front of a hearing otlicer over this incident on December 2, 2015. I still have not received the decision from this cxpubion. lf I am expelled. l \Viii have to go back to New Visions for school. 8. I do not want to go back to New Visions. I got hardly any education at all the first time I was there. and it really discouraged me. I felt I \Vas missing out on important learning
2

that the other kids at my home school were getting. I would prefer to drop out instead of going back to New Visions. 9. I have agreed to share the information I am sharing in this case because I believe that I did not get the education that I needed when l was expelled. I do not want other students to have to go through months at a place like New Visions where they get work that does not matter and they don't have the opportunity to learn. However. I do not want people to be able to know that I am the person in the Complaint and these arc my facts. 10. I may have to return to New Visions. and if I do. I \vould be \Vorried that the teachers and other staff will treat me differently if they kno\\ the facts involved in this case. I do not want the teachers or students at New Visions to ask about my current expulsion and why I am at New Visions again. lfthey ask me questions about what led to my expulsion, it would be uncomfortable for me. 11. I think the staff at New Visions will treat me badly because I am the Plaintiff in a case about the bad education at New Visions. There are not a lot of students at New Visions. so it would be easy to identify me ifl did not use a false name in this case. 12. I also do not want the students and teachers at SAND School to know the facts about my expulsion and my feelings about being discouraged with school. I do not want my old classmates to know why I am no longer at SAND and what I am doing now. If they ask me questions about what led to my expulsion, it would be uncomfortable for me. 13. My pasl expulsion is private inf0rmation. and I do not want people to know this private information about me. 14. This is all true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
3

Alicia B.

~y Subscribed and worn to before me this

of December, 2015 7

4

ATTACHMENT B

ALICIA B., PPA Through her Parent and Next Friend, CYNTHIA B., ET AL
PLAINTIFFS
V.
DANNEL MALLOY, ET AL
DEFENDANTS

SUPERIOR COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD DECEMBER 10, 2015

STATE OF CONNECTICUT: ss:
COUNTY OF HARTFORD :

HARTFORD

AFFIDAVIT OF CYNTHIA B. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO USE PSEUDONYM
I, Cynthia B., being duly sworn, hereby depose and say: 1. I am the mother of Alicia B. who is a Plaintiff in the above-captioned case. Cynthia B.is
the pseudonym I have assumed for purposes of bringing this action on behalf of my daughter. 2. I live in Hartford, Connecticut with my daughter, who is thirteen years old. 3. I am referred to as Cynthia B. in the Complaint because I believe if my name or initials are used in this case, people will be able to identify me and my daughter easily, especially the students and teachers at my daughter's schools, and other people who live in Hartford. I do not want people to be able to link my daughter's name to the personal information in court documents from this case.

4. During the 2013-14 school year, when my daughter was a sixth grade student at SAND School in Hartford, Connecticut, she was expelled for 180 days.
5. After my daughter was expelled, I enrolled her at New Visions in Hartford, Connecticut, the alternative school for expelled students. I was worried about New Visions because it was a school for students with discipline problems, and I did not think it was the best environment for my daughter. However, Hartford Public Schools told me that my daughter must attend New Visions or she would receive no education at all. I felt like I had no choice but to enroll her at New Visions.
6. During the 2015-16 school year, SAND again moved to expel my daughter for an incident that occurred on October 27, 2015. An expulsion hearing was held on this matter on December 2, 2015 in front of an impartial hearing officer. I have not yet been notified of the decision of the hearing officer.
7. If my daughter is expelled again, she will return to New Visions and I do not want her to be in that environment again. I do not want to see her fall further behind in school and grow more discouraged about her education.
8. I want my daughter to attend a magnet high school in Hartford, and I am worried that the expulsion will prevent her from securing a seat at a magnet school. I am frustrated that New Visions is ruining her current and future educational options.
9. I do not want the students or teachers at New Visions to link my or my daughter's name to the facts in this case. My daughter has told me that she is worried that school staff, including the teachers, will treat her differently if they knew the facts involved in this case. Learning that my daughter and I are involved in this case may make the New Visions staff treat her differently because she is speaking up about the poor education
2

New Visions offers. My daughter may return to New Visions, and she could face retaliation from the staff. 10. My daughter has also told me that she is afraid that other students, both at New Visions and SAND, will ask her questions about her expulsion. She has told me that having been expelled is a painful and frustrating subject for her, and I do not want her to face questions from her classmates about what happened. 11. I have agreed to share personal details about my and my daughter's experience because I believe that my daughter did not receive the education she deserved while expelled. I do not want other students or parents to go through what I have gone through. However, I do not want people to be able to link my name to the facts in the Complaint about. I do not want people to know the private information included in the Complaint about her education. I am also very afraid that school employees will retaliate against both myself and my daughter for bringing this complaint against the school and the state. 12. The above is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Cynthia B.
Commi ioner of the Superior Court
3

ATTACHMENT C

ALICIA B., PPA Through her Parent and Next Friend, CYNTHIA B., ET AL
PLAINTIFFS
V.
DANNEL MALLOY, ET AL
DEFENDANTS

SUPERIOR COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD DECEMBER 11, 2015

STATE OF CONNECTICUT: ss:
COUNTY OF HARTFORD :

HARTFORD

AFFIDAVIT OF TOBIAS J. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO USE PSEUDONYM

I, Tobias J., being duly sworn, hereby depose and say:

1.

I am Tobias J., the student referred to in the complaint in the above-captioned

case. Tobias J. is a false name I am using to bring this case.

2.

Though I used to live in Manchester, Connecticut, I now live in Hartford,

Connecticut with my father, Robert J., who shares the same name as me and who brings this

case as my parent and next friend.

3.

I am referred to as Tobias J. in the Complaint because I believe if my name or

initials are used in this case, people will be able to figure out who I am, especially the

students and teachers at my school, and other people who live in Hartford or Manchester. I

do not want people to try to connect my name with the very personal information in court

documents from this case.

4.

During the 2013-14 school year, when I was an eighth grade student at Global

Experience Magnet School in Bloomfield, Connecticut, I was expelled after the police told

my school about an alleged delinquent act. These charges were eventually dismissed by the

Juvenile Court. Though the charges were dismissed, I was expelled from January 14, 2014

through December 16, 2014. It was very painful and humiliating for me to be expelled. 5. While I was expelled, from January 2014 to April2014, the education I received

from Manchester Public Schools was limited to ten hours of tutoring weekly.

6.

On April 1, 2014, Manchester Public Schools stopped my tutoring. From then on,

I did not get any education from Manchester Public Schools.

7.

In May or June 2014, I moved to Harford to live with my father. Although I tried

to register with Hartford Public Schools, they would not let me because of my expulsion.

Until the end of April 2015, I did not receive any education from Hartford Public Schools. Though my expulsion should have ended on December 16,2014, I was not allowed to start

school until after April24, 2015.

8.

When I finally returned to school, I was put back in eighth grade.

9.

In the fall of2015, I started my high school education at a new school in Hartford.

As far as I know, no one at this school knows about my expulsion and the lack of education I

received. 10. I am afraid that school staff, including my teachers, will treat me differently if
they know the facts involved in this case. I do not want my teachers to treat me differently because I am the Plaintiff in a case against the school district. I do not want them to look at

me differently than other students.

2

11. In the past, Hartford school staff treated me differently when they learned about my expulsion. Because they learned about my expulsion, they wouldn't let me start school, even when my expulsion was over. They also made me go through an assessment to say that I was safe to be in school. I am afraid that Hartford school staff will treat me differently agam.
12. I am also afraid that other students will treat me differently. I think other students will ask me questions about why I was expelled, and they may assume I am a bad person because I was expelled. They may also ask me questions about the police incident that led to my expulsion. These questions from other students would be very painful for me.
13. I do not want my new school to think I am a bad person because of my expulsion or my police involvement. I am trying hard to learn and succeed at school, despite the lack of education that I received from Manchester and Hartford.
14. My expulsion and the police incident during the 2013-14 school year are my private information, and I do not want people to know this private information about me.
15. I have agreed to share this information because I believe that I did not get the right education that I needed throughout the time that I was expelled. I do not want other students to have to go through what I did being put out of school for so long. However, I do not want people to be able to link my name to the facts in the Complaint about me.
16. This is all true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Tobias J.
3

Subscribed and worn to before me this

Comm ssioner of the Superior Court

4

ATTACHMENT D

ALICIA B., PPA Through her Parent and Next Friend, CYNTHIA B., ET AL
PLAINTIFFS
v.
DANNEL MALLOY, ET AL
DEFENDANTS

SUPERIOR COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD DECEMBER 10,2015

STATE OF CONNECTICUT: ss:
COUNTY OF HARTFORD :

HARTFORD

AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT J. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO USE PSEUDONYM

I, Robert J., being duly sworn, hereby depose and say:

1.

I am the father of Tobias J., a Plaintiff in the above-captioned case. Robert

J. is the pseudonym I have assumed for purposes of bringing this action on behalf of my

son. 2.

I live in Hartford, Connecticut with my son, Tobias J. My son is fifteen

years old. My son and I share the same name.

3.

I am referred to as Robert J. in the Complaint because I believe if my name

or initials are used in this case, people will be able to identify me and my son easily,

especially the students and teachers at my son's school, and other people who live in

Hartford.

1

4. My son previously lived in Manchester, and I am also concerned about people in Manchester identifying him as a Plaintiff in this case. I do not want people to be able to link my son's name to the very personal information in court documents from this case.
5. During the 2013-14 school year, when my son was an eighth grade student at Global Experience Magnet School in Bloomfield, Connecticut, he was expelled based on an alleged delinquent act. Even though the Juvenile Court eventually decided not to pursue these charges, he was expelled from January 14, 2014 through December 16, 2014. After my son was expelled, I was extremely concerned that he was not receiving an adequate education. From January 2014 to April2014, the education my son received from Manchester Public Schools was limited to ten hours of tutoring weekly. I was worried that he was not learning enough during this time.
6. In early April 2014, Manchester Public Schools abruptly ended the tutoring my son was receiving. After that, he did not receive any educational services from Manchester Public Schools. I did not know that he was still entitled to receive educational services even though he was expelled.
7. Sometime in late May or June 2014, my son moved to Harford to live with me.
8. I believed that my son would not be allowed to enroll in Hartford Public Schools until his expulsion was over. Preparing for the end of his expulsion, I took my son to Hartford Public Schools on November 9, 2014 to enroll him. The Hartford Public Schools Welcome Center staff told me my son had to enroll as an eighth grader and that
2

Milner School had space for him. The staff also told me to then go to the Miler School and

complete additional paperwork to register him.

9

On November 10, 2014, I took my son to Milner to complete the necessary

paperwork to enroll him in school. As I completed the extensive paperwork, I told the

school secretary that my son had been expelled the previous school year. The Milner

principal then talked to me and told me that my son would need to take a risk assessment

and she would need to talk to her supervisor at the Central Office of Hartford Public

Schools before he could attend Milner. 10. As a result, my son's enrollment process was cut short. The principal told

me to wait to hear back from her about my son's enrollment. 11. I did not hear back from Milner or Hartford Public Schools in November or
December 2014. In December 2014, I contacted Milner and was told that the principal

would call me back, but I did not hear back from her. 12. Though my son's expulsion should have ended on December 16, 2014,
Hartford Public Schools failed to enroll him in school at that time. In fact, Hartford Public Schools failed to permit me to enroll my son until April 2015. In the meantime, he

received no education whatsoever. 13. It was not until April 24, 2015 that Milner staff contacted me to have my son

start school. 14.

I immediately brought my son to Milner to finish the enrollment process.

3

In the fall of 2015, my son started high school at a new school in Hartford. I do not think that school staff or students know at this school know about his previous expulsion and the lack of education he received after he was expelled.
15. My son has told me that he is afraid that school staff, including my son's teachers, will treat him differently if they knew the facts involved in this case. I know that learning about my son's expulsion can make school staff treat him differently because this is what happened when I told Milner staff about his expulsion: they prevented him from enrolling in school and he was wrongfully denied an education for several month.
16. My son has also told me that he is afraid that other students will treat him differently, asking him questions about his expulsion and the incident that led to his expulsion. He has told me that his expulsion is a painful subject for him, and I do not want him to face questions from his classmates about it.
17. I have agreed to share personal details about my and my son's experience because I believe that my son did not receive the education he deserved while expelled. I do not want other students or parents to suffer what I have suffered. However, I do not want people to be able to link my name to the facts in the Complaint.
18. Because my son and I have the same name, if someone knew my name, it would be easy for them to figure out who my son was. I do not want people to know the private information included in the Complaint about his education and Juvenile Court involvement.
19. The above is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
4

I Subscribed and worn to before me this a--;ay of December, 2015.
5

ATTACHMENT E

Doe v. Roe
Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Waterbury at Waterbury January 7, 2013, Decided; January 7, 2013, Filed CV11601 0525

Reporter 2013 Conn. Super. LEXIS 66; 2013 WL 453052

John Doe et al. v. Jane Roe et al.
Notice: THIS DECISION IS UNREPORTED AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO FURTHER APPELLATE REVIEW. COUNSEL IS CAUTIONED TO MAKE AN INDEPENDENT DETERMINATION OF THE STATUS OF THIS CASE.
Judges: [*1] MARK H. TAYLOR, J.
Opinion by: MARK H. TAYLOR
Opinion
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR PSEUDONYM
BACKGROUND The present action for damages was brought by the parents of a minor child who was, allegedly, sexually assaulted at gunpoint by two of the named defendants in this case, who are also minor children. In the complaint, it is further alleged that these minor defendants have been prosecuted in juvenile court, based upon the same allegations. The third defendant is their mother, who is being pursued in this matter for negligent supervision of her two minor children. These allegations have been denied by the defendants. This case was filed with the court on June 27, 2011. Since then, all court filings have included the names of all parties, other than the victim who is simply referred to as "the Child." On October 17, 2012, the defendants filed a motion for the use of pseudonyms in place of their legal names. After proper notice, an initial hearing on this motion was held by the court on November 5, 2012 and the matter was continued for further proceedings and findings, held on January 2, 2013. There is a second, related action filed in this judicial district, named Utica First Ins. v. Roe, Superior Court,

[*2] judicial district of Waterbury, Docket No. CV 12 6015091. All parties to the present action are the named defendants in this second action, brought by the defendants' insurance carrier, seeking declaratory relief from any liability resulting from the actions of the defendants in the present case.
A status conference was scheduled by the court for both cases on December 5. 2012. Without the assistance of the court, all parties reached a universal settlement agreement, which included a provision to seal both files. However, the agreement to seal both cases was not immediately accepted by the court for three reasons. First, no sealing or use of pseudonyms order had been issued, as no findings had yet been made by the court on the record, as required by Practice Book § 11-20A. Second, no motion for pseudonyms has been filed by the plaintiffs in the present case to protect the names of the parents and, thereby, the name of the victim. Third, no motion had yet been filed, noticed or heard by the court in the companion case of Utica First Insurance v. Roe.
Since then, however, on December 19, 2012, a motion for pseudonyms has been filed by the plaintiff in the second case to protect the names [*3] of all of the defendants, who include all of the parties in this case. This second motion was noticed for a hearing by the court and was scheduled together with this matter on January 2, 2013, as required by the Practice Book.
II
DISCUSSION
Public court proceedings and records are necessary to protect the public's faith in the integrity of the judicial system. Therefore, "[t]he presumption of openness of court proceedings, which is implicated in applications to proceed anonymously, is a fundamental principle of our judicial system." Doe v. Connecticut Bar Examining Committee, 263 Conn. 39, 65. 818 A.2d 14 (2003). "The public and press enjoy a right of access to attend trials

