Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 1 of 55

DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA 1831 K STREET
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95811 (916) 504-5800
DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 EVA PATERSON (SBN: 67081)

MONA TAWATAO (SBN: 128779)

2 Equal Justice Society

1939 Harrison Street, Suite 818

3 Oakland, California 94612

Telephone: (415) 288-8700

4 Facsimile: (510) 338-3030

Email: epaterson@equaljusticesociety.org

5

mtawatao@equaljusticesocity.org

6

7

MICHAEL HARRIS (SBN: 118234) National Center for Youth Law

8 405 14th Street, Floor 15

Oakland, California 94612

9 Telephone: (510) 835-8098

Facsimile: (410) 835-8099 10 Email: mharris@youthlaw.org

11

12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

CARLY J. MUNSON (SBN: 254598) BRIDGET CLAYCOMB (SBN: 312001) Disability Rights California 1831 K Street Sacramento, California 95811 Telephone: (916) 504-5800 Facsimile: (916) 504-5801 Email: carly.munson@disabilityrightsca.org
bridget.claycomb@disabilityrightsca.org
ANTOINETTE DOZIER (SBN: 244437) RICHARD ROTHSCHILD (SBN: 67356) Western Center on Law and Poverty 3701 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 208 Los Angeles, California 90010 Telephone: (213) 487-7211 Facsimile: (213) 487-0242 Email: adozier@wclp.org
rrothschild@wclp.org

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15 BLACK PARALLEL SCHOOL BOARD;

16

STEPHEN DOE, by and through his Next Friend, A.A.; KURTIS DOE, by and through

17

his Next Friend, J.E.; KONRAD DOE, by and through his General Guardian, S.S.; on behalf

18 of themselves and all others similarly situated,

19

Plaintiffs,

20 v.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case No.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

21

SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; JORGE A. AGUILAR,

22

Superintendent for Sacramento City Unified School District; CHRISTINE A. BAETA,

23

Chief Academic Officer for the Sacramento City Unified School District; JESSIE RYAN,

24

DARREL WOO, MICHAEL MINNICK, LISA MURAWSKI, LETICIA GARCIA,

25

CHRISTINA PRITCHETT, and MAI VANG, members of the Sacramento City Unified

26

School District Board of Education; THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF

27

SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,

28

Defendants.

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 2 of 55

1

INTRODUCTION

2

1. Sacramento City Unified School District (“SCUSD” or “the District”) has created

3 and perpetuates an unlawful school system that results in modern-day segregation and

4 mistreatment of students with disabilities, particularly Black students with disabilities. Despite

5 being on notice of its discriminatory conduct for years, the District has not taken steps to

6 effectively eradicate the problems described herein. As a result, discrimination persists and

7 students languish in a hostile, stigmatizing, and demoralizing school environment. This lawsuit

8 is brought to end these practices.

9

2. As the United States Supreme Court observed more than sixty-five years ago,

10 “education is perhaps the most important function of the state and local governments. … It is

11 required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities. … It is the very foundation

12 of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values,

13 in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his

14 environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed

15 in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has

16 undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.” Brown,

17 et al., v. Bd. of Educ. of Topeka, et al., 347 U.S. 686, 691 (1954).

18

3. The Court’s landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education began the long

19 road to the racial integration of American public schools and made absolutely clear that “in the

20 field of public education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational

21 facilities are inherently unequal.” 347 U.S. at 692. Such segregation of children in public

22 schools “generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their

23 hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.” Id. at 691.

24

4. In 1973, Congress echoed these values when passing the Rehabilitation Act of

25 1973. As Senator Hubert Humphrey then said, “The time has come to firmly establish the right

26 of [Americans with disabilities] to dignity and self-respect as equal and contributing members of

27 society, and to end the virtual isolation of millions of children and adults from society.” 118

28

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

2

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 3 of 55

1 Cong. Rec. 32310 (1972). In 1990, Congress once again affirmed these values by passing the

2 Americans with Disabilities Act to serve as a remedy for “discrimination against individuals with

3 disabilities [which] persists in such critical areas as . . . education.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(3).

4 Congress specifically found that “segregat[ion]” is a “form[] of discrimination against

5 individuals with disabilities.” Id. § 12101(a)(2). Accordingly, students with disabilities have the

6 right to be educated side-by-side with their peers without disabilities to the “maximum extent”

7 appropriate. 34 C.F.R. § 104.34.

8

5. Despite these long-standing laws and precedents, segregation of students with

9 disabilities, and particularly Black students with disabilities, remains rampant in public schools

10 within the District. Modern-day segregation is subtler than it was in 1954 or 1973, but it is still

11 just as harmful and insidious. Segregation, as used herein, not only refers to the District’s

12 practice of placing students with disabilities in rooms or schools separated from their peers

13 without disabilities, but also encompasses all of the other exclusionary practices used by the

14 District to separate students with disabilities, and Black students with disabilities in particular,

15 from their peers. Those practices include imposing excessive and exclusionary discipline on

16 students with disabilities for behavior caused by their disabilities, and failing to provide the

17 services, accommodations, and modifications required by law that would allow these students the

18 opportunity to thrive in the general education setting.

19

6. Superficially, the District’s schools may appear equal and integrated. However,

20 the District has organized its programs and resources in a way that segregates and systematically

21 denies its students with disabilities, particularly Black students with disabilities, a meaningful

22 opportunity to be educated side-by-side with their peers in an inclusive, general education

23 environment.