2013 Conn. Super. LEXIS 66, *2

Page 2 of 5

in civil as well as criminal cases ... Though not as critical as access to the proceedings, knowing the litigants' identities nevertheless tends to sharpen public scrutiny of the judicial process, to increase confidence in the administration of the law, to enhance the therapeutic value of judicial proceedings, and to serve the structural function of the First Amendment by enabling informed discussion of judicial operations." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Doe v. Fim, Superior Court, judicial district of Ansonia-Milford, Docket No. CV 06 5001087, 2006 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2860
(September 22, 2006, Fischer, J.). [*4] See also Doe v.
McNamara, Superior Court. judicial district of Fairfield, Docket No. CV09 5022796, 2009 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1038 (April20, 2009, Hiller, J.).
Nevertheless, there are some matters so sensitive and private that openness in such a public forum must be tempered for there to be justice without further harm to victims and, as here, even for those who have allegedly harmed them, due to their status as minor children. "The ultimate test for permitting a plaintiff to proceed anonymously is whether the plaintiff has a substantial privacy right which outweighs the customary and constitutionally-embedded presumption of openness in judicial proceedings." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Doe v. Fim, supra, Superior Court, Docket No. CV06 5001087. See also Doe v. Diocese Corp., 43 Conn. Supp. 152, 159, 647 A.2d 1067 (1994) [11 Conn. L. Rptr. 519].
As discussed by the Appellate Court in Vargas v. Doe,
96 Conn.App. 399, 411, 900 A.2d 525 (2006): "[t]he most compelling situations [for granting a motion to proceed anonymously] involve matters which are highly sensitive, such as social stigmatization, real danger of physical harm, or where the injury litigated [*5] against would occur as a result of the disclosure of the [party's] identity ... There must be a strong social interest in concealing the identity ofthe [party]." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) The court recognized that "when allegations of sexual assault are involved. those who are alleged to be victims, especially minors, may have strong privacy interests in having the allegations and surrounding circumstances concealed from public scrutiny ..." /d., at 413. The burden is on the party requesting to proceed anonymously. /d., at 410. In determining whether there is a substantial, protected matter of privacy, our statutes and Practice Book provide courts with procedures and recognized rights of

confidentiality, permitting parties to proceed in some cases without full public disclosure of the parties' names and other confidential information.
Notwithstanding an agreement of the parties to limit public access to judicial filings and proceedings, which exists here, Practice Book §11-20A sets forth procedures and considerations courts must follow before permitting parties to proceed anonymously. Section 11-20A(h )( 1) provides in relevant part: "Pseudonyms may be used in place of [*6] the name of a party or parties . . . only if the judicial authority concludes that such order is necessary to preserve an interest which is determined to override the public's interest in knowing the name of the party or parties. The judicial authority shall first consider reasonable alternatives to any such order and any such order shall be no broader than necessary to protect such overriding interest. The judicial authority shall articulate the overriding interest being protected and shall specify its findings underlying such order and the duration of such order. If any findings would reveal information entitled to remain confidential, those findings may be set forth in a sealed portion of the record ... An agreement of the parties that pseudonyms be used shall not constitute a sufficient basis for the issuance of such an order ... The Practice Book also provides for the use of pseudonyms after an action has been commenced, as is th~ case here, so long as there has been proper notice to the public of the court's pending consideration of a motion for the use of pseudonyms. 1 Section 11-20A(h)(3) provides for the entry of such an order as long as the matter is placed on the short [*7] calendar to be held "not less than fifteen days following the filing of the motion unless the judicial authority otherwise directs, so that notice to the public is given of the time and place of the hearing on the motion and to afford the public an opportunity to be heard on the motion under consideration."
The court finds that the defendant's motion for permission to proceed under pseudonyms was filed on October 17, 2012. The motion was noticed and heard by the court at the short calendar held on November 5, 2012, and, upon further notice, the matter was continued to the short calendar held on January 2, 2013, a date not less than fifteen days following the date of filing.
The settlement agreement of the parties also provides for the sealing of a file. Practice Book§ 11-20A sets forth

1 There is the same provision for sealing at Practice Book §11-20A(f)(1 ), which is requested by the parties' agreement.

2013 Conn. Super. LEXIS 66, *7

Page 3 of 5

a procedure, similar to the procedure for the use of pseudonyms, that the court must follow in determining whether to seal documents within a file. Section 11-20A(g) and (h) provide in relevant part: "[T]he judicial authority may order that files, affidavits, documents, or other materials [*8] on file or lodged with the court or in connection with a court proceeding be sealed or their disclosure limited only if the judicial authority concludes that such order is necessary to preserve an interest which is determined to override the public's interest in viewing such materials. The judicial authority shall first consider reasonable alternatives to any such order and any such order shall be no broader than necessary to protect such overriding interest ... The judicial authority shall articulate the overriding interest being protected and shall specify its findings underlying such order and the duration of such order ..."
A motion to seal a file is subject to the same notice provisions that apply to pseudonyms. See Practice Book §11-20A(f)(1 ). In this case, no motion to seal has been filed and, therefore, no attendant notice to the public has been provided to perfect this request. Nevertheless. pursuant to Practice Book §11-20A(c), the court may enter an order limiting public access to information in a court file, sua sponte. In the present case, the court does not intend to seal the court file, except to the extent it may be necessary to effectuate an order permitting the [*9] use of pseudonyms.
To issue an order for the use of pseudonyms, the court must find that it is necessary to protect an individual interest, overriding the public interest in knowing the names of the parties. In the case before the court, there is no question that the confidentiality of sexual assault victims is protected by law. For example, General Statutes §54-86e protects the confidentiality of identifying information of victims of sexual assault. "The purpose underlying §54-86e is clear. It aims to protect victims of sexual assault by reducing unnecessary harassment and embarrassment in court, and by encouraging the disclosure of sexual assaults." State v. Bennett-Gibson, 84 Conn.App. 48, 69, 851 A.2d 1214, cert. denied, 271 Conn. 916, 859 A.2d 570 (2004 ).
The allegations in this case involve a sexual assault of a seven-year-old boy by two other males who are minors. aggravated by the use of a weapon. In ordering that pseudonyms be used in place of the plaintiff and his parents, the court needs no further rationale than that expressed by the court in Doe v. Johnson, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, Docket No. CV03

0483186 (December 2, 2003, Arnold, J.) (36 Conn. L.
Rptr. 101, 2003 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3330). [*1 OJ In
considering an application by the plaintiff to use a pseudonym, the court stated: "The social policy engendered in this statute should apply no less in a civil case where a minor child has alleged that she has been sexually abused by her stepfather over a period of years. The social stigmatization attached to a sexual assault, especially at such a young age, is obvious. Protecting the privacy of the plaintiff Jane Doe in no sense will harm the public interest. The details of the defendant's alleged wrongful conduct are extremely intimate and distressing. To force the plaintiff to proceed without the protection of the pseudonym Jane Doe could only subject the plaintiff to additional psychological harm and distress. To force her father to use his real name instead of John Doe would defeat the need for confidentiality of the identity of Jane Doe. This case is one of a highly sensitive and personal nature and overrides the public's interest in knowing the plaintiffs' true identities." /d.
Somewhat ironically, the plaintiffs have never sought an order for pseudonyms to protect the name of the victim from being discovered through the names of his parents. except through the settlement [*11] agreement to seal, filed on December 5, 2012. To the extent that it may be necessary to protect the name of the victim by protecting the names of his parents, the court will exercise its discretion to issue a narrower order to use a pseudonym, in place of the authority it has to seal a file, sua sponte, to protect the name of the victim in this case.
The court issues this order in light of multiple circumstances in these related cases and primarily to protect the innocent victim, who should be no less protected than the alleged perpetrators, who have procedurally perfected their motion for the use of pseudonyms in this case. In doing so, the court considers the fact that a motion for use of pseudonyms by the defendants has been pending in this matter for over two months and has been properly noticed on two occasions, without objection. In addition, there has been notice of the motion for the use of pseudonyms in the second, companion case, applicable to both the plaintiffs and defendants in this case, pending for fourteen days prior to the hearing held on January 2, 2103. Although this is insufficient legal notice under the Practice Book, which requires fifteen days notice instead of [*12] fourteen, the court views this procedural flaw to be de minimus, especially in light of the multiple proper notices of the motion for pseudonyms filed by the

2013 Conn. Super. LEXIS 66, *12

Page 4 of 5

defendants in this case. Taken together, the court considers the public to have been afforded the opportunity to be heard on the question of the use of pseudonyms by the victim and his parents in this case. See Practice Book §11-20A(f)(1) and (h)(3).
The defendants also seek the protection of anonymity through the use of pseudonyms. Similar to the issue of the statutory protection of victims of sexual assault, there is no question that the confidentiality of juvenile delinquency proceedings is protected by law. Delinquency proceedings are statutorily protected from disclosure by General Statutes §46b-124, 2 reflecting a clear public policy protecting the confidentiality of delinquency information. Although there are statutory exceptions to this general rule, 3 none of them appear to apply under the facts of this case, except that delinquency information may be made available to a victim.4 However, information made available to the victim of a juvenile offense may not be further disclosed, as has been done by the plaintiff in the [*13] pleadings in this case.
Therefore, the court finds that there is a protected interest associated with the confidentiality of juvenile proceedings, leading the court to conclude that there is an overriding public interest in protecting children and [*14] preserving their reputations from public exposure, despite the fact that the allegations against them may be abhorrent. The court finds there is no extraordinary reason in this case to depart from the general policy of confidentiality involving allegations of criminal acts committed by children.
Ill
ORDER
The court finds that the plaintiffs' interest in protecting the identity of their child is compelling and significant in light of the allegations of sexual assault. Although the

plaintiffs have requested that the court seal the entire file as a part of its settlement agreement, the court finds that the use of pseudonyms is no broader or narrower than is necessary to preserve their interest in confidentiality here in overriding the public's interest in knowing their names.
The court further finds that the defendants' interest in protecting the identity of their children is also compelling and significant. The court makes this finding in light of their status as children. Although the allegations brought against them involve abhorrent criminal conduct, confidential juvenile proceedings and their underlying facts are highly protected by law from public dissemination. Therefore, the court [*15] finds that pseudonyms are necessary for the defendants, including their parent, to accomplish the overriding interest in the confidentiality of children as the alleged perpetrators of criminal misconduct.
The parties shall prepare copies of all pleadings they have filed, identical to those previously filed with the court, except that all personally identifying information shall be removed, with names substituted by pseudonyms. The first named plaintiff shall be John Doe. The first named defendant shall be Jane Roe. Other pseudonyms shall be at the discretion and agreement of the parties. Furthermore, any addresses identified in the pleadings may be limited to the municipality involved. Once agreed upon by the parties, the new pleadings shall be substituted for the pleadings of record by the court clerks. This order shall remain in effect until otherwise ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction. No new filing fees shall be required.
Any transcripts of these proceedings shall be subject to this pseudonym order and any transcription shall be made with pseudonyms in place of a party's actual name.
BY THE COURT

2 General Statutes §46b-124(c) provides: "All records of cases of juvenile matters involving delinquency proceedings, or any part thereof, shall be confidential and for the use of the court in juvenile matters and shall not be disclosed except as provided in this section."
3 See General Statutes §46b-124(d).
4 General Statutes §46b-124(f) provides: "Records of cases of juvenile matters involving delinquency proceedings, or any part thereof. shall be available to the victim of the crime committed by such child to the same extent as the record of the case of a defendant in a criminal proceeding in the regular criminal docket of the Superior Court is available to a victim of the crime committed by such defendant. The court shall designate an official from whom such victim may request such information. Records disclosed pursuant to this subsection shall not be further disclosed, except as specifically authorized by a subsequent order of the court."

MARK H. TAYLOR, J.

2013 Conn. Super. LEXIS 66, *15

Page 5 of 5

 
 RETURN DATE: DECEMBER 29, 2015

ALICIA B., PPA Through her Parent and Next Friend, CYNTHIA B., TOBIAS J., PPA Through his Parent and Next Friend, ROBERT J.
PLAINTIFFS
V.
DANNEL MALLOY, in his Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Connecticut, DIANNA WENTZELL, in her: Official Capacity as Commissioner of the State Dept. Of Education, STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ALLAN B. TAYLOR in his Official Capacity as Chairperson of the State Board OfEducation, STATE BOARD: OF EDUCATION, BETH SCHIAVINONARVAEZ, in her Official Capacity as Superintendent of Hartford Board Of Education, HARTFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION, MATTHEW GEARY in his Official Capacity as Superintendent of: Manchester Board Of Education, MANCHESTER BOARD OF EDUCATION, JAMES THOMPSON, JR., in his Official Capacity as Superintendent of: Bloomfield Board Of Education, and BLOOMFIELD BOARD OF EDUCATION,
DEFENDANTS

SUPERIOR COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD
December 15, 20 15

COMPLAINT

1.

This Complaint is brought by and on behalf of Connecticut children who

have been expelled and excluded from school to enforce the children's fundamental right

to an education guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of Connecticut (the

"Constitution'') and their fundamental right to equal protection under the laws, as set

forth in both the State Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution of

the United States of America. This Complaint is further brought by and on behalf of the

parents of these expelled children.

2.

The right to an education is a fundamental right in the State of

Connecticut pursuant to Article Eighth, § 1 of the Constitution, which the State and its

actors are required to guarantee and which must be directly provided by the local school

district in which a child resides. It is a right over which these children may assert a

property interest and a right to which all children should have equal access.

3.

Expelled children, however, are given substandard education and are

relegated to inadequate education settings during the course of their expulsion. This

substandard experience causes expelled children to fall behind their peers, interferes with

their ability to graduate, and most importantly, fails to provide them with the skills and

knowledge they are entitled to obtain as students receiving a public education in the State

of Connecticut.

4.

Although expelled children are entitled to adequate education, the

alternative educational opportunities available to expelled students do not satisfy this

Constitutional guarantee. Compounding these violations, Black children are

disproportionally expelled in Connecticut as a result of selective enforcement of facially

2

neutral disciplinary policies and, consequently, are disproportionally deprived of the

fundamental right to education.

5.

The State of Connecticut, through the Defendants listed herein, has

failed to guarantee the right of education for these children. By consistently failing to

provide guidance, oversight, and clear standards concerning the administration of the

educational programs provided to expelled children, the State denied and continues to

deny these children their right to an education, and prevents equal access to the

meaningful educational experience to which they are entitled under the State and federal

Constitutions.

6.

In Connecticut, Black students are more likely to be expelled than White

students, and when they are, they receive inadequate education. This creates a hostile

education environment, an environment devoid of learning. This hostile education

environment adversely affects Black children's ability to obtain the same benefit from

schooling as White students. The specific environment faced by Plaintiffs in this action

was particularly hostile to adequate education.

7.

State actors know that these children suffer from a hostile education

environment and know that Black children are disproportionately affected by these

harmful policies. The State and its representatives are deliberately indifferent to this

suffering and have consistently failed to ensure that these children have equal access to

adequate education.

8.

Hartford Public Schools, Manchester Public Schools, and Bloomfield

Public Schools expel students and then provide them with unacceptable, substandard

alternative educational opportunities. These school districts provide students with little-

3

to-no direct instruction in core academic subjects for less than three hours per day,

limited-to-no structure, and no access to educational programming in non-academic

subjects such as physical education, health, music, art or vocational electives, all of

which are essential components of a meaningful education in accordance with

Connecticut's standards. By doing so, these districts deny expelled children access to the

meaningful educational opportunity to which the Constitution entitles them.

9.

These districts continue to be deliberately indifferent to the hostile

education environment that Black children in their respective districts endure while

expelled. Despite being aware of the inadequate educational opportunities offered to

expelled students-and specifically to Black expelled students-district officials have not

taken any action to remedy the fact that Black expelled children are consistently placed in

educational environments where learning is stunted.

10.

In so doing, the State and its districts have violated the Connecticut

Constitution's Article Eighth, § 1 and Article First, §§ 1 and 20. They have also violated

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the United

States Constitution. The individual State and municipal actors responsible for the

deprivation of these rights have additionally violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

I.

THE PARTIES

A. THE PLAINTIFFS

11. Plaintiff Alicia B. is a thirteen-year-old Black student who is entitled to

receive a public education in the State of Connecticut. She lives in Hartford,

Connecticut, with her mother, Cynthia B., who brings this Complaint as her parent and

next friend.

4

12. During the 2013-2014 school year, Alicia B. was a sixth grade student at

SAND School ("SAND") in Hartford. On March 27,2014, Alicia B. was involved in an

altercation at school, and SAND issued her a ten-day suspension pending expulsion.

13. On April 17, 2014, an expulsion hearing was conducted and a hearing

officer appointed by the Hartford Board of Education ordered Alicia B. expelled for 180

days.

14. During Alicia B.'s expulsion, the Hartford Board of Education assigned

her to the New Visions program, where she was provided an education for less than three

hours a day.

15. Plaintiff Tobias J. is a fifteen-year-old Black student who is entitled to

receive a public education in the State of Connecticut. He is a former resident of

Manchester, Connecticut and currently resides in Hartford, Connecticut, with his father,

Robert 1., who brings this Complaint as his parent and next friend.

16.

During his seventh and eighth grade years (the 2012-2013 and 2013-

2014 school years, respectively), while a Manchester resident, Tobias J. attended the

Global Experience Magnet School in Bloomfield, Connecticut, through the Choice

Program.

17.

On January 14, 2014, while Tobias J. was in the eighth grade, he was

expelled from the Global Experience Magnet School after his out-of-school arrest was

reported to the school. Even though the allegation underlying the arrest was not

substantiated, Bloomfield Public Schools expelled Tobias J. through December 16, 2014.

18.

The expulsion hearing decision from Bloomfield Public Schools

identified Manchester Public Schools as responsible for providing Tobias J. with an

5

alternative educational opportunity during his expulsion. Manchester Board of Education

provided Tobias J. with an alternative education for approximately two hours a day

through the beginning of April2014. After that date, Tobias J. received no alternative

educational opportunity.

B. THE DEFENDANTS

19.

Defendant Dannel Malloy ("Malloy"), or his successor, is the Governor

ofthe State of Connecticut. Under Article Fourth,§ 12 ofthe State Constitution, he is

responsible for ensuring all State laws are executed. Under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 3-1, he is

authorized to investigate and take proper action concerning any matter involving the

enforcement of the laws of the State and the protection of its citizens. Under Conn. Gen.

Stat.§ 10-1, 10-2 and 10-3a, he is also responsible for appointing the members of the

State Board Of Education and appointing a Commissioner of Education who shall serve

as the head of the State Department Of Education. Defendant Malloy is further

responsible, under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-4, for receiving a detailed statement of the

activities of the State Board Of Education and a summary of the conditions of

Connecticut public schools and of the amount and quality of instruction within those

public schools.

20.

Defendant State Board Of Education ("State Board"), under Conn. Gen.

Stat. § 10-4, is charged with the oversight, supervision and control of the educational

interests of the State including the educational interests of all students. The State Board

is responsible for ensuring compliance with and implementation of the laws concerning

education under the Constitution. Furthermore, under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-3a, the State

Board is responsible for recommending to Defendant Malloy a Commissioner of

6

Education and also overseeing the organization of State Department Of Education, which

the Commissioner is designated to administer.

21.

Defendant Allan B. Taylor ("Taylor"), or his successor, is Chairman of

the State Board. He leads the State Board's oversight, supervision, and control of the

State's educational interests as defined in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-4a.

22.

Defendant State Department Of Education ("SDE"), pursuant to Conn.

Gen. Stat. § 10-3a, acts as the administrative arm of the State Board to employ the

educational policies and recommendations of the State Board. SDE, under the direction

ofthe State Board, is responsible for overseeing the actions of individual school districts

and providing them with appropriate guidance to ensure that all Connecticut students

receive an adequate education.

23.

Defendant Commissioner Dianna Wentzell ("Wentzell"), or her

successor, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 10-2, 10-3a, serves as the administrative head

of SDE and is responsible for carrying out the mandates of the State Board.

24.

In this Complaint, the term "State Defendants" shall be used to mean

Defendants Malloy, Taylor, Wentzell, the State Board, and SDE.

25.

Defendant Hartford Board Of Education ("HBOE" or "Hartford Public

Schools"), Defendant Manchester Board Of Education ("MBOE" or "Manchester Public

Schools"), and Defendant Bloomfield Board Of Education ("BBOE" or "Bloomfield

Public Schools"), pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ I 0-15 and I 0-220, are responsible for

providing an education to the students enrolled in each oftheir school districts, ensuring

that this education meets a minimal qualitative standard, and complying with all

7

education laws, including Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-233d, which requires an alternative

educational opportunity for qualified expelled students.

26.

Defendant Beth Schiavino-Narvaez ("Narvaez"), or her successor, is the

Superintendent of Hartford Public Schools and an employee of HBOE, and is responsible

for the oversight, administration, and implementation of education in all of the schools

and programs within Hartford Public Schools, including the alternative educational

opportunities provided to expelled students.

27.

In this Complaint, the term "Hartford Defendants" shall be used to mean

Defendants HBOE and Narvaez.

28.

Defendant Matthew Geary ("Geary"), or his successor, is the

Superintendent of Manchester Public Schools and an employee ofMBOE, and is

responsible for the oversight, administration, and implementation of education in all of

the schools and programs within Manchester Public Schools, including the alternative

educational opportunities provided to expelled students.

29.

In this Complaint, the term "Manchester Defendants" shall be used to

include Defendants MBOE and Geary.

30.

Defendant James Thompson Jr. ("Thompson"), or his successor, is the

Superintendent of Bloomfield Public Schools and an employee of BBOE, and is

responsible for the oversight, administration, and implementation of education in all of

the schools and programs within Bloomfield Public Schools, including the alternative

educational opportunities provided to expelled students.

31.

In this Complaint the term "Bloomfield Defendants" shall be used to

include Defendants BBOE and Thompson.

8

32.

All of the individual Defendants and/or their successors are being sued

in their official capacities.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. PLAINTIFFS WERE HARMED BY THE INADEQUATE EDUCATION THEY HAVE RECEIVED DURING THEIR EXPULSIONS

1.

Plaintiff Alicia B. Has Been Harmed By the Lack Of Education She

Received During Her Expulsion

33. During the 2013-2014 school year, Alicia B. was a sixth grade student at

SAND in Hartford.

34. On or about March 27, 2014, Alicia B. was involved in a fight at school.

35. As a result of this incident, Alicia B. was expelled on April 17, 2014 for a

period of 180 days by the hearing officer appointed by the Hartford Board of Education.

Neither Alicia B. nor her mother Cynthia B. were present for this hearing because they

did not receive notice of it. Alicia B.'s expulsion was not mandatory under Conn. Gen.

Stat. § 10-233d.

36. Cynthia B. and Alicia B. requested that the hearing be reopened. Even

though the hearing officer agreed to reopen the hearing, Hartford Public Schools staff

told Cynthia B. that Alicia B. must attend New Visions, the alternative program offered

by the HBOE, while the hearing was pending. Cynthia B. was worried about the

influence of other New Visions students on Alicia B. and did not immediately enroll

Alicia B. as she was seeking other alternative educational options.

37. The expulsion hearing was re-heard by the same hearing officer on June

25, 2014. Shortly thereafter, the hearing officer affirmed the previous decision expelling

Alicia B. for 180 days.

9

38. The HBOE informed Cynthia B. that the New Visions alternate school program was the only alternative educational option available to Alicia B, and thus, Cynthia B. enrolled Alicia B. at New Visions at the start of the 2014-2015 school year.
39. Alicia B. had to travel across town, by herself on the city bus, to get to New Visions because transportation was not provided. Cynthia B. was extremely worried about Alicia B. traveling on the bus alone.
40. Alicia B. was assigned to a morning session at New Visions, which was just under three hours in duration. At this time, Alicia B. was advised by New Visions staff that she was going to be a seventh grade student. However, she was never provided any make-up work or remedial instruction from the date of the initial expulsion decision.
41. Alicia B. was placed in an environment that failed to prioritize her academic progress or take into account the severe consequences that lack of education school can have on a child's learning.
42. Although New Visions had its own small group of staff and teachers, the academic work assigned to expelled students is not intended to be prepared by New Visions staff. Instead, the work is supposed to be prepared and sent by the teachers at the individual students' home schools.
43. For approximately the first two months at New Visions, Alicia B. did not receive any work from her teachers at her home school of SAND. Instead, the staff at New Visions gave Alicia B. packets of work unrelated to any SAND curriculum. The majority of work that she was given was very easy for Alicia B., and she learned nothing new from it. One of the New Visions teaching assistants even told Alicia B. that the work they were giving her did not matter.
10

44. Cynthia B. repeatedly visited SAND and spoke with the principal, vice principal and various support staff to ask them to ensure that appropriate work be sent to New Visions for Alicia B.
45. Finally, more than two months after Alicia B. had enrolled at New Visions, SAND began to send coursework. However, SAND inconsistently provided Alicia B.'s work to New Visions, forcing Cynthia B. to visit SAND regularly to ensure Alicia B. would receive appropriate coursework. Moreover, even after SAND began sending work to New Visions, SAND did not provide work in all subjects. Alicia B. received some English, math, and science work from SAND, but she never received any work in history or in any of her electives including physical education, health, art, or music. Although she should have been receiving instruction in history and these electives, these courses simply were not available to Alicia B at New Visions.
46. When Alicia B. began at New Visions, she was initially in one classroom, with the same teacher the entire time. After she had been attending New Visions for a few months, the class format at New Visions changed and Alicia B. went from sitting in one class the entire time she was there to two different class blocks, the first of which focused on English and the second of which focused on math. Each class met for less than 90 minutes. Each class had one lead teacher. Depending on the day and/or the class, some classes also had an uncertified teaching aide.
47. There were no other academic classes at New Visions. 48. In both English and math classes, students worked independently on work that was sent to them by their home school without receiving any lessons or direct
11

instruction from the teacher or aide. The teacher or aide would provide students one-on-

one help if a student asked for it. Otherwise, all students worked independently.

49. Alicia B. rarely asked the New Visions teacher or aide for help because

the work she received from SAND was very easy. In contrast, Alicia B. asked for help

when she was at SAND. At SAND, the coursework challenged Alicia B. and she sought

help from teachers to complete her work. The work Alicia B. received at New Visions

was much less rigorous than what she received at SAND.

50. The lack of rigor in Nev,r Visions was evident in Alicia B.'s English

~

~

class. SAND provided Alicia B. a Reading and Writing \Vorkbook called Expert 21 for

her time at Nc\v Visions. Hmvevcr, SAND did not provide Alicia B. with all the \Vork

that her peers at SAND received and New Visions did not provide Alicia B. a teacher

who kept her on pace with the SAND English curriculum. When Alicia B. returned to

SAND. she learned that she was academically behind the other students in English.

51. Alicia B. did not have access to adequate instruction, computer

technology, materials, or tools for learning while at New Visions. New Visions only

provided worksheets in a few classes, which Alicia B. had to complete independently. At

SAND, Alicia B. had access to well-rounded learning opportunities, and she regularly

played the flute in music and played basketball in physical education. These materials

and opportunities were not part of the education offered at New Visions.

52. Alicia B. was greatly discouraged by the education she received at New

Visions because it seemed that no one cared about her education. For two months,

SAND did not provide her any work despite Cynthia B.'s efforts to ensure Alicia B.

received appropriate work. During that time, New Visions staff distributed packets of

12

work to Alicia B. and expressly acknowledged that the work was irrelevant and that it did not matter whether or not she completed the assignments. Alicia B. felt there was no point to education when the education she received was so poor and meaningless.
53. Furthermore, even after SAND began to send her work, Alicia B. never received any feedback, progress reports, report cards, grades or acknowledgement of the work that she did complete from SAND while she was at New Visions. It was as if the work she had completed was for nothing at all.
54. Given these realities, Alicia B. came to believe there was no point to the education she was receiving at New Visions and that her education was completely meaningless. As a result, this made her experience at New Visions, and the majority of her seventh grade year, debilitating and stressful for her. Alicia B. considered dropping out of school as a result of her experience at New Visions.
55. Cynthia B. felt that New Visions harmed Alicia B. by failing to provide her with education at a time when she particularly needed it.
56. Additionally, Alicia B.'s time at New Visions was a great source of stress and anxiety for Cynthia B. She spent hours going back and forth with SAND and New Visions staff, attempting to make sure that Alicia B. received some sort of education. This created undue anxiety and stress for Cynthia B.
57. During the period of her expulsion, Alicia B. was placed in a hostile educational environment where she had limited access to learning and the necessities of a well-rounded public education.
58. This hostile educational environment was not unique. Instead, it illustrates the inadequate education forced upon expelled Black children throughout the state.
13

59. During the current 2015-2016 school year, Alicia B. is an eighth grade student at SAND. Due to an incident which occurred on October 27,2015, SAND again moved to expel Alicia B. A hearing for this incident was held on December 2, 2015 in front ofthe same hearing officer who expelled Alicia B. in 2014. As of December 14, 2015, an expulsion decision had not been issued.
60. If Alicia B. is expelled from SAND, she expects that she will once again be offered alternative education through New Visions. Alicia B. is currently enrolled in nine classes at SAND: reading, music, physical education, art, science, social studies, language arts, mathematics, and health. New Visions offers two academic classes. Additionally, SAND may once again delay sending relevant work for Alicia B., who may once again complete pointless packets from New Visions staff. Moreover, even if Alicia B. does receive work from SAND, she has no expectation that she will receive any credit or assessment for this work, given that she received no progress reports, grades or report cards for her previous work at New Visions.
61. Not only does New Visions fail to provide adequate education, it also harms Alicia B.'s chance at pursuing educational opportunities at the end of the expulsion period. Alicia B. is currently waitlisted for several magnet schools, and she is enthusiastic about attending a magnet school. However, if expelled for 180 days, this would extend into Alicia B.'s ninth grade year and Alicia B. fears it would preclude her from securing a seat at a magnet school at the start of the year.
62. Given her previous experience at New Visions, Alicia B. would rather drop out of school than return to New Visions. Though Alicia B. prides herself on being
14

a smart student, the poor education at New Visions deeply discouraged her and made her

feel hopeless about her future.

11. Plaintiff Tobias J. Has Been Harmed By the Lack Of Education He Received During His Period of Expulsion and Subsequent Exclusion

63.

During the 2013-2014 school year, Tobias J. was an eighth grade student

at the Global Experience Magnet School in Bloomfield, Connecticut.

64.

In October 2013, Tobias J. was accused by his younger sister of a

delinquent act outside of school. There were no other witnesses to this alleged act.

Manchester Police were notified of this accusation. In December 2013, the Manchester

Police arrested Tobias J. based upon this accusation. The Connecticut Department Of

Children And Families found the accusation to be unsubstantiated. In March 2015, a

nolle prosequi was entered for Tobias J. 's delinquency charges related to this accusation,

reflecting the prosecutor's decision to drop the charges.

65.

On December 16, 2013, the Manchester Police notified Bloomfield

Public Schools and the Global Experience Magnet School of this arrest. Upon receiving

this information, the Bloomfield Public Schools decided to suspend Tobias J. and pursue

expulsion proceedings against him.

66.

An expulsion hearing occurred for Tobias J. in Bloomfield on January

13,2014. Tobias J. was not present; his mother was present on his behalf.

67.

As a result of this expulsion hearing and a hearing decision dated

January 14, 2014, Tobias J. was expelled from school through December 16,2014. His

expulsion was not mandatory under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-233d.

68.

During his period of expulsion, Tobias J. was entitled to an alternative

educational opportunity under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-233d. The Bloomfield Public

15

Schools hearing officer who expelled Tobias J. did not, however, describe the details of

the required alternative educational opportunity. Rather, the Bloomfield Public Schools

hearing decision only indicated that Manchester Public Schools was responsible for

providing the alternative educational opportunity.

69.

On or about January 21, 2014, Bloomfield Public Schools notified

Manchester Public Schools of Tobias J.'s expulsion.

70.

In accordance with Conn. Gen. Stat.§ 10-233d(g), Tobias J. was entitled

to another hearing to determine if this expulsion hearing was to be adopted by

Manchester Public Schools. Tobias J. never received notice of any such hearing and no

such hearing is documented in his educational record. Upon information and belief,

Manchester Public Schools automatically adopted Bloomfield Public Schools' expulsion

decision.

71.

On or about January 25, 2014, Tobias J. and his family were contacted

by Manchester Public Schools staff about Tobias J. 's alternative educational opportunity.

Manchester Public Schools staff told the family that this alternative educational

opportunity would be provided through individual tutoring. The individual tutoring

started shortly thereafter.

72.

Tobias J. was assigned to Mr. Michael Powell ("Mr. Powell"), a

Manchester Public Schools regular education middle school English teacher, as his tutor.

73.

Mr. Powell met with Tobias J. approximately five days a week for two

hours a day. Tobias J. and Mr. Powell met at the Wilson-Gray YMCA Youth and Family

Center ("YMCA") in the evenings, usually from six to eight PM. Approximately once a

16

month, Mr. Powell was unable to attend the tutoring session and Tobias J. would work

individually.

74.

Most nights, Mr. Powell met Tobias J. in a library area of the YMCA.

Tobias J. found that it could be difficult to focus on his work in the library area because

of intermittent distractions, such as other students playing music out loud.

75.

Tobias J. primarily received work in only four courses: math, history,

Spanish, and English. He received minimal work in science, a subject that has always

been difficult for Tobias J., and no other work in any other subjects. Tobias J. only

started receiving science work after asking the tutor about it, but after receiving very little

science work, he became discouraged and stopped asking the tutor about it.

76.

Although Tobias J. had been taking art and music at the Global

Experience Magnet School, he received no access to these courses during his period of

tutoring.

77.

Tobias J. received minimal direct instruction from his tutor in English,

math, and history. This direct instruction consisted of reading through copies of

textbooks together and reviewing worksheets together. Tobias J. received no direct

instruction in Spanish.

78.

Tobias J. did not have the benefit of learning from classroom discussion,

discussions with his peers, or of asking questions to a teacher certified in the subject area.

Tobias J. had no access to peer editing or other peer learning opportunities he had at

Global Experience Magnet School, such as dramatic readings of literature.

79.

During tutoring, Tobias J. had access to a computer and a calculator.

However, Tobias J. had no access to other technology or supplies that he had used in his

17

classrooms at Global Experience Magnet School. During tutoring, he had no access to

laboratory facilities for science class, equipment for musical instruction, supplies for art

instruction, or activities like science fairs.

80.

Despite having attended tutoring regularly, Tobias J. never received any

kind of report card or progress report detailing the work that he did with his tutor. It was

as ifhe had received no education at all.

81.

After a period ofless than three months, on or about April 1, 2014,

Manchester Public Schools abruptly ceased Tobias J. 's tutoring. Mr. Powell told Tobias

J. that the tutoring had been discontinued. Mr. Powell reported to Tobias J. that

Manchester Public Schools told him that Tobias J. should be a Hartford Public Schools

student and could consequently no longer receive tutoring from Manchester Public

Schools.

82.

Upon information and belief, because Tobias J. was temporarily living

with his paternal grandmother in Hartford, Manchester Public Schools refused to provide

him with access to an alternative educational opportunity. Given Tobias J.'s temporary

living situation, however, Tobias J. should have remained eligible for educational

services from Manchester Public Schools under the McKinney-Vento Homeless

Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. § 11431 et seq.

83.

Due to Manchester Public Schools' refusal to provide Tobias J. with

tutoring, Tobias J. went without any education at all for the rest of the 2013-2014 school

year, the balance of what should have been his eighth grade year. Tobias J. and Robert J.

were not aware that he had any right to an education during his expulsion. They knew

that his expulsion was in effect until December 2014, and they assumed that the school

18

district would have provided him with an education if it was required under the law.

Consequently, they did not challenge Manchester Public Schools' refusal to provide

Tobias J. with an education.

84.

In Spring 2014, Tobias J. spoke to his seventh grade French teacher

from Global Experience Magnet School, Mr. Moussa Ly ("Mr. Ly"). Mr. Ly told Tobias

1. that he would talk to the Global Experience Magnet School principal to find out

whether Tobias could return to Global Experience Magnet School before the end of his

expulsion. Tobias J. knew that other students had been allowed to return to school before

their expulsions were over; however, he did not understand the process for achieving an

early return to school. Tobias J. never heard back from Mr. Ly so he assumed that he

was not able to return to school early.