24

7. The District effectively segregates almost half of its students with disabilities by

25 relegating them to separate classrooms on otherwise integrated campuses for a majority of the

26 school day or removing them to entirely segregated campuses. As alleged herein, these

27 segregated students receive disparate and sub-par academic instruction and opportunities, and are

28

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

3

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 4 of 55

1 less likely to graduate from high school, less likely be ready for college or a career, and less

2 likely to meet the grade-level education standards established by the State. Upon information

3 and belief, this disparate education is even greater for Black students with disabilities.

4

8. The District’s inappropriate segregation of students with disabilities is well-

5 documented. In 2017, an independent audit of the District’s services to students with disabilities

6 noted that the District placed students with disabilities in separate classes and schools at a rate

7 that significantly surpassed both state and nationwide averages.1 In particular, the District

8 segregated students with mental health conditions, Autism Spectrum Disorder, and intellectual

9 disabilities at grossly disproportionate rates, with Black students with disabilities experiencing

10 the highest rates of segregated placements. Upon information and belief, rather than taking steps

11 to remedy its ways, the District has actually increased its use of segregated classrooms and

12 schools for students with disabilities since 2017.

13

9. This modern-day return to a separate and inherently unequal school system

14 perpetuates stigma, misunderstanding, and fear about students with disabilities. It reinforces the

15 unwarranted feelings of shame and humiliation these children experience as a result of being

16 deemed unfit to learn alongside their peers. Children who are placed in these restrictive and

17 isolating environments receive a clear and discriminatory message: by virtue of their disabilities,

18 they are unwelcome in and unsupported by their schools. As a result, these students are at high

19 risk of extreme and ongoing frustration, greater anxiety, humiliation, lowered self-esteem, and

20 depression, which further interfere with their ability to access education.

21

10. To make matters worse, students with disabilities, particularly Black students with

22 disabilities, are disparately subjected to exclusionary school discipline and other tactics that

23 remove them from school and exacerbate this stigma. In 2017, the independent auditors noted

24 that students with disabilities in the District were 2.5 times more likely to be suspended than

25

26 1 Council of the Great City Schools, Improving Special Education Services in the Sacramento
27 City Unified School District at 49-50 (Spring 2017), https://www.cgcs.org/cms/lib/DC00001581/Centricity/Domain/4/SacramentoSpecialEducation.p
28 df.

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

4

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 5 of 55

1 those without disabilities. And, Black students with disabilities were 2.8 times more likely to be

2 suspended than all other students with disabilities. Similarly, a 2018 report by researchers with

3 the California Community College Equity Assessment Lab called the District “the most

4 egregious suspension district for Black males in the State of California.” 2

5

11. The District’s mistreatment of Black students with disabilities flows from and

6 perpetuates implicit biases and stereotypes that portray Black youth as violent and aggressive,

7 which can lead to unjustified restraint and exclusion. The District’s practices not only

8 communicate these implicit biases and stereotypes, but also risk these students internalizing the

9 underlying message that they do not belong in a hostile educational environment in which their

10 physical and emotional safety are constantly at risk. The District’s actions and failures create

11 real and lasting harms, including emotional trauma and feelings of stigmatization and isolation.

12 Indeed, a hostile educational environment harms not only the students who are dehumanized and

13 discriminated against, but all who witness and are implicitly taught to normalize such

14 discriminatory treatment.

15

12. The vast majority of children with disabilities can learn in general education

16 classrooms if given the appropriate and legally required services, accommodations, and

17 modifications. The District must restructure its programs and resources to ensure that all

18 students – including students with disabilities of all races – are afforded a meaningful

19 opportunity to be educated side-by-side with their peers in an inclusive, general education

20 environment and are free from the daily fear of excessive and disparate exclusionary discipline.

21 Only then will students with disabilities receive a truly equal education.

22

JURISDICTION

23

13. This action for declaratory and injunctive relief arises under Title II of the

24

25 2 J. Luke Wood, et al., The Capitol of Suspensions: Examining the Racial Exclusion of Black
26 Males in Sacramento County at 12 (2018) (available at https://cceal.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/06/sacramento.pdf); see also J. Luke Wood, et al., Get Out! Black Male
27 Suspensions in California Public Schools (2018) (available at http://blackmaleinstitute.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/02/GET-OUT-Black-Male-Suspensions-in-California-Public-
28 Schools_lo.pdf).

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

5

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 6 of 55

1 Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., Section 504 of the

2 Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”), 29 U.S.C. § 794, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Fourteenth

3 Amendment to the United States Constitution (“Equal Protection Clause”), Title VI of the Civil

4 Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VI”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., and California Government Code

5 section 11135 et seq.

6

14. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343,

7 and 1367, because the matters in controversy arise under the Constitution and laws of the United

8 States. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, this Court has jurisdiction to declare the rights

9 of the parties and to grant all further relief deemed necessary and proper. The Court’s exercise

10 of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims under state law is proper, as the state law

11 claims “are so related to [Plaintiffs’ claims] that they form part of the same case or

12 controversy[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

13

VENUE

14

15. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

15 1391(b)(1) and (2).

16

16. Defendants reside or are organized in the Eastern District of California and a

17 substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this action arose in Sacramento County,

18 which is located within the Eastern District of California.

19

17. Members of the Class reside in the Eastern District of California. The Plaintiffs

20 reside or are organized in the Eastern District of California.

21

PARTIES

22

Plaintiffs

23

18. Plaintiff Black Parallel School Board (“BPSB”) is a community-based

24 membership organization developed to serve Black children, primarily those attending SCUSD.