85.

In late May or early June 2014, Tobias J. moved in permanently with his

father in Hartford. Given his lack of knowledge about Tobias 1.' s rights as an expelled

student, Robert J. had the mistaken impression that Tobias J. had to wait until his

expulsion was over to receive any education from Hartford Public Schools.

86.

At the start ofthe 2014-2015 school year, although Tobias J. was

entitled to receive an alternative educational opportunity, he was receiving no education.

Tobias J. and Robert J. still had the mistaken impression that Tobias J. was not entitled to

receive any education whatsoever.

87.

On or about November 9, 2014, Robert J. took Tobias J. to register and

enroll in Hartford Public Schools, in preparation for the end of his expulsion. At this

time, staff at the Hartford Public Schools Welcome Center ("Welcome Center") told him

that there was space for Tobias J. at Milner School ("Milner") in the eighth grade.

19

Welcome Center staff told Robert J. that he would need to bring paperwork to Milner to

complete Tobias J.'s enrollment.

88.

Tobias J. was angry when he heard that Hartford Public Schools was

going to require him to attend eighth grade again because he should have been in ninth

grade during the 2014-2015 school year.

89.

On or about November 9, 2014, Robert J. brought the registration and

enrollment paperwork to Milner. The Milner secretary told him to bring Tobias J. back

the next day.

90.

On or about November 10,2014, Robert J. and Tobias J. went to Milner

to try to finish the registration and enrollment process. Robert J. told the Milner secretary

that Tobias J. had been expelled the previous school year. The Milner secretary told

Robert J. that he would need to talk to the Milner principal, Karen Lott ("Ms. Lott"). Ms.

Lott spoke with Robert J. and told him that Tobias J. would likely need to undergo some

sort of assessment before he could attend Milner. She also told Robert J. that she would

need to check with her supervisor at HBOE Central Office to confirm that Tobias J. was

entitled to attend school. As a result, Tobias J. 's enrollment process was cut short. Ms.

Lott told Robert J. that he should wait to hear back from her before Tobias J. could finish

enrolling and begin to receive education again.

91. The actions by Hartford Public Schools and Milner staff denied Tobias J.

an education to which he was entitled and confirmed his and his father's mistaken belief

that Tobias J. was not entitled to an education.

92.

Again, under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-233d(g), Tobias J. was entitled to an

additional hearing should Hartford Public Schools choose to adopt the Bloomfield Public

20

Schools' expulsion hearing decision. Tobias J. and Robert J. never received notice of any

such hearing and no such hearing is documented in Tobias J.'s educational record. Upon

information and belief, Hartford Public Schools automatically adopted Bloomfield Public

Schools' expulsion decision.

93.

During the next few weeks, Robert J. did not hear from the Milner

principal nor any other Hartford Public School staff about Tobias J. 's education.

Hartford Public Schools denied Tobias J. all access to education.

94.

In December 2014, Robert J. attempted to contact the Milner principal to

follow up on Tobias J. 's status, but he could not reach her. He did speak to the Milner

vice principal. The Milner vice principal told Robert J. that the principal had not heard

back from her supervisor yet and that the principal would give him a call. Robert J. never

heard back from the principal.

95.

At the beginning of2015, after the full term of Tobias J.'s expulsion had

expired, Tobias J. and Robert J. began receiving community-based social work services

from Thelma Gilbert ("Ms. Gilbert"), a staff person at the nonprofit agency Village for

Families and Children. Ms. Gilbert attempted to help Robert J. get Tobias J. enrolled in

school. She contacted various Hartford Public Schools departments to help Tobias J., but

received no response and Tobias J. remained excluded from education.

96.

Tobias J. continued to receive no education well into the 2015 calendar

year, long after his expulsion should have expired. In addition to de facto accepting

Tobias J.'s expulsion and excluding him from education without a proper hearing,

Hartford Public Schools also de facto extended Tobias J.'s expulsion beyond its term of

180 school days, which was the maximum length permissible under Connecticut law.

21

97.

On or about February 12,2015, Robert 1. returned to the HBOE

Welcome Center to ask again about Tobias J. 's enrollment. Welcome Center staff then

told him that Milner staff should have enrolled Tobias J. by now and that it was not clear

why Milner had not done so. Welcome Center staff encouraged Robert J. to return to

Milner so that the enrollment process could be finalized for Tobias J. and Tobias J. could

start school. However, even knowing that Milner staff had failed to properly enroll

Tobias 1. previously, the Welcome Center staff did not offer to do anything to help ensure

his enrollment.

98.

After talking to the Welcome Center staff in February 2015, Robert J.

and Tobias J. returned to Milner to attempt to complete the enrollment process so that

Tobias J. could start school. They spoke with both the Milner vice principal and

principal. Robert J. and Tobias J. received no explanation about why no one from the

school had contacted them about Tobias J.'s enrollment. By this time, Tobias J.'s

expulsion period had been over for approximately two months. Nonetheless, the Milner

principal told Robert J. that Tobias J. must undergo a risk assessment through the non-

profit agency Wheeler Clinic before he could be "cleared" to attend Milner School. The

Milner principal told Robert J. that her supervisor at the HBOE Central Office had told

her that this risk assessment had to be done.

99.

Robert J. complied with this requirement and allowed the school to

schedule an appointment with Wheeler Clinic for an evaluation. A social worker at

Milner coordinated and set up this appointment.

100. On or about March 6, 2015, Wheeler Clinic staff met Tobias J. at Milner for a brief risk assessment. Rather than advise the school staff of its findings

22

immediately while they were on site at the school, Wheeler Clinic staff told Robert J. that they would need to complete a written report and they would contact Robert J. upon the completion of the report.
101. On or about March 13,2015, Wheeler staff contacted Robert J. to tell him that the assessment report was ready. Wheeler staff told Robert J. that he would need to personally pick up the assessment report at their office in Plainville, Connecticut. Robert J. immediately went to pick up the report, which indicated there was no reason that Tobias J. should not return to school.
102. That same day, Robert J. brought the assessment report to Milner and delivered it to the Milner secretary. The Milner secretary told him that someone would contact him with Tobias J.'s start date for school.
103. On April24, 2015, Robert J. was contacted by Milner staff to have Tobias J. start school. He was told that there was additional paperwork that needed to be filled out and that upon completion Tobias J. could start eighth grade classes. Robert J. immediately complied with this request, taking Tobias J. and the paperwork that he had previously filled out back to Milner. Milner staff told Tobias J. that he could either start that day by going to his in-progress second period class or, because April 24 was a Friday, he could return and start on the following Monday. Robert J. and Tobias J. decided that it would be better for him to start a fresh week on Monday rather than joining all ofhis classes in the middle of the day.
104. On April27, 2015, Tobias J. started the eighth grade at Milner. After he started at Milner, his teachers all gave him the option of either trying to make up all of the work that he had missed or just being graded based on his work until the end of the
23

year. Tobias 1. decided to try to complete the work that he had missed. Hartford Public Schools provided him no remedial instruction or any type of tutoring or additional instruction to compensate for all the educational time they had denied him. He was promoted to the ninth grade at the end of the 2014-2015 school year.
105. Tobias 1. wanted to attend a magnet school during the 2015-2016 school year. He applied for the magnet school lottery, but he was not accepted through the lottery process. Consequently, in August 2015, Robert 1. registered Tobias 1. for the ninth grade at the HBOE Welcome Center for the 2015-2016 school year at Bulkeley Lower School.
106. During Tobias 1. 's period of expulsion and exclusion from educational opportunities, he was in a hostile educational environment. Tobias J. received a substandard education in the form of minimal tutoring from the end of January 2014 until the start ofApril2014. He received no education whatsoever after the start of April2014 until late April 2015. Tobias J. received no education until late April 2015 even though his expulsion ended on December 16, 2014. Hartford Public Schools actively obstructed Tobias J. from enrolling in school.
107. As a result ofthe hostile educational environment, Tobias 1. suffered great harm. Tobias 1. lost his seat at the Global Experience Magnet School and was unable to attend a magnet school for the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school years. He also was forced to repeat his eighth grade year.
108. The hostile educational environment made Tobias 1. increasingly hopeless, despondent, and angry. He spent a lot of time thinking about his future and worrying about what would happen because he was not receiving an education. He knew
24

that he would have no opportunities for postsecondary education or employment without an education. He felt like he could not do anything to access education, and he knew that he could not do anything fulfilling in his life without an education. Tobias J. felt himself becoming increasingly angry during this denial of education. He noticed that he could get mad over the smallest things during that time and this got worse the longer he was excluded. One of the reasons Tobias J. and Robert J. had to get counseling was because Tobias J. had so much anger about his situation.

109. Robert J. noticed that the denial of education changed how Tobias J. acted because he became withdrawn and would stay to himself. The hostile educational environment Tobias J. suffered also caused Robert J. significant stress when he would think about his son's future and the lack of education that he received. He also was sometimes late to work due to trying to get Tobias J. enrolled in school, and this made Robert J. worried about how his employer would view him.

B. THE STATE DEFENDANTS HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY HARMED EXPELLED STUDENTS THROUGH THEIR PROVISION OF SUBSTANDARD EDUCATION IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION

i.

The State Defendants Consistently Fail to Ensure that all Connecticut

Students Have Access to Suitable Public Education

110. The State Defendants have taken no action to ensure that students who are expelled receive adequate alternative educational opportunities.

111. The provision of insufficient alternative educational opportunities to expelled children contributes to their falling behind their peers, receiving significantly less content and instruction, and inhibiting their progress towards the upper grades, and ultimately high school graduation and the chance for independent, meaningful participation in our democratic society.

25

112. According to data collected by SDE, approximately 1,000 children are expelled from Connecticut schools each year. Upon information and belief, over 40 percent of expelled students receive "homebound tutoring," "homework only" or no education during their expulsion period. Nearly two-thirds of school districts that expel students use tutoring as the alternative educational opportunity provided to some expelled students. Roughly one-third of districts that expel students only offer expelled students tutoring as their alternative educational opportunity. Nearly one-third of all districts that expel students use "homework only'' as an alternative educational opportunity for some expelled students.

113. Upon information and belief, the State Defendants have created no criteria for the administration of alternative educational programs for expelled students and provide no monitoring or oversight to these programs.
114. Upon information and belief, the State Defendants have created no criteria for the administration of homebound tutoring programs for expelled students and provide no monitoring or oversight to these programs. Instead, the State Defendants have exempted homebound tutoring programs from the strict credit hour requirements that apply to regular classroom work at the high school level. Expelled children receive substantially less education than their non-expelled peers in terms of hours of instruction; course offerings; and access to instructional technology:

a.

Each school year, Connecticut students are entitled to receive 180

school days of education providing a minimum of 900 hours. Expelled students,

such as Plaintiffs Alicia B. and Tobias J., receive a fraction of these hours of

educational services;

26

b. Connecticut students are entitled to receive an education that includes a variety of course offerings by certified teachers, academic and nonacademic, inclusive of, but not limited to career education; consumer education; health and safety. Additionally, the education that students receive must meet a minimum qualitative standard that allows them to become responsible citizens who move on to productive employment or higher education. Expelled students, such as Plaintiffs Alicia B. and Tobias J., receive limited course offerings and limited access to certified subject-area teachers. 115. Upon information and belief, the State Defendants are aware that Connecticut expelled students receive inferior access to education compared than their peers in nearby states such as Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. For example, in both Massachusetts and New Jersey, expelled students are entitled to an individual education plan that ensures their progress and success. In New Jersey and Pennsylvania, expelled students are placed in programs that are accredited by the state and/or local board and provide mandated access to counseling and behavioral interventions. 116. Despite their obligation to ensure a meaningful education for all of Connecticut's children, their knowledge of the lack of access that expelled students have to meaningful education in Connecticut, and their knowledge of models from other states that improve expelled students' access to education, upon information and belief, the State Defendants have failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that expelled students have access to adequate education.
27

117. Upon information and belief, the State Defendants have failed to encourage the passage of legislation or the promulgation of regulations that would set standards, guidelines, and requirements for the alternative educational opportunities provided to expelled students.
118. During the 2013 Legislative Session, the State Defendants had the opportunity to support improving the education received by expelled students by amending Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-233d through House Bill 6504, An Act Concerning Alternative School Programs. However, the State Defendants did not support this language in the legislation, and the bill that ultimately passed into law did not mention education provided to expelled students.
119. Under Public Act 13-122, Defendants SDE and Wentzell were responsible for conducting a study of alternative schools and programs. Defendants SDE and Wentzell were further responsible for making recommendations for guidance, oversight, and requirements to improve the quality of education provided by alternative schools and programs. However, the study released in February 2014 did not address the alternative educational opportunities provided to expelled students, nor did it make any recommendations for improving educational services provided to students during expulsions.
120. During the 2014 Legislative Session, Raised Bill no. 5567, An Act Concerning Alternative Schools was raised. This bill specifically included language to ensure that minimum standards would be established for the alternative education provided to expelled students. This language was expressly removed from the bill that was approved by the Education Committee. The State Defendants did not protest this
28

change and took no action to ensure that such language be preserved for the benefit of expelled students.
121. During the 2015 Legislative Session, although two bills were introduced to address the inadequacy of alternative education provided to expelled students, H.B. 6615 and H.B. 6531, upon information and belief, the State Defendants again did not advocate for the passage of these bills. Neither bill made it out of the Education Committee.
122. In fact the State Defendants took no action to suppot1 bills that would have addressed the lack of clarity and minimum standards for altemative education opportunities provided to expelled students. Instead, the Alternative Schools bill that passed into law as Public Act 15-133 did not encompass the alternative education opportunities to be provided to expelled students pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat.§ 10-233d.
123. Upon information and belief, the State Defendants have taken no other steps to ensure that expelled students receive meaningful education.
124. Upon information and belief, the State Defendants have provided no guidance to school districts as to how the expulsion process should be handled for students in magnet, choice, or charter schools. Under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-233d, students are entitled to a hearing before a board of education accepts the expulsion decision of another school district. However, upon information and belief, the State Defendants have provided no guidance to school districts about conducting these hearings; provided no oversight to ensure that school districts are conducting these hearings; and provided no guidance about which school district is responsible for providing access to alternative education upon expulsion from a magnet, choice, or
29

charter school. Furthermore, upon information and belief, the State Defendants have

provided no guidance about a students' ability to return to a magnet, choice, or charter

school upon the conclusion of an expulsion.

ii. The State Defendants Have Refused to Address the Hostile Education Environment Experienced by Black Children While Expelled

125. Upon information and belief, the State Defendants know that Black

children in Connecticut are much more likely to experience the harm of insufficient

education during expulsion. Annual data collected from school districts by Defendant

SDE and reviewed at Defendant State Board meetings repeatedly shows that Black

children in Connecticut are disproportionately expelled, and therefore, disproportionately

placed in hostile educational environments that stunt learning.

126. For example, data from the 2011-2012 school year demonstrate that

Black students in the State of Connecticut were expelled at almost four times the rate of

their White peers. In comparison to all other students in the State of Connecticut, Black

students were almost three times as likely to be expelled.

2011-2012 Statewide Data Comparing Enrollment by Race with Expulsions by Race

Total Enrollment Expulsions

Black 13% 30.5%

Hispanic 19.5% 26.75%

White 60.75% 37.25%

Other 6.75% 5.5%

127. Additionally, data from the 2012-2013 school year demonstrate that Black students in the State of Connecticut were expelled at almost eight times the rate of their White peers. In comparison to all other students in the State of Connecticut, Black students were almost six times as likely to be expelled. Upon information and belief, a change in reporting practices for enrollment figures may have impacted these rates.

30

However, even absent the change in reporting practices, there is no reason to believe that

the rates would be significantly different than the year before or the year after.

2012-2013 Statewide Data Comparing Enrollment by Race with Expulsions by Race

Total Enrollment Expulsions

Black 7.75% 33%

Hispanic 20% 29%

White 59.5% 32%

Other 12.75%
6%

128. Again, data from 2013-2014 also showed a disproportionate number of

Black students being expelled. Black students were expelled at almost four times the rate

of their White peers. In comparison to all other students in the State of Connecticut,

Black students were almost three times as likely to be expelled. Although Black children

comprised approximately 13 percent of total public school student enrollment, they

represented more than 30 percent of the total number of students expelled from public

schools statewide.

2013-2014 Statewide Data Comparing Enrollment by Race with Expulsions by Race

Total Enrollment Expulsions

Black 13% 30.75%

Hispanic 21% 30%

White 58.5% 35%

Other 7.5% 4.25%

129. Yet again, data from the recent 2014-2015 school year showed that

Black students were expelled at almost four times the rate of their White peers. In

comparison to all other students in the State of Connecticut, Black students were almost

three times as likely to be expelled.