25 BPSB members include parents of Black students with disabilities who reside within the District,

26 attend a wide array of schools, and are not receiving adequate, necessary, and appropriately

27 individualized services, accommodations, and modifications. Instead, children of BPSB’s

28

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

6

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 7 of 55

1 members experience high rates of exclusionary discipline, segregated placements,

2 discrimination, and harmful and hostile school conditions. BPSB has diverted its resources from

3 its primary activities and mission to address the District’s unlawful policies and practices.

4

19. Plaintiff Stephen Doe is a fifth-grade student who attends a K-8 school in

5 SCUSD. Stephen is Black and has been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (“Autism”)

6 and Anxiety Disorder. Stephen is one of only a few Black students remaining at his school and,

7 upon information and belief, is the only Black student with Autism at his school. Although he is

8 capable of learning grade-level curriculum along-side his peers without disabilities, Stephen has

9 never had a properly credentialed teacher to support his inclusion in his public school, has

10 experienced repeated exclusionary discipline and school removals for disability-based behaviors,

11 and has fallen behind his peers without disabilities. Stephen has also experienced a hostile

12 school environment including staff and peer harassment and bullying based on his race and

13 disabilities. For at least the last year, SCUSD has attempted to push Stephen out of his public

14 school by proposing that he instead be placed in a segregated class or school for students with

15 disabilities. Because of SCUSD’s policies, Stephen and his family face a daily choice between

16 two discriminatory options: continue to endure the general education environment where he is

17 not receiving legally mandated and necessary services, or give in to the additional harm of

18 segregation. Stephen brings this suit through his guardian, A.A..

19

20. Plaintiff Kurtis Doe is an eleventh-grade Black student with mental health

20 conditions and a likely history of trauma who resides within SCUSD. Unfortunately, Kurtis has

21 never received a proper, comprehensive assessment and his disabilities and needs remain unclear

22 to the District. Instead, Kurtis has been pushed out of his neighborhood school and enrolled in a

23 nonpublic school exclusively for students with disabilities. His nonpublic school serves fewer

24 than 100 students spanning kindergarten through twelfth grade. Kurtis does not have access to

25 his peers without disabilities, or typical high school experiences and coursework. Instead, he is

26 subjected to restraints and stigma, and feels daily frustration that he is not learning. Kurtis wants

27 to return to a public school, but cannot do so until SCUSD removes the systemic, structural

28

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

7

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 8 of 55

1 barriers that prevent his meaningful inclusion and access to his education. The last time that

2 Kurtis tried to return to public school in the ninth grade, he experienced repeated exclusionary

3 discipline. In fact, before the end of the school year, he was unlawfully removed from school

4 entirely and forced to languish at home without any instruction or school placement. Because of

5 SCUSD’s policies, Kurtis also faces a choice between two discriminatory options: remain in his

6 segregated setting where he is isolated and not learning, or return to a District school that is not

7 equipped to educate him and meet his disability-related needs. Kurtis brings this suit through his

8 guardian, J.E..

9

21. Plaintiff Konrad Doe is a fourth-grade SCUSD student who attends a public

10 elementary school. Konrad is Black and has been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder,

11 Dyslexia, a specific learning disorder with impairment in written expression, and Attention-

12 Deficit / Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”). Konrad has languished for years while the District

13 ignored his needs and conditions and delayed his identification as a student with disabilities,

14 instead subjecting him to ineffective and unlawful “Student Study Teams.” Konrad has

15 experienced repeated and excessive disciplinary exclusions, shortened school days, and countless

16 hours of missed instruction. Due to SCUSD’s policies, Konrad is facing another daunting school

17 year without appropriate supports and services, or even a proper written plan to address his

18 known disabilities. Like the other Plaintiffs, though Konrad is capable of accessing grade-level

19 curriculum, he has fallen behind his peers. Konrad brings this suit through his guardian, S.S..

20

22. Plaintiffs Stephen, Kurtis, and Konrad are referred to herein as “Student

21 Plaintiffs.” The Student Plaintiffs will file a motion with the Court to proceed under fictitious

22 names.

23

Defendants

24

23. Defendant Sacramento City Unified School District is a government agency

25 responsible for providing the children who reside within its boundaries with full and equal access

26 to the public education programs and activities it offers in compliance with the requirements of

27 federal and state laws and regulations. SCUSD is chartered and incorporated under California

28

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

8

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 9 of 55

1 law and is a recipient of federal and state financial assistance. SCUSD’s responsibilities include

2 adopting policies and practices, and making and implementing administrative decisions for the

3 schools and students within its jurisdiction.

4

24. Defendant Jorge A. Aguilar (“Defendant Aguilar”) is the Superintendent of

5 SCUSD. Defendant Aguilar is appointed by the SCUSD Board of Education to implement

6 policies created by the Board of Education and/or mandated by federal and state laws and

7 regulations. Defendant Aguilar is responsible for ensuring that children in SCUSD are provided

8 equal access to public education programs and activities offered in SCUSD. Defendant Aguilar

9 is also responsible for ensuring that all eligible children with disabilities are provided access to

10 education in integrated settings, including services, accommodations, and modifications, in

11 compliance with federal and state laws and regulations. Defendant Aguilar is sued in his official

12 and individual capacity.

13

25. Defendant Christine A. Baeta (“Defendant Baeta”) is the Chief Academic Officer

14 of SCUSD. Defendant Baeta leads the SCUSD Academic Office, which guides the development

15 and implementation of academic services in the district, including curriculum, instruction,

16 assessment, and school improvement. Additionally, Defendant Baeta is responsible for the

17 professional development of administrative and teaching staff, and supervises the operational and

18 academic management of SCUSD schools. Defendant Baeta is sued in her official and

19 individual capacity.