2014-2015 Statewide Data Comparing Enrollment by Race with Expulsions by Race

Total Enrollment Expulsions

Black 13% 31%

Hispanic 22% 28%

White 57.25% 35.5%

Other 7.75% 5.5%

31

130. Upon information and belief, statewide, White students are more likely than Black students to be expelled for offenses where referral for expulsion is mandated by statute, offenses including drugs or weapons. Upon information and belief, Black students, like Alicia B. and Tobias J., are more likely than White students to be expelled for offenses where referral for expulsion is discretionary. Upon information and belief, this disparity results from selective enforcement of facially neutral disciplinary policies.
131. This intentional discrimination results in Black students being placed in alternative educational environments where they cannot obtain the benefits of public education. In other words, the selective enforcement creates a hostile educational environment for Black students who are expelled. Upon information and belief, the State Defendants were aware of this hostile educational environment but failed to take adequate remedial measures.
132. On June 5, 2013 and March 4, 2015, at meetings of Defendant State Board, employees of Defendant SDE presented data showing that Connecticut Black children were more frequently expelled than White children and, consequently, more frequently experienced the harm of a hostile educational environment while expelled. Defendant Taylor attended both these meetings.
133. On March 11,2015, over 35 percent oftestimony submitted on Raised Bill 1053. An Act Prohibiting Out-of-School Suspensions and Expulsions For Students in Preschool and Grades Kindergarten To Two, to the Connecticut Legislature described how Connecticut students of color are excluded from school more than White students.
32

134. Upon information and belief, despite receiving and reviewing these disproportionate figures year after year, the State Defendants have taken no action to correct this problem. For example:
a. As part of Defendant SDE's presentation to Defendant State Board on June 5, 2013 which described the significant disparities experienced by Connecticut Black children in exclusion from education, Defendant State Board also presented a list of"Actions to Tum the Curve." None of the actions described by Defendant SDE explicitly included efforts to reduce racial disparities in access to adequate education for regular education students;
b. Connecticut created the Alliance District program to provide additional funding to low-performing districts. To receive this funding, Alliance Districts must submit a reform plan for approval to Defendant Wentzell. Defendant SDE reviews Alliance District plans on an annual basis and states that it bases annual plan approval on district implementation and performance during the prior year. Defendants HBOE, MBOE, and BBOE are all Alliance Districts. In the same presentation to Defendant State Board on June 5, 2013, Defendant SDE claimed that it would require Alliance Districts with identified climate and behavioral issues to address those issues in their Alliance District applications. None of the subsequent Alliance District applications from Defendants HBOE, MBOE, or BBOE mention any direct efforts to reduce racial disparities in expulsions. C. HARTFORD DEFENDANTS PROVIDE SUBSTANDARD ALTERNATIVE EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES TO STUDENTS DURING EXPULSION.
33

135. Hartford Defendants regularly and consistently place expelled students in substandard alternative educational opportunities, including the New Visions program. The alternative educational opportunities that Hartford Defendants offer to expelled students do not provide more than twelve-and-a-half hours of education a week to expelled students.
136. Although expelled students placed in New Visions are supposed to receive work from their home school, it is often weeks or months before students receive any work from their home school. Regardless of the source of the work, Hartford Public Schools' model for education for expelled students involves limited-to-no direct instruction during students' independent work on packets of worksheets.
137. The inadequacy ofthe alternative education provided to expelled students has been brought to the attention of Hartford Public Schools several times since at least 2013, and HBOE has continued to offer these students substandard education.
138. Expelled students in Hartford Public Schools miss crucial instruction and classroom discussion that is essential for progression from one grade to the next. They are also denied the same opportunity to earn the requisite credits needed to make meaningful progress towards graduation. Moreover, they do not have access to physical education, health, art, and many electives required for graduation.
139. Moreover, Hartford Defendants do not provide these expelled students with the ability to access a guidance counselor, vocational planning or training, any related services staff or personnel, or to the technology and resources available to students in their regular school setting. For students placed in New Visions, like Alicia B., the communication between New Visions and the students' home school is at best
34

sporadic, making students' return to their home schools all the more difficult. Upon

information and belief, students placed at New Visions do not receive progress reports or

report cards, making their transition back to their home schools more challenging.

140. Black students in Hartford continue to suffer this deprivation of

education at higher rates than children of other races.

141. Data from the 2011-2012 school year demonstrate that Hartford Black

children were expelled at overwhelming rates compared to all other children. Black

students were expelled at over fourteen times the rate of their White peers. In

comparison to all other students in Hartford Public Schools, Black students were almost

twice as likely to be expelled.

2011-2012 Hartford Data Comparing Enrollment by Race with Expulsions by Race

Total Enrollment Expulsions

Black 33% 48.75%

Hispanic 49.75% 48.75%

White 9.75%
0%

Other 7.5% 2.5%

142. Additionally, data from the 2012-2013 school year demonstrate that

Black students in Hartford Public Schools were expelled at almost three times the rate of

their White peers. In comparison to all other students in Hartford Public Schools, Black

students were over one-and-a-half times as likely to be expelled.

2012-2013 Hartford Data Comparing Enrollment by Race with Expulsions by Race

Total Enrollment Expulsions

Black 32% 42%

Hispanic 50%
48.75%

White 11% Less than 5%

Other 7%
Less than 5%

143. Similarly, data from the 2013-2014 school year demonstrate that Black students in Hartford Public Schools were expelled at over two-and-a-halftimes the rate of

35

their White peers. In comparison to all other students in Hartford Public Schools, Black

students were almost two times as likely to be expelled. Although they made up less than

one-third of the total Hartford Public Schools student population, Black children were

nearly half of the students who were expelled during the course of the 2013-2014 school

year.

2013-2014 Hartford Data Comparing Enrollment by Race with Expulsions by Race

Total Enrollment Expulsions

Black 31.25% 47%

Hispanic 49.5% 41.5%

White 12.35%
7%

Other 7%
4.5%

144. In the 2014-2015 school year, Black students in Hartford Public Schools

were expelled at over four times the rate of their White peers. In comparison to all other

students in Hartford Public Schools, Black students were almost two-and-a-half times as

likely to be expelled.

2014-2015 Hartford Data Comparing Enrollment by Race with Expulsions by Race

Total Enrollment Expulsions

Black 30.75% 53%

Hispanic 55.25% 40.5%

White 12.5% Less than 5%

Other 6.5% Less than 5%

145. Upon information and belief, these disparities are the result of the

selective enforcement of facially neutral disciplinary policies. This intentional

discrimination results in Hartford Black students being placed in alternative educational

environments where they cannot obtain the benefits of public education. In other words,

the selective enforcement creates a hostile educational environment for Hartford Black

students who are expelled. Upon information and belief, the Hartford Defendants were

aware of this hostile educational environment but failed to take adequate remedial

measures.

36

D. MANCHESTER DEFENDANTS PROVIDE SUBSTANDARD ALTERNATIVE EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES TO STUDENTS DURING EXPULSION

146. Upon information and belief, Manchester Defendants place expelled

students in substandard alternative educational opportunities. Manchester Defendants

provide some students, such as Tobias J., with tutoring as their alternative educational

opportunity while expelled, which does not provide more than ten hours of education a

week.

147. Upon information and belief, expelled students in Manchester Public

Schools who receive tutoring as their alternative educational opportunity miss crucial

instruction and classroom discussion that is essential for progression from one grade to

the next. They are also denied the same opportunity to earn the requisite credits needed

to make meaningful progress towards graduation. Moreover, they do not have access to

many of the courses required for graduation.

148. Upon information and belief, Black students in Manchester suffer this

deprivation of education at higher rates than White children.

149. Data from the 2011-2012 school year demonstrate that Black children

were expelled at overwhelming rates compared to all other children. Black students in

Manchester Public Schools were expelled at four times the rate of their White peers. In

comparison to all other students in Manchester Public Schools, Black students were

almost two-and-a-half times as likely to be expelled.

2011-2012 Manchester Data Comparing Enrollment by Race with Expulsions by Race

Total Enrollment Expulsions

Black 21.3% 40%

Hispanic 23.6% 40%

White 42.6% 20%

Other 12.4%
0%

37

150. Upon information and belief, in Manchester Public Schools, White students are more likely than Black students to be expelled for offenses where referral for expulsion is mandated by statute, offenses including drugs or weapons. Upon information and belief, Black students in Manchester Public Schools are more likely to be expelled for offenses where Manchester Public Schools exercises discretion in referral for expulsion.
151. Upon information and belief, these disparities are the result of the selective enforcement of facially neutral disciplinary policies. This intentional discrimination results in Manchester Black students being placed in alternative educational environments where they cannot obtain the benefits of public education. In other words, the selective enforcement creates a hostile educational environment for Manchester Black students who are expelled. Upon information and belief, the Manchester Defendants were aware of this hostile educational environment but failed to take adequate remedial measures.
E. BLOOMFIELD DEFENDANTS RELEGATE STUDENTS EXPELLED FROM THEIR MAGNET SCHOOLS TO SUBSTANDARD ALTERNATIVE EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES.
152. Upon information and belief, Bloomfield Defendants regularly and consistently place expelled students in substandard alternative educational opportunities. For example, in the 2012-2013 school year, Bloomfield Defendants provided "homework only" to 73 percent of expelled students and "tutoring" to 27 percent of expelled students in their district.
153. Expelled students in Bloomfield Public Schools miss crucial instruction and classroom discussion that is essential for progression from one grade to the next.
38

They are also denied the same opportunity to earn the requisite credits needed to make

meaningful progress towards graduation. Moreover, they do not have access to many of

the courses required for graduation.

154. Upon information and belief, Bloomfield defendants have no policies or

practices for providing alternative educational opportunities to students expelled from

Bloomfield magnet schools, such as Tobias J.

155. Black students in Bloomfield suffer this deprivation of education at

higher rates than children of other races.

156. Data from the 2011-2012 school year demonstrate that Black children

were expelled at overwhelming rates compared to all other children. Black students in

Bloomfield Public Schools were expelled at over twelve times the rate of their White

peers. In comparison to all other students in Bloomfield Public Schools, Black students

were over eleven times as likely to be expelled.

2011-2012 Bloomfield Data Comparing Enrollment by Race with Expulsions by Race

Total Enrollment Expulsions

Black 74.5% 100%

Hispanic 9.0% 0%

White 9.5% 0%

Other 6.8% 0%

15 7. Upon information and belief, these disparities are the result of the

selective enforcement of facially neutral disciplinary policies. This intentional

discrimination results in Bloomfield Black students being placed in alternative

educational environments where they cannot obtain the benefits of public education. In

other words, the selective enforcement creates a hostile educational environment for

Bloomfield Black students who are expelled. Upon information and belief, the

39

Bloomfield Defendants were aware of this hostile educational environment but failed to take adequate remedial measures.
III. LEGAL CLAIMS Count One: Against all Defendants (Connecticut Constitution, Article Eighth, § 1)
15 8. Paragraphs 1 through 15 7 are incorporated herein. 159. Under the Constitution of Connecticut, Article Eighth, § 1, the State Defendants are responsible for ensuring that all students attending public school receive an education suitable to give them the opportunity to be responsible citizens able to participate fully in democratic institutions and to prepare them to progress to institutions of higher education or to attain productive employment. The State Defendants are further responsible for ensuring that students in Connecticut receive substantially equal educational opportunities. 160. Under Conn. Gen. Stat.§§ 10-15c, and 10-220, the State Defendants have established a statutory scheme making the Hartford, Manchester, and Bloomfield Defendants responsible for direct provision of that education to students in their respective school districts. 161. This Constitutional obligation, implemented by the statutory scheme and shared by all Defendants, is an obligation that extends to all students, even those who are expelled. 162. The State Defendants have failed to ensure the Plaintiffs' access to an education that meets constitutional requirements. 163. The Hartford, Manchester, and Bloomfield Defendants have failed to provide the Plaintiffs with an education that meets these constitutional requirements.
40

164. As a result of these constitutional violations, the Plaintiffs have suffered irreparable harm, including, but not limited to the deprivation of their fundamental right to an adequate education, for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Count Two: Against All Defendants (Connecticut Constitution, Article Eighth, § 1 and Article First, §§ 1 and 20)
165. Paragraphs 1 through 164 are incorporated herein. 166. In accordance with Article First, §§ 1 and 20, the Equal Protection Clauses ofthe Connecticut Constitution, the State, Hartford, Manchester, and Bloomfield Defendants are prohibited from denying any individual the equal enjoyment of any right to which that individual is entitled on account ofrace, color, ancestry, or national origin. 167. The Defendants have demonstrated a pattern of discrimination by selectively enforcing facially neutral expulsion policies, which constitutes a violation of the protections guaranteed by the Constitution. This selective enforcement has resulted in Black students being subject to inadequate education at disproportionate rates throughout the state. The Defendants cannot articulate a nondiscriminatory reason for the widespread selective enforcement. 168. In addition, the inadequate educational opportunities for expelled students create a hostile educational environment for Black expelled students. The Defendants have actual knowledge of these hostile educational environments that deny expelled Black students access to education. The Defendants have failed to take adequate remedial measures. The Defendants were therefore deliberately indifferent to discrimination that created a hostile educational environment for Black expelled students.
41

169. As a result, the Plaintiffs have suffered irreparable harm, including, but not limited to the deprivation of their fundamental right to an adequate education, for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Count Three: Against All Defendants (Violation of the Equal Protection Clause ofthe Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983)
170. Paragraphs 1 through 169 are incorporated herein. 171. Under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, no state or state actors may deny any person within the state the equal protection of the laws. 172. The Defendants have demonstrated a pattern of discrimination by selectively enforcing facially neutral expulsion policies, which constitutes a violation of the protections guaranteed by the United States Constitution. This selective enforcement has resulted in Black students being subject to inadequate education at disproportionate rates throughout the state. The Defendants cannot articulate a nondiscriminatory reason for the widespread selective enforcement. 173. In addition, the inadequate educational opportunities for expelled students create a hostile educational environment for Black expelled students. The Defendants have actual knowledge of these hostile educational environments that deny expelled Black students access to education. The Defendants have failed to take adequate remedial measures. The Defendants were therefore deliberately indifferent to discrimination that created a hostile educational environment for Black expelled students. 174. The acts complained of were committed by the Defendants who were at all times acting under color of state law to deprive the Plaintiffs of their federal right to equal protection within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
42

175. As a result, the Plaintiffs have suffered irreparable harm, for which there is no adequate remedy at law.

Count Four: Against State Department Of Education, State Board Of Education, Manchester Board Of Education, and Education (Title VI and 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

Board Of Education, Hartford Bloomfield Board Of

176. Paragraphs 1 through 175 are incorporated herein. 177. In accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, as amended and found at 42 U.S.C. §2000d et seq., Defendants State Department Of Education, State Board Of Education, Hartford Board Of Education, Manchester Board Of Education and Bloomfield Board Of Education, as recipients of federal assistance, are prohibited from discriminating against any individual in their administration of any programs or activities on account of race, color or national origin.

178. Upon information and belief, each Defendant above is a recipient of federal funding.

179. The Defendants have demonstrated a pattern of discrimination by selectively enforcing facially neutral expulsion policies, which constitutes a violation of the protections guaranteed by Title VI ofthe Civil Rights Act. This selective enforcement has resulted in Black students being subject to inadequate education at disproportionate rates throughout the state. The Defendants cannot articulate a nondiscriminatory reason for the widespread selective enforcement.
180. In addition, the inadequate educational opportunities for expelled students create a hostile educational environment for Black expelled students. The Defendants have actual knowledge of these hostile educational environments that deny expelled Black students access to education. The Defendants have failed to take adequate

43

remedial measures. The Defendants were therefore deliberately indifferent to discrimination that created a hostile educational environment for Black expelled students.
181. The acts complained of were committed by the Defendants who were at all times acting under color of state law to deprive the Plaintiffs of their federal right to nondiscrimination within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
182. As a result, the Plaintiffs have suffered irreparable harm, for which there is no adequate remedy at law.
44

RELIEF REQUESTED: 183. Wherefore, Plaintiffs respectfully request that:
1. The Court declare that the Plaintiffs have a Constitutional right to a suitable educational opportunity, and that all Defendants have violated the Plaintiffs' right to an education under the Connecticut Constitution;
II. The Court declare that all Defendants violated the Equal Protection Clauses of the Connecticut Constitution;
111. The Court declare that all Defendants violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ofthe U.S. Constitution;
IV. The Court declare that State Department Of Education, State Board Of Education, Hartford Board Of Education, Manchester Board Of Education, and Bloomfield Board Of Education violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;
v. The Court declare that tutoring, homework and provision of worksheets as alternative educational opportunities to students during expulsion is insufficient and unconstitutional;
v1. The Court grant an immediate and permanent injunction against all Defendants, preventing the provision of insufficient and inadequate alternative educational opportunities to the Plaintiffs and similarly situated students;
vii. The Court grant an immediate injunction against all Defendants, preventing the expulsion of any student until such time that Defendants can guarantee expelled students' constitutional right to education;
45

vn1. The Court order State Defendants to immediately establish specific guidance to all school districts in the state for the administration of alternative educational opportunities to expelled students, guidance that includes the development of individual learning plans through assessment of individual students' needs and other strategies to ensure expelled students' constitutional right to education;
IX. The Court order Hartford, Manchester, and Bloomfield Defendants, in conjunction with State Defendants' oversight, immediately to develop and maintain new alternative forms of education for expelled students that will provide suitable educational opportunities to the Plaintiffs and uphold their constitutional rights, encompassing a minimum of 25 hours of education weekly;
x. The Court order the State Defendants to develop and oversee a corrective action plan for Hartford, Manchester, and Bloomfield Defendants to eradicate their discriminatory expulsion practices and also order the State to identify other offending school districts and subject them to such guidance and corrective action;
XI. The Court order all Defendants, in collaboration with one another, immediately to provide Plaintiffs Tobias J. and Alicia B. with compensatory education, in accordance with the recommendations of an education expert of the Plaintiffs' choice, for the months of education missed and substandard education received;
46

XII. The Court order all Defendants, in collaboration with one another, immediately to provide all expelled children with compensatory education;
xu1. The Court render an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and
XIV. The Court order any such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
tone, Esq. Center r Children's Advocacy 65 Elizabeth Street Hartford, CT 061 05 (860) 570-5327 (860) 570-5256 fax mhalm@kidscounsel.org Juris No.: 421708
Hannah Benton Eidsath, Esq. National Center for Youth Law 405 14th Street, 15th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 835-8098 (510) 835-8099 Fax hbenton@youthlaw .org Juris No.: 428982
Walter P. Loughlin, Esq. K&L Gates, LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10022 (212) 536-4065 (212) 536-3901 Walter.Loughlin@klgates.com Juris No.: 372525
47

ON THE COMPLAINT: Michael Harris Annie Lee National Center for Youth Law Priya Chadha Erica Iverson Luke Steinberger K&L Gates, LLP
48

 
 B., ALICIA, ET AL V. MALLOY, DANNEL, ET AL, HHD-CV-15-5040967-S (2015)

Current Date: 2/10/2019 Source: SUPERIOR COURT, CONNECTICUT

DISCLAIMER
This Data is provided for informational purposes only and it is not the official record. For copies of the official record (of an incarceration, conviction or court filing record) contact the source agency or court. In addition to any obligations under your Subscriber Agreement, your use of this data may be governed by the Supplier Additional Terms (see Footer).