20

26. Defendant Board of Education of the SCUSD (“Board of Education”) is elected

21 by the community to provide leadership and oversight of the District. Among its many

22 responsibilities, the Board of Education establishes a long-term vision for the District and

23 establishes District policies, administrative regulations, and goals. In addition, the Board of

24 Education bears a fiduciary responsibility for the management and expenditure of public funds in

25 a manner consistent with state and federal law that ensures all students, including students with

26 disabilities and Black students with disabilities, have equal access to public education programs

27 and services. The Board of Education selects, appoints, and oversees the work of the District’s

28

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

9

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 10 of 55

1 Superintendent, Defendant Aguilar. The Board of Education works with the District’s

2 Superintendent to fulfill its major responsibilities.

3

27. Defendants Jessie Ryan, Darrell Woo, Michael Minnick, Lisa Murawski, Leticia

4 Garcia, Christina Pritchett, and Mai Vang are the currently elected Members of the Board of

5 Education (collectively, “Board Member Defendants”). In their official capacities, they

6 individually and collectively bear the duties and responsibilities of the Board of Education as

7 described above. They are sued in their official and individual capacities.

8

28. Unless otherwise noted, Defendants Aguilar, Baeta, the Board of Education, the

9 Board Member Defendants, and SCUSD are collectively and interchangeably referred to as

10 “SCUSD,” the “District,” or “Defendants.”

11

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

12

29. As discussed above, since the landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education

13 and the Congressional acts that followed, it has been plain that public education programs,

14 services, and facilities must be operated in a manner than ensures equal access for and inclusion

15 of all students, regardless of race or disability.

16

30. Several federal and state laws work in concert to ensure that school districts fulfill

17 this promise of equality in California. Section 504 and the ADA protect students with

18 disabilities from discrimination, exclusion, unequal treatment, and unequal access to education in

19 public schools. Similarly, the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI protect students from

20 discrimination on the basis of race. California Government Code section 11135 prohibits

21 agencies such as school districts from discriminating against persons on the basis of disability,

22 race, and other protected statuses.

23

Section 504 and Title II of the ADA

24

31. Congress enacted Section 504 and the ADA to directly address the discrimination

25 that people with disabilities face when they are unnecessarily excluded from public life, such as

26 the public school system, due to their disabilities. See Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581, 599–601

27 (1999).

28

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

10

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 11 of 55

1

32. Taken together, Section 504 and the ADA create a system of legal responsibilities

2 that are designed to ensure that students with disabilities are free from discrimination and have

3 equal access to a public education alongside their peers without disabilities. To achieve these

4 mandates, school districts are required to: (1) identify, locate and comprehensively evaluate

5 every child living in the district who is suspected of having a disability; (2) for qualifying

6 students, offer special education, related aids and services, accommodations, and modifications

7 that “are designed to meet individual educational needs of [students with disabilities] as

8 adequately as the needs of [students without disabilities] are met;” (3) to the greatest extent

9 appropriate, educate students with disabilities in inclusive settings; (4) provide appropriate

10 services so that students with disabilities are not disciplined for disability-related behavior; (5)

11 provide appropriate services so that students with disabilities are not excluded from the regular

12 education environment through harassment or bullying; and (6) provide access to education free

13 from discrimination. 34 C.F.R. § 104.33; see also 29 U.S.C. § 794; 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.;

14 34 C.F.R. Pt. 104; 28 C.F.R. Pt. 35.

15

Section 504

16

33. Section 504 is a federal law that protects individuals with disabilities in programs

17 and activities that receive federal financial assistance. 29 U.S.C. § 794; 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.1,

18 104.4. Section 504 states that “[n]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United

19 States . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be

20 denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving

21 Federal financial assistance . . .” 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). Section 504 requires entities that receive

22 federal financial assistance to provide aids, benefits, and services to individuals with disabilities

23 in the most integrated setting appropriate to the individual’s needs. 34 C.F.R. § 104.4(b)(2).

24 Section 504 prohibits these entities from using “criteria or methods of administration… that have

25 the effect of subjecting qualified [people with disabilities] to discrimination” on the basis of

26 disability. Id. § 104.4(b)(4).

27

34. Section 504 applies to all school districts that receive federal financial assistance.

28

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

11

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 12 of 55

1 29 U.S.C. § 794(b)(2); 34 C.F.R. § 104.31. Section 504 requires that these school districts

2 provide students with disabilities with special education and related aids and services designed to

3 meet the needs of students with disabilities as adequately as the school districts meet the needs of

4 students without disabilities. See 34 C.F.R. § 104.33(a), (b)(1). Qualified students with

5 disabilities must be given “equal opportunity to obtain the same result, to gain the same benefit,

6 or to reach the same level of achievement, in the most integrated setting appropriate to the

7 [student’s] needs.” Id. § 104.4(b)(2).

8

35. Under Section 504, school districts are required to provide qualified students with

9 a “free appropriate public education.” 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.33(a), .34(a). Before determining any

10 educational placement, school districts must provide the student with a validated evaluation,

11 administered by trained personnel. Id. § 104.35. Regardless of the nature or severity of the

12 student’s disability, school districts must ensure that the student is educated with peers without

13 disabilities to the “maximum extent appropriate . . . unless . . . the education of the person in the

14 regular environment with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved

15 satisfactorily.” Id. § 104.34(a).

16

Title II of the ADA

17

36. Title II of the ADA mandates that “no qualified individual with a disability shall,

18 by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the

19 services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such

20 entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132; see also 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(a). Further, “[a] public entity shall

21 administer services, programs, and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the

22 needs of qualified individuals with disabilities.” 28 C.F.R § 35.130(d). This means “a setting

23 that enables individuals with disabilities to interact with [persons without disabilities] to the

24 fullest extent possible.” 28 C.F.R. pt. 35, App. B. Additionally, a public entity may not use

25 “criteria or methods of administration . . . [t]hat have the effect of subjecting qualified

26 individuals with disabilities to discrimination on the basis of disability.” 28 C.F.R. §

27 35.130(b)(3)(i).

28

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

12

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 13 of 55

1

37. Congress enacted the ADA to provide a remedy for “discrimination against

2 individuals with disabilities [which] persists in such critical areas as . . . education.” 42 U.S.C. §

3 12101(a)(3), (b). Congress specifically found that “segregat[ion]” is a “form[] of discrimination

4 against individuals with disabilities.” Id. § 12101(a)(2). Consequently, Title II of the ADA

5 outlaws segregation of individuals with disabilities and other forms of discrimination against

6 individuals with disabilities in public services such as education. Id. § 12132; 28 C.F.R. §

7 35.130. Title II of the ADA requires public entities to administer their services, programs, and

8 activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with

9 disabilities. See Olmstead, 527 U.S. 581 (1999) (interpreting Title II of the ADA); see also 28

10 C.F.R. § 35.130(d).

11

38. Title II of the ADA further requires that public schools provide children with

12 disabilities an equal educational opportunity. See 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1)(ii). Title II of the

13 ADA applies to all of the activities of school districts that provide public education. School

14 districts are required to “make reasonable modifications” to their programs and services “when

15 the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7)(i).

16 Therefore, a public school district violates the ADA by segregating students because of their

17 disabilities instead of making reasonable modifications that would enable such students to learn

18 in an integrated, general education environment. See U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Civ. Rights Div.,

19 Statement of the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the Integration Mandate of Title II of

20 the Americans with Disabilities Act and Olmstead v. L.C. at 2 (June 22, 2011) (explaining that

21 the ADA’s “integration mandate” requires public entities to “reasonably modify their policies,

22 procedures or practices when necessary to avoid discrimination”).

23

Equal Protection Clause

24

39. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that “No State shall

25 . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const.

26 amend. XIV. The Equal Protection Clause was created to prevent “official conduct

27 discriminating on the basis of race.” Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 239 (1976).

28

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

13

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 14 of 55

1

40. “[T]he opportunity of an education . . . where the state has undertaken to provide

2 it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.” Brown v. Board of Educ., 347

3 U.S. 483, 493 (1954). When a school district deprives a child of an equal education to those of

4 her peers, “[t]he inestimable toll of that deprivation on the social economic, intellectual, and

5 psychological well-being of the individual . . . make it most difficult to reconcile the cost or the

6 principle of a status-based denial of basic education with the framework of equality embodied in

7 the Equal Protection Clause.” Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 222 (1982).

8

41. The Equal Protection Clause’s prohibition on segregation in public education

9 must be considered “in the light of its full development and its present place in American life

10 throughout the Nation.” Brown v. Board of Educ., 347 U.S. 483, 492-493.

11

Title VI

12

42. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that recipients of federal

13 financial assistance may not discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin. 42

14 U.S.C. § 2000d. The statutory text of Title VI bars intentional discrimination on the basis

15 of race, color, or national origin. See Guardians Ass’n v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 463 U.S. 582,

16 607–08 (1983); Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 292–93 (1985). This prohibition extends to

17 recipients of federal financial assistance through the U.S. Department of Education, such as

18 public school districts. 34 C.F.R. §§ 100.1, 100.3.

19

43. Title VI ensures that students should not experience a “racially hostile

20 environment,” one in which racial harassment is “severe, pervasive or persistent so as to interfere

21 with or limit the ability of an individual to participate in or benefit from the services, activities or

22 privileges provided by the recipient.” Monteiro v. Tempe Union High Sch. Dist., 158 F.3d 1022,

23 1033 (9th Cir. 1998); see also Davis v. Monroe Cty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 650 (1999).

24

44. In passing Title VI, Congress specifically sought to end federal financial

25 assistance to segregated institutions, including segregated schools. Representative Emanuel

26 Celler, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee at the time of the passage of Title VI, stated,

27 “The enactment of [T]itle VI will serve to override specific provisions of law which contemplate

28

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

14

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 15 of 55

1 Federal assistance to racially segregated institutions.” 110 Cong. Rec. 2467 (1964) (quoted in

2 Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 330-31 (1978) (opinion of Marshall, J.).

3 Congress viewed Title VI as a way to implement Brown v. Board of Education’s prohibition on

4 segregation: Senator Hubert Humphrey, a leading sponsor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

5 identified ending federal grants to racially segregated institutions to conform with Brown as a

6 primary purpose of Title VI. 110 Cong. Rec. 6544 (1964).

7

California Government Code Section 11135

8

45. California Government Code section 11135 prohibits discrimination against

9 persons on the basis of race, sex or disability and other protected statuses in state-run or state-

10 funded programs and activities.

11

46. Regulations promulgated pursuant to California Government Code section 11135

12 provide, in relevant part, that “[i]t is a discriminatory practice for a recipient… (i) to utilize

13 criteria or methods of administration that . . . (1) have the purpose or effect of subjecting a

14 person to discrimination on the basis of ethnic group identification, religion, age, sex, color, or a

15 physical or mental disability[.]” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2, § 11154.