CASE INFORMATION
Case Title: Court: Case Number: Original Docket Number: Case Type: Case Subtype: Key Nature of Suit: Description: Date Filed: Court Location: Case Status Date: Disposition Date: Disposed/Disposition:

B., ALICIA, ET AL v. MALLOY, DANNEL, ET AL SUPERIOR COURT HHD-CV-15-5040967-S HHDCV155040967S CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL (090) ALL OTHER 12/15/2015 HARTFORD 01/21/2016 01/14/2016 REMOVED TO FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT

PARTICIPANT INFORMATION
ALICIA B, PPA CYNTHIA B
Party Number: Type: Status: Attorney: Attorney Address:
Attorney Phone:
1

1 PLAINTIFF PARTY ACTIVE WALTER PATRICK LOUGHLIN 599 LEXINGTON AVENUE NEW YORK, NY 10022 212-536-4065

B., ALICIA, ET AL V. MALLOY, DANNEL, ET AL, HHD-CV-15-5040967-S (2015)

Bar Number: Firm Name: Attorney: Attorney Address:
Bar Number: Attorney: Attorney Address:
Attorney Phone: Bar Number: Firm Name:

372525 K&L GATES LLP FOR CHILDRENS ADVOCACY INC U CENTER
65 ELIZABETH ST HARTFORD, CT 06105 421708 HANNAH BENTON EIDSATH
405 14TH STREET 15TH FLOOR OAKLAND, CA 94612-2701 510-899-6559
428982 NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW

DANNEL MALLOY GOVERNOR STATE OF CONN

Party Number: Type: Status: Attorney: Attorney Address:
Attorney Phone: Bar Number: Attorney: Attorney Address:
Bar Number:

1
DEFENDANT
PARTY ACTIVE
RALPH E URBAN II
55 ELM STREET PO BOX 120 HARTFORD, CT 06141-0120
000-000-0000
085178
WALTER ALBERTO MENJIVAR
AG-HEALTH AND EDUCATION 55 ELM STREET HARTFORD, CT 06106
436605

CYNTHIA B
Party Number: Type: Status:
2

2 PLAINTIFF PARTY ACTIVE

B., ALICIA, ET AL V. MALLOY, DANNEL, ET AL, HHD-CV-15-5040967-S (2015)

Attorney: Attorney Address:
Attorney Phone: Bar Number: Firm Name: Attorney: Attorney Address:
Bar Number: Attorney: Attorney Address:
Attorney Phone: Bar Number: Firm Name:

WALTER PATRICK LOUGHLIN 599 LEXINGTON AVENUE NEW YORK, NY 10022 212-536-4065
372525 K&L GATES LLP FOR CHILDRENS ADVOCACY INC U CENTER
65 ELIZABETH ST HARTFORD, CT 06105
421708 HANNAH BENTON EIDSATH
405 14TH STREET 15TH FLOOR OAKLAND, CA 94612-2701 510-899-6559
428982 NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW

TOBIAS J, PPA ROBERT J
Party Number: Type: Status: Attorney: Attorney Address:
Attorney Phone: Bar Number: Firm Name: Attorney: Attorney Address:
Bar Number: Attorney: Attorney Address:
3

3 PLAINTIFF
PARTY ACTIVE WALTER PATRICK LOUGHLIN 599 LEXINGTON AVENUE NEW YORK, NY 10022 212-536-4065
372525 K&L GATES LLP
FOR CHILDRENS ADVOCACY INC U CENTER 65 ELIZABETH ST HARTFORD, CT 06105 421708 HANNAH BENTON EIDSATH
405 14TH STREET 15TH FLOOR OAKLAND, CA 94612-2701

B., ALICIA, ET AL V. MALLOY, DANNEL, ET AL, HHD-CV-15-5040967-S (2015)

Attorney Phone: Bar Number: Firm Name:

510-899-6559 428982 NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW

ROBERT J
Party Number: Type: Status: Attorney: Attorney Address:
Attorney Phone: Bar Number: Firm Name: Attorney: Attorney Address:
Bar Number: Attorney: Attorney Address:
Attorney Phone: Bar Number: Firm Name:

4 PLAINTIFF PARTY ACTIVE WALTER PATRICK LOUGHLIN 599 LEXINGTON AVENUE NEW YORK, NY 10022 212-536-4065 372525 K&L GATES LLP FOR CHILDRENS ADVOCACY INC U CENTER 65 ELIZABETH ST HARTFORD, CT 06105 421708 HANNAH BENTON EIDSATH 405 14TH STREET 15TH FLOOR OAKLAND, CA 94612-2701 510-899-6559 428982 NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW

DIANNA WENTZELL COMMISSIONER STATE DEPT OF EDUCATION

Party Number: Type: Status: Attorney: Attorney Address:
4

2 DEFENDANT PARTY ACTIVE RALPH E URBAN II 55 ELM STREET PO BOX 120

B., ALICIA, ET AL V. MALLOY, DANNEL, ET AL, HHD-CV-15-5040967-S (2015)

Attorney Phone: Bar Number: Attorney: Attorney Address:
Bar Number:

HARTFORD, CT 06141-0120
000-000-0000
085178
WALTER ALBERTO MENJIVAR
AG-HEALTH AND EDUCATION 55 ELM STREET HARTFORD, CT 06106
436605

STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Party Number: Type: Status: Attorney: Attorney Address:
Attorney Phone: Bar Number: Attorney: Attorney Address:
Bar Number:

3
DEFENDANT
PARTY ACTIVE
RALPH E URBAN II
55 ELM STREET PO BOX 120 HARTFORD, CT 06141-0120
000-000-0000
085178
WALTER ALBERTO MENJIVAR
AG-HEALTH AND EDUCATION 55 ELM STREET HARTFORD, CT 06106
436605

ALLAN B TAYLOR CHAIRPERSON STATE BOARD OF ED

Party Number: Type: Status: Attorney: Attorney Address:
Attorney Phone: Bar Number:
5

4 DEFENDANT
PARTY ACTIVE RALPH E URBAN II 55 ELM STREET PO BOX 120 HARTFORD, CT 06141-0120 000-000-0000 085178

B., ALICIA, ET AL V. MALLOY, DANNEL, ET AL, HHD-CV-15-5040967-S (2015)

Attorney: Attorney Address:
Bar Number:

WALTER ALBERTO MENJIVAR
AG-HEALTH AND EDUCATION 55 ELM STREET HARTFORD, CT 06106
436605

STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
Party Number: Type: Status: Attorney: Attorney Address:
Attorney Phone: Bar Number: Attorney: Attorney Address:
Bar Number:

5
DEFENDANT
PARTY ACTIVE
RALPH E URBAN II
55 ELM STREET PO BOX 120 HARTFORD, CT 06141-0120
000-000-0000
085178
WALTER ALBERTO MENJIVAR
AG-HEALTH AND EDUCATION 55 ELM STREET HARTFORD, CT 06106
436605

BETH SCHIAVINO-NARVAEZ SUPERINTENDENT HARFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION

Party Number: Type: Status: Attorney: Attorney Address:
Bar Number:

6 DEFENDANT PARTY ACTIVE CORPORATION COUNSEL HARTFORD 550 MAIN STREET HARTFORD, CT 06103 026795

HARTFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION

Party Number:

7

6

B., ALICIA, ET AL V. MALLOY, DANNEL, ET AL, HHD-CV-15-5040967-S (2015)

Type: Status: Attorney: Attorney Address:
Bar Number:

DEFENDANT PARTY ACTIVE CORPORATION COUNSEL HARTFORD 550 MAIN STREET HARTFORD, CT 06103 026795

MATTHEW GEARY SUPERINTENDENT MANCHESTER BOARD OF EDUCATION

Party Number: Type: Status: Firm Name: Firm Address:
Firm Phone:

8 DEFENDANT PARTY ACTIVE SHIPMAN & GOODWIN LLP ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CT 06103-1919 860-251-5000

MANCHESTER BOARD OF EDUCATION

Party Number: Type: Status: Firm Name: Firm Address:
Firm Phone:

9 DEFENDANT PARTY ACTIVE SHIPMAN & GOODWIN LLP ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA HARTFORD, CT 06103-1919 860-251-5000

JAMES THOMPSON JR SUPERINTENDENT BLOOMFIELD BOARD OF EDUCATION

Party Number: Type: Status: Attorney: Attorney Address:
7

10 DEFENDANT PARTY ACTIVE CHRISTINE LUCIA CHINNI CHINNI & MEUSER LLC

B., ALICIA, ET AL V. MALLOY, DANNEL, ET AL, HHD-CV-15-5040967-S (2015)

Attorney Phone: Bar Number: Firm Name:

ONE DARLING DRIVE AVON, CT 06001
860-677-0255 405946
CHINNI & MEUSER LLC

BLOOMFIELD BOARD OF EDUCATION

Party Number: Type: Status: Attorney: Attorney Address:
Attorney Phone: Bar Number: Firm Name:

11 DEFENDANT PARTY ACTIVE CHRISTINE LUCIA CHINNI CHINNI & MEUSER LLC ONE DARLING DRIVE AVON, CT 06001 860-677-0255 405946 CHINNI & MEUSER LLC

PAYMENT INFORMATION (1)
Date:
12/15/2015

Description: FILING FEE

Amount: $350.00

DOCKET PROCEEDINGS (11)

Date:

Entry #:

01/14/2016

108.00

01/14/2016

107.00

12/17/2015

106.00

12/15/2015 12/15/2015

105.00 104.00

8

Description:

Date Docketed:

Docket Entry: REMOVED TO FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT

Docket Entry: NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT

Docket Entry: MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE PB 2-16

Docket Entry: RETURN OF SERVICE

Docket Entry: ORDER PERMITTING USE OF PSEUDONYM(S) Judge: ANTONIO C ROBAINA Disposition: ORDER

Party: DEFENDANT DEFENDANT PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF COURT

B., ALICIA, ET AL V. MALLOY, DANNEL, ET AL, HHD-CV-15-5040967-S (2015)

12/15/2015 12/15/2015 12/15/2015

103.00 102.00 101.00

12/15/2015 12/15/2015 12/15/2015

100.32 100.31 100.30

End of Document

Docket Entry: MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
Docket Entry: MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO USE PSEUDONYM(S)
Docket Entry: EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO USE PSEUDONYM(S) Judge: ANTONIO C ROBAINA Disposition: GRANTED
Docket Entry: CONTINUATION OF PARTIES
Docket Entry: COMPLAINT
Docket Entry: SUMMONS

PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF
PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF

9

 
 CLOSED,EFILE,REFCNF,WIG
U.S. District Court District of Connecticut (New Haven) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:16−cv−00065−SRU

B. et al v. Malloy et al Assigned to: Judge Stefan R. Underhill Referred to: Judge William I. Garfinkel (Settlement) Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 01/14/2016 Date Terminated: 07/18/2018 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Alicia B. PPA, Through her Parent and Next Friend Cynthia B.

represented by Annie Lee National Center for Youth Law 405 14th Street, 15th Fl Oakland, CA 94612 510−835−8098 Fax: 510−835−8099 Email: alee@youthlaw.org TERMINATED: 05/04/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Erica R. Iverson K&L Gates, LLP− Lex, NYC 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 212−536−3900 ext. 3986 Fax: 212−536−3901 Email: erica.iverson@klgates.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Luke E. Steinberger K&L Gates, LLP− Lex, NYC 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 212−536−3900 ext. 4850 Fax: 212−536−3901 Email: luke.steinberger@klgates.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marisa Mascolo Halm Center for Children's Advocacy, Inc UCONN School of Law 65 Elizabeth St. Hartford, CT 06105−2290 860−570−5327 Fax: 860−570−5256 Email: mhalm@kidscounsel.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Harris National Center for Youth Law 405 14th Street, 15th Fl Oakland, CA 94612 510−835−8098 Fax: 510−835−8099

Plaintiff
Tobias J. PPA, Through his Parent and Next Friend, Robert J.

Email: mharris@youthlaw.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Priya Chadha K&L Gates, LLP− Lex, NYC 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 212−536−3900 ext. 3905 Fax: 212−536−3901 Email: priya.chadha@klgates.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hannah Benton Eidsath National Center for Youth Law 405 14th Street, 15th Fl Oakland, CA 94612 510−899−6559 Fax: 510−835−8099 Email: hbenton@youthlaw.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martha Stone Center for Children's Advocacy, Inc 65 Elizabeth St. Hartford, CT 06105−2290 860−570−5327 Fax: 860−570−5256 Email: mstone@kidscounsel.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Walter P. Loughlin K&L Gates, LLP− Lex, NYC 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 212−536−4065 Email: Walter.Loughlin@klgates.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Annie Lee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/04/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erica R. Iverson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Luke E. Steinberger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marisa Mascolo Halm (See above for address)

V. Defendant Hartford Board of Education TERMINATED: 12/22/2016
Defendant Beth Schiavino−Narvaez in her official capacity as Superintendent of Hartford Board of Education TERMINATED: 12/22/2016

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Harris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Priya Chadha (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hannah Benton Eidsath (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martha Stone (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Walter P. Loughlin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Melinda B. Kaufmann Pullman & Comley − Htfd 90 State House Square 13th Fl Hartford, CT 06103−3702 860−424−4390 Fax: 860−424−4370 Email: mkaufmann@pullcom.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen M. Sedor Durant, Nichols, Houston, Hodgson & Cortese−Costa PC 1057 Broad St. Bridgeport, CT 06604−0351 203−337−8242 Email: ssedor@pullcom.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Zachary David Schurin Pullman & Comley − Htfd 90 State House Square 13th Fl Hartford, CT 06103−3702 860−424−4389 Email: zschurin@pullcom.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Melinda B. Kaufmann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Dannel Malloy in his Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Connecticut
Defendant Dianna Wentzell in her Official Capacity as Commissioner of the State Dept. Of Education
Defendant State Department of Education
Defendant Allan B. Taylor in his Official Capacity as Chairperson of the Board of Education
Defendant State Board of Education

Stephen M. Sedor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Zachary David Schurin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ralph E. Urban Attorney General's Office −Elm Htfd 55 Elm Street P.O. Box 120 Hartford, CT 06141 860−808−5210 Fax: 860−808−5385 Email: ralph.urban@ct.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Walter Menjivar Attorney General's Office − HHS (Htfd) Health & Human Services 55 Elm St., Po Box 120 Hartford, CT 06101 860−808−5210 Fax: 860−808−5385 Email: Walter.Menjivar@ct.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ralph E. Urban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Walter Menjivar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ralph E. Urban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Walter Menjivar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ralph E. Urban (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Walter Menjivar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ralph E. Urban (See above for address)

Defendant Matthew Geary in his Official Capacity as Superintendent of Manchester Board Of Education TERMINATED: 08/11/2016
Defendant Manchester Board of Education TERMINATED: 08/11/2016
Defendant James Thompson, Jr. in his Official Capacity as Superintendent Of Bloomfield Board of Education TERMINATED: 08/18/2016
Defendant Bloomfield Board of Education TERMINATED: 08/18/2016

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Walter Menjivar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Linda L. Yoder Shipman & Goodwin −ConstPlza−Htfd One Constitution Plaza 18th Floor Hartford, CT 06103−1919 860−251−5717 Fax: 860−251−5500 Email: lyoder@goodwin.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J. Maher Shipman & Goodwin −ConstPlza−Htfd One Constitution Plaza 18th Floor Hartford, CT 06103−1919 860−251−5507 Fax: 860−251−5215 Email: pmaher@goodwin.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Linda L. Yoder (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J. Maher (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christine L. Chinni Chinni & Meuser LLC 30 Avon Meadow Lane Avon, CT 06001 860−677−0255 Fax: 860−677−1792 Email: chris@chinniandmeuser.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christine L. Chinni (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 01/14/2016

# Docket Text
1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL ( Filing fee $400 receipt number 0205−3861790.), filed by Hartford Board of Education. (Attachments: # 1 Summons and Complaint, # 2 Appearance, # 3 Pending Motion, # 4 Removal Statement, # 5 Notice of Consent)(Kaufmann, Melinda) Modified on 1/15/2016 (Walker, A). (Entered: 01/14/2016)

01/14/2016 01/14/2016 01/14/2016 01/14/2016 01/14/2016 01/14/2016 01/14/2016 01/14/2016 01/14/2016 01/14/2016 01/15/2016
01/15/2016
01/27/2016 02/01/2016 02/01/2016 02/02/2016

2 NOTICE of Appearance by Melinda B. Kaufmann on behalf of Hartford Board of Education, Beth Schiavino−Narvaez (Kaufmann, Melinda) (Entered: 01/14/2016)
3 NOTICE by Hartford Board of Education, Beth Schiavino−Narvaez of Pending Motions (Kaufmann, Melinda) (Entered: 01/14/2016)
4 NOTICE by Hartford Board of Education, Beth Schiavino−Narvaez of Removal Statement (Kaufmann, Melinda) (Entered: 01/14/2016)
5 NOTICE by Hartford Board of Education, Beth Schiavino−Narvaez re 1 Complaint, of Bloomfield Board of Education's Consent to Removal (Kaufmann, Melinda) (Entered: 01/14/2016)
6 NOTICE by Hartford Board of Education, Beth Schiavino−Narvaez re 1 Complaint, of Manchester Board of Education's Consent to Removal (Kaufmann, Melinda) (Entered: 01/14/2016)
7 NOTICE by Hartford Board of Education, Beth Schiavino−Narvaez re 1 Complaint, of State Dept. of Education's Consent to Removal (Kaufmann, Melinda) (Entered: 01/14/2016)
Judge Stefan R. Underhill added. (Walker, A) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
8 Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Motions to Dismiss due on 4/14/2016. Amended Pleadings due by 3/14/2016 Discovery due by 7/15/2016 Dispositive Motions due by 8/14/2016 Signed by Clerk on 1/14/2016.(Oliver, T.) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
9 ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER − PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 1/14/2016.(Oliver, T.) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
10 STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 1/14/2016.(Oliver, T.) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
NOTICE TO COUNSEL NOT ADMITTED TO THE BAR OF THE US DISTRICT COURT OF CONNECTICUT Re: Local Rule 83.1 Admission of Attorneys. The above captioned case has been received and filed in our court. Please see our Local Rule 83.1 regarding Admission of Attorneys that is available on our website at www.ctd.uscourts.gov. We will not accept further filings from your office until you have complied with Local Rule 83.1. If you have any questions about this procedure, please contact the Clerk's Office. Signed by Clerk on 1/15/2016. (Walker, A) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
11 NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Counsel initiating or removing this action is responsible for serving all parties with attached documents and copies of 2 Notice of Appearance filed by Hartford Board of Education, Beth Schiavino−Narvaez, 6 Notice (Other) filed by Hartford Board of Education, Beth Schiavino−Narvaez, 8 Order on Pretrial Deadlines, 9 Electronic Filing Order, 7 Notice (Other) filed by Hartford Board of Education, Beth Schiavino−Narvaez, 5 Notice (Other) filed by Hartford Board of Education, Beth Schiavino−Narvaez, 1 Complaint, filed by Hartford Board of Education, 4 Notice (Other) filed by Hartford Board of Education, Beth Schiavino−Narvaez, 10 Protective Order, 3 Notice (Other) filed by Hartford Board of Education, Beth Schiavino−Narvaez Signed by Clerk on 1/15/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Removal Standing Order)(Oliver, T.) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
12 NOTICE of Appearance by Stephen M. Sedor on behalf of Hartford Board of Education, Beth Schiavino−Narvaez (Sedor, Stephen) (Entered: 01/27/2016)
13 NOTICE of Appearance by Linda L. Yoder on behalf of Matthew Geary, Manchester Board of Education (Yoder, Linda) (Entered: 02/01/2016)
14 NOTICE of Appearance by Peter J. Maher on behalf of Matthew Geary, Manchester Board of Education (Maher, Peter) (Entered: 02/01/2016)
15 NOTICE of Appearance by Walter P. Loughlin on behalf of Alicia B., Tobias J. (Loughlin, Walter) (Entered: 02/02/2016)

02/25/2016 02/29/2016 02/29/2016
02/29/2016 02/29/2016 02/29/2016 03/01/2016 03/01/2016 03/01/2016 03/03/2016 03/03/2016 03/10/2016 03/14/2016 03/14/2016

16 First MOTION for Extension of Time until 3/10/2016 filing Rule 26(f) report by Matthew Geary, Manchester Board of Education. (Maher, Peter) (Entered: 02/25/2016)
17 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge William I. Garfinkel for Settlement Conference. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 2/29/2016. (Buttrick, A.) (Entered: 02/29/2016)
18 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. Telephone Pre−Settlement Conference set for 3/1/2016 @ 1:00 PM before Judge William I. Garfinkel. Counsel shall contact Chambers dial−in number at 1−877−336−1831, access code 4924598 followed by pound (#). A date for the settlement conference will be set during the telephone call. As the Court requires parties or their representatives with settlement authority to attend the settlement conference, counsel should obtain dates of unavailability from their clients over the next 60 days and have their own calendars available to aid in the scheduling. During the telephone call, counsel should be prepared to discuss what information needs to be exchanged and anything else that needs to be accomplished prior to the settlement conference for the discussions to be productive. This telephone conference will not be rescheduled based on requests from counsel. If counsel is not available at the scheduled time, please arrange for coverage by another lawyer who will have the necessary background knowledge to participate. (Sanders, C.) (Entered: 02/29/2016)
19 NOTICE of Appearance by Martha Stone on behalf of Alicia B., Tobias J. (Stone, Martha) (Entered: 02/29/2016)
20 MOTION for Attorney(s) Annie Lee to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice (paid $75 PHV fee; receipt number 0205−3913095) by Alicia B., Tobias J.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Affidavit of Annie Lee in Support of Motion for Admission as Visiting Attorney)(Stone, Martha) (Entered: 02/29/2016)
21 MOTION for Attorney(s) Michael Harris to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice (paid $75 PHV fee; receipt number 0205−3913105) by Alicia B., Tobias J.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Affidavit of Michael Harris in Support of Motion for Admission as Visiting Attorney)(Stone, Martha) (Entered: 02/29/2016)
22 ORDER granting 20 Motion for Attorney Annie Lee to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Certificate of Good Standing due by 4/30/2016. Signed by Clerk on 3/1/2016. (Oliver, T.) (Entered: 03/01/2016)
23 ORDER granting 21 Motion for Attorney Michael Harris to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Certificate of Good Standing due by 4/30/2016. Signed by Clerk on 3/1/2016. (Oliver, T.) (Entered: 03/01/2016)
24 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge William I. Garfinkel: Telephone Pre−Settlement Conference held on 3/1/2016. No settlement conference scheduled at this time, but the court is available if all counsel jointly agree to mediation. 45 minutes (Sanders, C.) (Entered: 03/01/2016)
25 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael Harris on behalf of Tobias J. et al. (Harris, Michael) (Entered: 03/03/2016)
26 NOTICE of Appearance by Annie Lee on behalf of Alicia B., Tobias J. (Lee, Annie) (Entered: 03/03/2016)
27 Joint REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Loughlin, Walter) (Entered: 03/10/2016)
28 CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING re 21 MOTION for Attorney(s) Michael Harris to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice (paid $75 PHV fee; receipt number 0205−3913105) by Alicia B., Tobias J.. (Harris, Michael) (Entered: 03/14/2016)
29 CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING re 20 MOTION for Attorney(s) Annie Lee to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice (paid $75 PHV fee; receipt number 0205−3913095) by Alicia B., Tobias J.. (Lee, Annie) (Entered: 03/14/2016)

03/16/2016 03/17/2016 03/17/2016
03/21/2016 04/29/2016 04/29/2016 05/04/2016 05/04/2016 05/05/2016
05/06/2016 05/06/2016 05/09/2016 05/12/2016 05/16/2016 05/16/2016
05/18/2016 05/19/2016 05/19/2016 06/03/2016

30 Consent MOTION to Proceed in Fictitious Name by Alicia B., Tobias J.. (Attachments: # 1 Affirmation of Walter P. Loughlin, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Text of Proposed Order Consent Order)(Loughlin, Walter) (Entered: 03/16/2016)
31 ORDER granting nunc pro tunc 16 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 3/17/2016. (Pollack, R.) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
32 ORDER approving 27 Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. Discovery shall commence on April 14, 2016 and shall be completed (not propounded) by November 14, 2016. Dispositive motions shall be filed by December 14, 2016. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 3/17/2016.(Pollack, R.) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
33 ORDER granting 30 Motion to Proceed in Fictitious Name. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 3/21/2016. (Pollack, R.) (Entered: 03/21/2016)
34 MOTION for Annie Lee to Withdraw as Attorney by Alicia B., Tobias J.. (Lee, Annie) (Entered: 04/29/2016)
35 MOTION for Extension of Time until May 20, 2016 File Motion to Dismiss by Hartford Board of Education, Beth Schiavino−Narvaez. (Sedor, Stephen) (Entered: 04/29/2016)
36 ORDER granting 34 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney; Attorney Annie Lee terminated; granting 35 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 5/4/2016. (Pollack, R.) (Entered: 05/04/2016)
Answer deadline updated for All Defendants. (Pollack, R.) (Entered: 05/04/2016)
37 First MOTION for Extension of Time until June 15, 2016 for Defendants Manchester Board of Education and Matthew Geary to Respond/Reply to Complaint 1 Complaint, by Matthew Geary, Manchester Board of Education. (Maher, Peter) (Entered: 05/05/2016)
38 ORDER granting 37 Motion for Extension of Time until June 15, 2016 for Defendants Manchester Board of Education and Matthew Geary to Respond to 1 Complaint. Signed by Clerk on 5/6/2016. (Oliver, T.) (Entered: 05/06/2016)
Answer deadline updated for Matthew Geary to 6/15/2016; Manchester Board of Education to 6/15/2016. (Oliver, T.) (Entered: 05/06/2016)
39 NOTICE of Appearance by Hannah Benton Eidsath on behalf of Alicia B., Tobias J. (Eidsath, Hannah) (Entered: 05/09/2016)
40 NOTICE of Appearance by Walter Menjivar on behalf of Dannel Malloy, State Department of Education, Allan B. Taylor, Dianna Wentzell (Menjivar, Walter) (Entered: 05/12/2016)
41 MOTION to Sever of Defendants Manchester Board of Education and Matthew Geary by Matthew Geary, Manchester Board of Education. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support)(Yoder, Linda) (Entered: 05/16/2016)
42 MOTION to Dismiss by Dannel Malloy, State Board of Education, State Department of Education, Allan B. Taylor, Dianna Wentzell.Responses due by 6/6/2016 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support State Defendants' Motion to Dismiss)(Menjivar, Walter) (Entered: 05/16/2016)
43 MOTION for Extension of Time until June 15, 2016 to Respond to 1 Complaint by Hartford Board of Education, Beth Schiavino−Narvaez. (Sedor, Stephen) Modified on 5/19/2016 TO LINK TO DOC #1 (Oliver, T.). (Entered: 05/18/2016)
44 ORDER granting 43 Motion for Extension of Time until June 15, 2016 to Respond to 1 Complaint. Signed by Clerk on 5/19/2016. (Oliver, T.) (Entered: 05/19/2016)
Answer deadline updated for Hartford Board of Education to 6/15/2016; Beth Schiavino−Narvaez to 6/15/2016. (Oliver, T.) (Entered: 05/19/2016)
45 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time until July 6, 2016 to file their response to the Defendants Dannel Malloy, Dianna Wentzell, Allan Taylor and the State Board of Education, in their official capacities, and the State Department of Education, (the State Defendants) Motion to Dismiss 42 MOTION to Dismiss by Alicia B., Tobias J..

06/06/2016 06/09/2016 06/10/2016
06/14/2016
06/14/2016
06/20/2016
06/21/2016 06/21/2016 06/27/2016 06/27/2016 07/05/2016 07/14/2016 07/14/2016 07/18/2016 07/20/2016
07/26/2016

(Loughlin, Walter) (Entered: 06/03/2016)
46 Memorandum in Opposition re 41 MOTION to Sever of Defendants Manchester Board of Education and Matthew Geary filed by Alicia B., Tobias J.. (Loughlin, Walter) (Entered: 06/06/2016)
47 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time until July 30, 2016 To File Responsive Pleading 1 Complaint, by Matthew Geary, Manchester Board of Education. (Maher, Peter) (Entered: 06/09/2016)
48 Second MOTION for Extension of Time until June 22, 2016 Responsive pleading to 1 complaint by Hartford Board of Education, Beth Schiavino−Narvaez. (Kaufmann, Melinda) Modified on 6/13/2016 TO LINK TO DOC #1 (Oliver, T.). (Entered: 06/10/2016)
49 ORDER granting 45 Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time until July 6 to respond to motion to dismiss; granting 47 Manchester Board of Education and Matthew Geary's Motion for Extension of Time until July 30 to file a responsive pleading; granting 48 Hartford Board of Education and Beth Schiavino−Narvaez's Motion for Extension of Time until June 22 to file a responsive pleading. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 6/14/2016. (Pollack, R.) (Entered: 06/14/2016)
50 Set/Reset Deadlines as to 42 MOTION to Dismiss: Responses due by 7/6/2016. Answer deadline updated for Matthew Geary, Manchester Board of Education to 7/30/2016; Hartford Board of Education, Beth Schiavino−Narvaez to 6/22/2016. (Pollack, R.) (Entered: 06/14/2016)
51 MOTION for Extension of Time until June 27, 2016 In which to file its answer to Plaintiff's 1 complaint by Hartford Board of Education, Beth Schiavino−Narvaez. (Sedor, Stephen) Modified on 6/21/2016 TO LINK TO DOC #1 (Oliver, T.). (Entered: 06/20/2016)
52 ORDER granting 51 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 6/21/2016. (Pollack, R.) (Entered: 06/21/2016)
Answer deadline updated for Hartford Board of Education to 6/27/2016; Beth Schiavino−Narvaez to 6/27/2016. (Pollack, R.) (Entered: 06/21/2016)
53 MOTION to Dismiss by Hartford Board of Education, Beth Schiavino−Narvaez.Responses due by 7/18/2016 (Sedor, Stephen) (Entered: 06/27/2016)
54 Memorandum in Support re 53 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Hartford Board of Education, Beth Schiavino−Narvaez. (Sedor, Stephen) (Entered: 06/27/2016)
55 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time until July 27, 2016 for Plaintiffs to file Response to State Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 42 MOTION to Dismiss by Alicia B., Tobias J.. (Loughlin, Walter) (Entered: 07/05/2016)
56 ORDER granting 55 Motion for Extension of Time until July 27, 2016 to respond to motion to dismiss. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 7/14/2016. (Pollack, R.) (Entered: 07/14/2016)
57 Set/Reset Deadlines as to 42 MOTION to Dismiss . Responses due by 7/27/2016. (Pollack, R.) (Entered: 07/14/2016)
58 Memorandum in Opposition to Hartford Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims re 53 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Alicia B., Tobias J.. (Harris, Michael) (Entered: 07/18/2016)
59 MOTION for Extension of Time until August 22, 2016 to Respond/Object to Pl's 1st Set of Requests for Production of Docs by Hartford Board of Education, Beth Schiavino−Narvaez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Sedor, Stephen) (Entered: 07/20/2016)
60 ORDER granting 59 Motion for Extension of Time until August 22, 2016 to Respond/Object to Pl's 1st Set of Requests for Production. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 7/26/2016. (Pollack, R.) (Entered: 07/26/2016)

07/26/2016 07/27/2016 07/27/2016 07/28/2016 07/29/2016 07/29/2016 07/29/2016 07/29/2016 07/29/2016 07/29/2016 07/29/2016 07/29/2016 07/29/2016 08/01/2016 08/02/2016 08/02/2016 08/05/2016 08/11/2016
08/11/2016 08/16/2016