16

47. SCUSD’s operation of schools within the District and its administration of

17 educational services within those schools are subject to California Government Code section

18 11135(a) because they constitute a program or activity which is funded directly by the State of

19 California or receive financial assistance from the State.

20

48. California Government Code section 11139 provides that the anti-discrimination

21 provisions of California Government Code section 11135 et seq., and the regulations adopted

22 pursuant thereto, “may be enforced by a civil action for equitable relief, which shall be

23 independent of any other rights and remedies.” Plaintiffs therefore have the right to bring a civil

24 action for injunctive relief to enforce the rights guaranteed to them under California Government

25 Code section 11135 and the regulations promulgated thereunder.

26 /

27 /

28

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

15

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 16 of 55

1

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

2

Defendants’ Unlawful Policies and Practices

3

49. On information and belief, Defendants fail to implement legally compliant

4 policies, procedures, and programs with respect to students with disabilities who require

5 services, accommodations, and modifications to access education in the general education

6 curriculum. SCUSD’s failure to implement legally-compliant policies, procedures, and

7 programs results in SCUSD discriminatorily segregating students with disabilities, particularly

8 Black students with disabilities, at rates significantly higher than both statewide and national

9 averages.

10

50. Upon information and belief, SCUSD places nearly half of its students with

11 disabilities in segregated placements. These segregated placements include nonpublic schools,

12 which are segregated schools only attended by students with disabilities, and special day classes,

13 which are segregated classrooms that only serve students with disabilities. The District operates

14 special day classes on both general education campuses that otherwise appear superficially

15 integrated and at least one fully segregated public campus that enrolls only students with

16 disabilities.

17

51. In addition, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, only 2.9

18 percent of students with disabilities nationwide are educated in separate schools for students with

19 disabilities. SCUSD, in contrast, regularly places approximately five percent of its students with

20 disabilities in nonpublic schools and another one percent of its students with disabilities on its

21 standalone, fully segregated public campus called the John Morse Therapeutic Center (“John

22 Morse”). Taken together, SCUSD places approximately six percent of its students with

23 disabilities in separate schools each year – a rate that is more than twice the national average.

24

52. Similarly, in SCUSD, students with Autism are more than three times as likely as

25 students with Autism nationwide to be educated in segregated schools. And, students who have

26 an Intellectual Disability are twelve times as likely to be educated in segregated schools as

27 similarly situated students nationwide. Furthermore, upon information and belief, students who

28

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

16

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 17 of 55

1 have emotional and mental health disabilities are segregated at staggering rates, with SCUSD

2 educating almost none of these students in the regular education environment for at least eighty

3 percent of the school day.

4

53. These failures are exacerbated for Black students with disabilities. The District

5 disproportionately labels Black students with disabilities as having emotional and mental health

6 disabilities, and Black students are even more likely than other students with disabilities to

7 experience segregation. For example, during the 2017-18 school year, almost thirty-eight

8 percent of the students at John Morse and thirty-one percent of the students placed at nonpublic

9 schools were Black, even though Black students were less than sixteen percent of the District’s

10 student population and less than twenty percent of all students with disabilities. Overall, Black

11 students with disabilities are 1.9 times more likely than other students with disabilities in

12 SCUSD to be placed in segregated settings.

13

54. Despite the concerns expressed by the 2017 independent audit regarding the

14 District’s overuse and ineffective use of segregated placements, upon information and belief,

15 SCUSD has not reformed its practice related to the use of these segregated placements. In fact,

16 upon information and belief, SCUSD has increased its use of segregated placements, with the

17 number of special day classes increasing by over ten percent since 2017. Further, SCUSD has

18 failed to leverage the funds it expends on segregated schools and placements to, instead, provide

19 students with non-discriminatory access to education in the general education environment.

20

55. SCUSD’s segregation of students with disabilities, particularly Black students

21 with disabilities, causes these students ongoing harm. Because Defendants fail to provide

22 students with disabilities, particularly Black students with disabilities, access to the same

23 educational opportunities as their peers, these students fall further and further behind. For

24 example, upon information and belief, only six percent of students at John Morse met or

25 exceeded the standards of the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress for

26 the 2017-18 academic year.

27

56. Compounding this harm is the District’s refusal to provide students with

28

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

17

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 18 of 55

1 disabilities in segregated settings access to the full range of academic services, supports and

2 course offerings provided to other students in SCUSD. For example, the students at John Morse

3 are not instructed in music, art, sports, health, and foreign languages. Unlike other elementary

4 and middle-school students in general education programs in SCUSD, the District does not

5 provide students at John Morse students with tutoring, college readiness and preparation

6 programs like Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) and Math, Engineering,

7 Science Achievement (MESA) programs, enrichment programs, or the services of academic

8 counselors, library media teachers, social/behavior or career development counselors, or staff

9 speech and language specialists. The District’s discriminatory denial of access to these

10 curricular offerings to students with disabilities at John Morse exacerbates their segregation.

11

57. Additionally, the District contracts with segregated nonpublic schools that also do

12 not provide students with disabilities with access to the range of curricular offerings that their

13 peers without disabilities receive. Upon information and belief, high school students in SCUSD

14 who are placed in segregated schools do not receive access to a college-preparatory curriculum.

15 Nor do these students have access to the full range of course offerings, such as foreign language

16 courses, that their non-disabled peers can access in the general education environment. Upon

17 information and belief, these students also do not have equal access to career and technical

18 education curriculum as their peers without disabilities.

19

58. SCUSD Students placed in nonpublic schools, particularly Black students, are

20 more likely to dropout. For example, in 2016-17, the dropout rate for District students placed in

21 nonpublic schools was eight percent which far exceeded the District, County, and State dropout

22 rates of two percent, three percent and two percent, respectively. Worse, Black students in

23 nonpublic schools had a nine percent dropout rate. Additionally, few of the students in

24 nonpublic schools who make it to the twelfth grade graduate. In 2016-17, twelfth grade students

25 who attended District school sites enjoyed a graduation rate of almost eighty-three percent;

26 students placed in nonpublic schools had an 8.2 percent graduation rate. Only seven SCUSD

27 students graduated from a nonpublic school in 2016-17, and none of the students graduated

28

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

18

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 19 of 55

1 having completed the required coursework for UC/CSU admission. In fact, between the 2007-08

2 and 2016-17 school years, only one SCUSD student with a disability has graduated from a

3 nonpublic school having completed UC/CSU required coursework.

4

59. As alleged infra, the District’s placement of students with disabilities in

5 segregated placements also subjects them to unnecessary and traumatic restraint and seclusion.

6 Neither restraints nor seclusion have been shown to have any educational benefit, and, instead,

7 have been shown to cause both physical and psychological harm to students.

8

60. Even the students with disabilities who are not placed in segregated settings

9 experience the harms of segregation through the District’s policies that lead to excessive use of

10 exclusionary discipline. This is especially true for Black students with disabilities. Students

11 who experience exclusionary discipline lose instructional opportunities, are more likely to have

12 decreased school connectedness and have reduced opportunities for pro-social development.

13 Over time, the cumulative effect of exclusionary discipline can disengage students from their

14 education, risking further negative outcomes for these students.

15

District Policies that Deny Timely Identification and Evaluation

16

61. Defendants have failed to put into effect policies, procedures, and programs that

17 ensure that all students with disabilities who require services, accommodations, and

18 modifications to remain in the general education environment are timely identified, located, and

19 evaluated. Instead, Defendants have created policies and practices that result in illegal delay of

20 evaluations, despite parental requests.

21

62. The District has created a number of gate-keeping mechanisms, both for general

22 evaluation as well as for specialized assessments. Upon information and belief, these gate-

23 keeping teams serve to illegally restrict the number of students who receive assessment and to

24 illegally delay those assessments for students who do receive them, particularly for Black

25 students with disabilities.

26

63. These gate-keeping mechanisms include the District-created “Student Study

27 Team.” Upon information and belief, in response to parental requests for evaluations,

28

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

19

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 20 of 55

1 Defendants require students and parents to participate in the District-created Student Study Team

2 process. The Student Study Team process is an unnecessary extra series of meetings that, at its

3 best, delays what should be a timely assessment and, at its worst, completely denies appropriate

4 assessment. Upon information and belief, Student Study Teams have access to no specialized

5 services that could legally be provided in lieu of an assessment for a student with a disability.

6 Upon information and belief, Student Study Teams do not provide parents and students with any

7 description of assessment processes or of their procedural rights to assessment.

8

64. These gate-keeping mechanisms also include specialized assessment teams such

9 as the educationally-related mental health services team and the Autism team. Upon information

10 and belief, these structures, created by Defendants, delay and restrict the number of students who

11 receive these evaluations.

12

65. Upon information and belief, the District has not staffed these specialized

13 assessment teams in a way that could possibly meet the need for assessment within the District.

14 A referral to one of these assessment teams functions as a referral to wait for available staff. For

15 example, Defendants require an assessment by a school social worker as part of the

16 educationally-related mental health services team assessment. However, upon information and

17 belief, during the 2018-19 school year, Defendants only employed eight social workers for the

18 entire school district, which serves more than 45,000 students across seventy schools. Upon

19 information and belief, Defendants do not have a sufficient number of trained and/or qualified

20 staff to conduct these evaluations, which results in many of these evaluations being illegally

21 delayed.

22

66. Long delays in merely getting evaluated deny children who need services,

23 accommodations, and modifications access to education in the general education environment.

24 They also place these children at increased risk of placement in a segregated setting due to lack

25 of timely and appropriate interventions.

26

67. The District has a policy of not providing parents and students with accurate

27 information regarding their rights to assessment, despite the District’s knowledge that its own

28

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

20

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 21 of 55

1 staff both act upon misinformation and convey that misinformation to families. The District has

2 a policy of not providing parents and students with information regarding assessments even after

3 the District learns that a student has a disability. Upon information and belief, the District does

4 not have any process to review school-site parent/student handbooks in the District to ensure that

5 parents and students receive information about seeking assessments, nor does the District have

6 any other systemic way to ensure that parents and students are provided accurate information

7 about assessments. On the contrary, misinformation about assessment is rampant through the

8 District. For example, the 2017 independent audit revealed that some District staff believed that

9 they had to suspend students before students could receive assessment, which, on information

10 and belief, disproportionately harms Black students with disabilities. Yet the District has failed

11 to take the most basic steps to ensure that parents and students understand their right to request

12 assessments.

13

District Policies that Deny Students Necessary Services, Accommodations, and

14

Modifications in the General Education Environment

15

68. Districtwide, Defendants have failed to create a sufficient number of appropriate

16 inclusive placements for students with disabilities. Defendants have failed to structure the

17 SCUSD programs and its resources so that services, accommodations, and modifications are

18 available to students with disabilities in integrated placements. Consequently, SCUSD

19 segregates students with disabilities who could be appropriately educated in the general

20 education environment.

21

69. Upon information and belief, Defendants have maintained woefully inadequate

22 staffing levels and systematically fail to provide staff with training and oversight to ensure that

23 students with disabilities receive sufficient individualized services, accommodations, and

24 modifications to support their inclusion in the general education environment. For example,

25 during the 2018-19 school year, SCUSD had only one staff member who was qualified to serve

26 as an inclusion specialist, eight social workers, and seven behavior intervention specialists for

27 the entire District. As a consequence, students are not offered and do not receive appropriately

28

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

21

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 22 of 55

1 intensive services, accommodations, and modifications to allow students to access education in

2 the general education environment.