61 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 42 MOTION to Dismiss until August 17, 2016 by Alicia B., Tobias J.. (Loughlin, Walter) (Entered: 07/26/2016)
62 ORDER granting 61 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 42 MOTION to Dismiss .Responses due by 8/17/2016. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 7/27/2016. (Pollack, R.) (Entered: 07/27/2016)
63 Third MOTION for Extension of Time until August 29, 2016 to File Responsive Pleading by Matthew Geary, Manchester Board of Education. (Maher, Peter) (Entered: 07/27/2016)
64 MOTION for Attorney(s) Erica R. Iverson to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice (paid $75 PHV fee; receipt number 0205−4083379) by Alicia B., Tobias J.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Affidavit in Spport of Motion to Admit)(Stone, Martha) (Entered: 07/28/2016)
65 ORDER granting 64 Motion for Attorney Erica R. Iverson to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Certificate of Good Standing due by 9/27/2016. Signed by Clerk on 7/29/2016. (Oliver, T.) (Entered: 07/29/2016)
66 MOTION to Seal Manchester Settlement Agreement by Alicia B., Tobias J.. (Harris, Michael) (Entered: 07/29/2016)
67 Memorandum in Support re 66 MOTION to Seal Manchester Settlement Agreement filed by Alicia B., Tobias J.. (Harris, Michael) (Entered: 07/29/2016)
68 AFFIDAVIT re 66 MOTION to Seal Manchester Settlement Agreement Signed By Marisa M. Halm filed by Alicia B., Tobias J.. (Harris, Michael) (Entered: 07/29/2016)
69 STIPULATION of Dismissal of The Defendants Matthew Geary and Manchester Board of Education by Alicia B., Tobias J.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Manchester Settlement Agreement (Filed Under Seal))(Harris, Michael) (Entered: 07/29/2016)
70 Sealed Document: Manchester Settlement Agreement by Alicia B., Tobias J. re 69 Stipulation of Dismissal . (Harris, Michael) (Entered: 07/29/2016)
71 ORDER granting 63 Motion for Extension of Time until August 29, 2016 to File Responsive Pleading. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 7/29/2016. (Pollack, R.) (Entered: 07/29/2016)
Answer deadline updated for Matthew Geary to 8/29/2016; Manchester Board of Education to 8/29/2016. (Pollack, R.) (Entered: 07/29/2016)
72 First MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Hartford Board of Education, Beth Schiavino−Narvaez. (Kaufmann, Melinda) (Entered: 07/29/2016)
73 REPLY to Response to 53 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Hartford Board of Education, Beth Schiavino−Narvaez. (Kaufmann, Melinda) (Entered: 08/01/2016)
74 NOTICE of Appearance by Erica R. Iverson on behalf of Alicia B., Tobias J. (Iverson, Erica) (Entered: 08/02/2016)
75 CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING re 64 MOTION for Attorney(s) Erica R. Iverson to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice (paid $75 PHV fee; receipt number 0205−4083379) by Alicia B., Tobias J.. (Iverson, Erica) (Entered: 08/02/2016)
76 ORDER granting 66 Motion to Seal; granting 72 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 8/5/2016. (Pollack, R.) (Entered: 08/05/2016)
77 ORDER: 69 Stipulation of Dismissal filed by Alicia B., Tobias J. re 70 Sealed Settlement filed by Alicia B., Tobias J., is APPROVED. The Clerk shall terminate the Defendants Matthew Geary and Manchester Board of Education. So ordered. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 8/11/2016.(Pollack, R.) (Entered: 08/11/2016)
78 ORDER denying as moot 41 Motion to Sever. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 8/11/2016. (Pollack, R.) (Entered: 08/11/2016)
79 STIPULATION of Dismissal of Defendants Bloomfield Board of Education and James Thompson by Tobias J.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Settlement

08/17/2016
08/17/2016
08/17/2016 08/18/2016 08/22/2016 08/23/2016 08/24/2016 08/24/2016 08/31/2016 08/31/2016 08/31/2016 09/01/2016 09/01/2016 09/02/2016 09/02/2016 09/02/2016 09/02/2016 09/09/2016

Agreement)(Stone, Martha) (Entered: 08/16/2016)
80 ORDER approving 79 Stipulation of Dismissal filed by Tobias J. The Clerk shall terminate the Plaintiff Tobias J. So Ordered. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 8/17/2016. (Buttrick, A.) (Entered: 08/17/2016)
81 AMENDED ORDER re 80 Order. The Clerk shall terminate Defendants Bloomfield Board of Education and James Thompson, and shall not terminate Plaintiff Tobias J. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 8/17/2016. (Buttrick, A.) (Entered: 08/17/2016)
82 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 42 MOTION to Dismiss until August 31, 2016 by Alicia B., Tobias J.. (Iverson, Erica) (Entered: 08/17/2016)
83 ORDER granting 82 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 42 MOTION to Dismiss. Responses due by 8/31/2016. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 8/18/2016. (Landman, M) (Entered: 08/18/2016)
84 NOTICE of Appearance by Zachary David Schurin on behalf of Hartford Board of Education, Beth Schiavino−Narvaez (Schurin, Zachary) (Entered: 08/22/2016)
85 MOTION TO MODIFY JOINT RULE 26(F) REPORT re 27 Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting, 32 Order,, Set Deadlines/Hearings, by Alicia B., Tobias J..Responses due by 9/13/2016 (Iverson, Erica) (Entered: 08/23/2016)
86 ORDER granting 85 Motion for Modification to Scheduling Order. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 8/24/2016. (Buttrick, A.) (Entered: 08/24/2016)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Discovery due by 1/31/2017; Dispositive Motions due by 3/3/2017. (Buttrick, A.) (Entered: 08/24/2016)
87 MOTION for Attorney(s) Priya Chadha to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice (paid $75 PHV fee; receipt number 0205−4121018) by Alicia B., Tobias J.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Stone, Martha) (Entered: 08/31/2016)
88 MOTION for Attorney(s) Luke E. Steinberger to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice (paid $75 PHV fee; receipt number 0205−4121197) by Alicia B., Tobias J.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Stone, Martha) (Entered: 08/31/2016)
89 Memorandum in Opposition to State Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims re 42 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Alicia B., Tobias J.. (Harris, Michael) (Entered: 08/31/2016)
90 ORDER granting 87 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice Certificate of Good Standing due by 10/31/2016. Signed by Clerk on 9/1/16. (Gould, K.) (Entered: 09/01/2016)
91 ORDER granting 88 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice Certificate of Good Standing due by 10/31/2016. Signed by Clerk on 9/1/16. (Gould, K.) (Entered: 09/01/2016)
92 CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING re 88 MOTION for Attorney(s) Luke E. Steinberger to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice (paid $75 PHV fee; receipt number 0205−4121197) by Alicia B., Tobias J.. (Steinberger, Luke) (Entered: 09/02/2016)
93 NOTICE of Appearance by Luke E. Steinberger on behalf of Alicia B., Tobias J. (Steinberger, Luke) (Entered: 09/02/2016)
94 CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING re 87 MOTION for Attorney(s) Priya Chadha to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice (paid $75 PHV fee; receipt number 0205−4121018) by Alicia B., Tobias J.. (Chadha, Priya) (Entered: 09/02/2016)
95 NOTICE of Appearance by Priya Chadha on behalf of Alicia B., Tobias J. (Chadha, Priya) (Entered: 09/02/2016)
96 REPLY to Response to 42 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Dannel Malloy, State Board of Education, State Department of Education, Allan B. Taylor, Dianna Wentzell. (Urban, Ralph) (Entered: 09/09/2016)

09/14/2016
09/28/2016 10/05/2016 10/05/2016 11/14/2016 11/16/2016 11/16/2016 11/16/2016
12/14/2016 12/14/2016 12/14/2016 12/14/2016
12/14/2016 12/14/2016 12/15/2016

97 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. Motion Hearing on 42 & 53 MOTIONS to Dismiss set for November 22, 2016 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom One, 915 Lafayette Blvd., Bridgeport, CT before Judge Stefan R. Underhill. (Jamieson, K) (Entered: 09/14/2016)
98 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time re: Modify Joint Rule 26(F) Report 86 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief by Alicia B., Tobias J.. (Chadha, Priya) (Entered: 09/28/2016)
99 ORDER granting 98 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time. Discovery due March 17, 2017. Dispositive motions due by April 17, 2017. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 10/05/2016. (Jamieson, K) (Entered: 10/05/2016)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Discovery due by March 17, 2017. Dispositive Motions due by April 17, 2017. (Jamieson, K) (Entered: 10/05/2016)
100 MOTION for Extension of Time until December 4, 2016 to respond and/or object to Pl's 2nd Set of Interrogatories by Hartford Board of Education, Beth Schiavino−Narvaez. (Sedor, Stephen) (Entered: 11/14/2016)
101 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time Request to Adjourn the Hearing sheduled for November 22, 2016 on the Motions to Dismiss for a period of 60 days 97 Calendar Entry,, Set Motion and Rcmd Ruling Deadlines/Hearings, by Alicia B., Tobias J.. (Stone, Martha) (Entered: 11/16/2016)
102 ORDER granting 100 MOTION for Extension of Time to respond and/or object to Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories until December 4, 2016; granting 101 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time re Hearing on Motions to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 11/16/2016. (Jamieson, K) (Entered: 11/16/2016)
103 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. Motion Hearing on 42 & 53 MOTIONS to Dismiss set for February 8, 2017 at 10:00 a.m., reset from November 22, 2016 at 11:00 a.m., in Courtroom One, 915 Lafayette Blvd., Bridgeport, CT before Judge Stefan R. Underhill. (Jamieson, K) (Entered: 11/16/2016)
104 MOTION to Seal Settlement Agreements between Plaintiffs Alicia B. and Tobias J. and the Hartford Defendants by Alicia B., Tobias J.. (Stone, Martha) (Entered: 12/14/2016)
105 Memorandum in Support re 104 MOTION to Seal Settlement Agreements between Plaintiffs Alicia B. and Tobias J. and the Hartford Defendants filed by Alicia B., Tobias J.. (Stone, Martha) (Entered: 12/14/2016)
106 AFFIDAVIT re 104 MOTION to Seal Settlement Agreements between Plaintiffs Alicia B. and Tobias J. and the Hartford Defendants Signed By Marisa M. Halm filed by Alicia B., Tobias J.. (Stone, Martha) (Entered: 12/14/2016)
107 STIPULATION of Dismissal of Defendants Beth Schiavino−Narvaez,in her official capacity as Superintendent of Hartford Public Schools and the Hartford Board of Education by Alicia B., Tobias J.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Settlement Agreement between Alicia B. and the Hartford Defendants, # 2 Exhibit B− Settlement Agreement between Tobias J. and the Hartford Defendants)(Stone, Martha) (Entered: 12/14/2016)
108 Sealed Document: Ex. A − Settlement Agreement between Alicia B. and the Hartford Defendants by Alicia B., Tobias J. re 107 Stipulation of Dismissal, . (Stone, Martha) (Entered: 12/14/2016)
109 Sealed Document: Ex. B − Settlement Agreement between Tobias J. and the Hartford Defendants by Alicia B., Tobias J. re 107 Stipulation of Dismissal, . (Stone, Martha) (Entered: 12/14/2016)
110 Consent MOTION to Stay Discovery by Alicia B., Tobias J.. (Stone, Martha) Responses due by 1/5/2017. Modified on 12/16/2016 (Oliver, T.). (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016 12/16/2016 12/20/2016 12/20/2016 12/22/2016
12/22/2016 01/23/2017
01/27/2017 01/27/2017
05/04/2017 05/04/2017 05/04/2017
05/04/2017 08/11/2017 08/22/2017 08/22/2017
11/16/2017

Set Deadlines as to 110 MOTION to Stay. Responses due by 1/5/2017 (Oliver, T.) (Entered: 12/16/2016)
Docket Entry Correction re 110 MOTION for Extension of Time MODIFIED TO CORRECT THE MOTION RELIEF TYPE FROM MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO MOTION FOR STAY (Oliver, T.) (Entered: 12/16/2016)
111 ORDER granting 104 MOTION to Seal. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 12/20/2016. (Jamieson, K) (Entered: 12/20/2016)
112 ORDER granting 110 MOTION to Stay Discovery until February 8, 2016. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 12/20/2016. (Jamieson, K) (Entered: 12/20/2016)
113 ORDER approving 107 STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL of Hartford Defendants. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 12/22/2016. (Jamieson, K) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/22/2016: # 1 REPLACEMENT PDF) (Oliver, T.). (Entered: 12/22/2016)
114 Docket Entry Correction re 113 Order MODIFIED TO ADD REPLACEMENT PDF TO THE DOCKET ENTRY; CORRECTED SIGNATURE (Oliver, T.) (Entered: 12/22/2016)
115 MOTION 90 day adjournment of argument scheduled on February 8, 2017 re 42 MOTION to Dismiss by Dannel Malloy, State Board of Education, State Department of Education, Allan B. Taylor, Dianna Wentzell.Responses due by 2/13/2017 (Urban, Ralph) (Entered: 01/23/2017)
116 ORDER granting 115 MOTION to Adjourn Oral Argument on 42 & 53 MOTIONS to Dismiss until May 11, 2017. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 01/27/2017. (Jamieson, K) (Entered: 01/27/2017)
117 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. Motion Hearing on 42 & 53 MOTIONS to Dismiss reset to May 11, 2017 from February 8, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom One, 915 Lafayette Blvd., Bridgeport, CT before Judge Stefan R. Underhill. (Jamieson, K) (Entered: 01/27/2017)
118 Third MOTION for Extension of Time until 120 days Oral Argument and Discovery by Alicia B., Tobias J.. (Halm, Marisa) (Entered: 05/04/2017)
119 ORDER granting 118 MOTION for Extension of Time. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 05/04/2017. (Jamieson, K) (Entered: 05/04/2017)
120 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. Motion Hearing on 42 MOTION to Dismiss reset for September 8, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom One, 915 Lafayette Blvd., Bridgeport, CT before Judge Stefan R. Underhill. (Jamieson, K) (Entered: 05/04/2017)
121 ORDER denying as moot 53 MOTION to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 05/04/2017. (Jamieson, K) (Entered: 05/04/2017)
122 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time until 90 Days Oral Argument and Continued Stay of Discovery by Alicia B., Tobias J.. (Stone, Martha) (Entered: 08/11/2017)
123 ORDER granting 122 MOTION for Extension of Time. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 08/22/2017. (Jamieson, K) (Entered: 08/22/2017)
124 REVISED NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. Motion Hearing on 42 MOTION to Dismiss reset for December 7, 2017 at 1:15 p.m. from September 8, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom One, 915 Lafayette Blvd., Bridgeport, CT before Judge Stefan R. Underhill. (Jamieson, K) (Entered: 08/22/2017)
125 MOTION for Extension of Time until March 7, 2018 to adjourn argument presently scheduled for December 7, 2017 and request that discovery continue to be stayed until

11/20/2017 11/20/2017
02/23/2018 03/02/2018 03/12/2018
03/12/2018
06/05/2018 06/05/2018

such future date of argument by Alicia B., Tobias J.. (Stone, Martha) (Entered: 11/16/2017)
126 ORDER granting 125 MOTION for Extension of Time. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 11/20/2017. (Jamieson, K) (Entered: 11/20/2017)
127 REVISED 97 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. Motion Hearing on 42 MOTION to Dismiss reset for March 7, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom One, 915 Lafayette Blvd., Bridgeport, CT before Judge Stefan R. Underhill. (Jamieson, K) (Entered: 11/20/2017)
128 MOTION for Extension of Time until June 5, 2018 to adjourn the argument presently scheduled for March 7, 2018 and request that discovery continue to be stayed until such future date of argument by Alicia B., Tobias J.. (Chadha, Priya) (Entered: 02/23/2018)
129 ORDER granting 128 MOTION for Extension of Time. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 03/02/18. (Jamieson, K) (Entered: 03/02/2018)
130 ORDER denying without prejudice 42 MOTION to Dismiss. The motion has been pending for nearly two years while the parties have attempted to resolve the case. Settlement discussions remain ongoing. In the interest of better managing the court's docket, I deny the motion to dismiss, without prejudice to renewal should the case fail to resolve. I will schedule a telephone conference for June 5, 2018 so that the parties may provide an update with respect to the status of the case. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 03/12/2018. (Jamieson, K) (Entered: 03/12/2018)
131 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. Telephone Status Conference set for June 5, 2018 at 1:15 p.m. before Judge Stefan R. Underhill. The call−in for the conference is (888) 636−3807; when prompted for the access code, dial 650−8043 followed by #. (If asked whether to join the conference as the host, bypass that option by dialing #.) (Jamieson, K) (Entered: 03/12/2018)
132 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Stefan R. Underhill: Telephone Status Conference held on June 5, 2018. Total Time: 0 hours and 10 minutes (Court Reporter Sharon Masse). (Jamieson, K) (Entered: 06/05/2018)
133 MEMORANDUM of Telephone Status Conference and ORDER. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 06/05/2018.

06/26/2018 07/16/2018
07/18/2018

Report concerning settlement negotiations due by June 26, 2018. (Jamieson, K) (Entered: 06/05/2018)
134 NOTICE of Settlement by Dannel Malloy, State Board of Education, State Department of Education, Allan B. Taylor, Dianna Wentzell (Urban, Ralph) (Entered: 06/26/2018)
135 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL by Dannel Malloy, State Board of Education, State Department of Education, Allan B. Taylor, Dianna Wentzell. (Menjivar, Walter) Modified on 7/16/2018 (Jaiman, R.). MODIFIED TO CORRECT THE FILERS. (Entered: 07/16/2018)
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS SURVEY − FOR COUNSEL ONLY: The following link to the confidential survey requires you to log into CM/ECF for SECURITY purposes. Once in CM/ECF you will be prompted for the case number. Although you are receiving this survey through CM/ECF, it is hosted on an independent website called SurveyMonkey. Once in SurveyMonkey, the survey is located in a secure account. The survey is not docketed and it is not sent directly to the judge. To ensure anonymity, completed surveys are held up to 90 days before they are sent to the judge for review. We hope you will take this opportunity to participate, please click on this link:

07/18/2018

https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi−bin/Dispatch.pl?survey (Fazekas, J.) (Entered: 07/18/2018)
136 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL, So Ordered.

Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 7/18/2018.(Jaiman, R.) (Entered: 07/18/2018)