3

70. For example, Defendants fail to provide students with social, emotional,

4 behavioral, and/or mental health needs access to appropriately intensive services,

5 accommodations, and modifications such as educationally-related mental health services, direct

6 behavior support, functional behavioral assessments, behavior intervention plans, individual

7 counseling, social skills services, social work services, and psychological services. Defendants’

8 failure to provide these services in the general education environment significantly contributes to

9 the segregation of students with disabilities, especially Black students with disabilities.

10

71. The District has maintained its policy of inadequate staffing despite knowledge

11 that general education teachers reported that they could not adequately serve students with

12 disabilities. Upon information and belief, in 2019, the Sacramento City Teachers Association

13 negotiated with the District to apply cost savings from cuts to teachers’ healthcare toward

14 increased supports for students with disabilities, including hiring more psychologists and

15 behavior intervention specialists. However, also upon information and belief, the District

16 reneged on this agreement and never hired additional staff to support students with disabilities.

17

72. Defendants additionally fail to provide students with disabilities with sufficient

18 access to specialized related services such as augmentative and alternative communication or

19 assisted technology. Upon information and belief, the District does not make these services

20 available to students in the general education environment. Instead, the District instructs parents

21 to seek these services through their medical provider.

22

73. Despite knowledge of effective services and supports to provide students with

23 disabilities non-discriminatory access to education in the general education environment,

24 Defendants have failed to adopt these measures. Defendants ignored recommendations from the

25 2017 independent audit to develop an “Inclusive Education Vision,” and failed to implement the

26 audit’s recommendations for inclusive education practices, such as the Multi-Tiered Systems of

27 Support framework. The audit further found that SCUSD had not created sufficient tools for

28

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

22

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 23 of 55

1 inclusive practice in the general education environment. Upon information and belief, despite

2 the audit’s concerns and recommendations directed at the District, Defendants have failed to

3 implement inclusive education throughout SCUSD, nor provide staff meaningful or effective

4 training or levels of resources on inclusive education.

5

74. Upon information and belief, despite knowledge that lack of staff training has led

6 to discrimination for Black students with disabilities, Defendants systematically fail to provide

7 staff with sufficient training and support on cultural and linguistic responsiveness, or other

8 approaches to working with students that validate and affirm their home culture and language to

9 promote their social, emotional, and academic success. When incorporated in the classroom,

10 culturally and linguistic responsiveness enables school staff, including teachers, social workers

11 and school psychologists, to better understand the motivations and behavior of students so that

12 they can rely less on exclusionary discipline and more on, where needed, appropriate services.

13 SCUSD’s failure to employ culturally relevant teaching, or similarly effective approaches,

14 significantly contributes to SCUSD’s wholly inadequate provision of services to students with

15 disabilities, particularly Black students with disabilities, leading to further isolation and

16 segregation.

17

75. Due to SCUSD’s failure to provide appropriate services in the general education

18 environment, many students with disabilities, particularly Black students with disabilities are

19 discriminatorily excluded from educational opportunities and instructional time. Ultimately, due

20 to SCUSD’s failure to provide appropriate services in the general education environment, many

21 students with disabilities, particularly Black students with disabilities, are segregated from their

22 peers.

23

District Policies that Result in Discriminatory Discipline

24

76. Defendants further segregate students with disabilities through inappropriate

25 exclusionary discipline. Because SCUSD fails to provide these students with appropriate

26 services, accommodations, and modifications, students continue to struggle with their disability-

27 related behaviors. In response, SCUSD punishes its students with disabilities and overly relies

28

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

23

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 24 of 55

1 on time outside of the classroom, suspensions, and expulsions, which denies students with

2 disabilities, particularly Black students with disabilities, access to educational opportunities.

3

77. The District’s written student discipline board policy and administrative

4 regulation, adopted in June 2014 in collaboration with the Black Parallel School Board, purport

5 to “avoid disparate application and treatment.” However, the District, despite being aware of the

6 discrimination rampant in its schools, has engaged in a widespread policy of non-enforcement of

7 its own written policy. Consequently, discrimination remains entrenched in the District’s

8 disciplinary practices.

9

78. The District’s Board Policy 5144 requires the Superintendent to “collaboratively

10 develop a Discipline Matrix with stakeholders that shall be used to guide the actions of all school

11 site leaders with regards to when out-of-school suspension or an expulsion referral can be

12 utilized for certain offenses.” The Board Policy directly ties this discipline matrix to the goal of

13 “minimizing the excessive use of willful defiance as a reason to impose in-school and off-

14 campus removals that often lead to poor educational outcomes….” However, upon information

15 and belief, the District has not adopted a discipline matrix to meet this goal.

16

79. The District’s Board Policy 5144 further requires that the Superintendent present

17 to the Board an annual plan that will ensure mandatory professional development for “all district

18 employees” in areas including restorative practices, social and emotional learning, implicit bias,

19 and cultural proficiency. Upon information and belief, the Superintendent has not created such a

20 plan, and has not mandated such training for all District employees, despite knowledge that such

21 training was necessary to address race- and disability-based discrimination in the District’s

22 schools.

23

80. On paper, the District’s administrative regulations mandate that each school

24 create an “Annual Site Action Plan,” based on a framework that the District would provide to

25 schools, for reducing “suspensions/disproportionality” and improving “school climate through

26 the use of restorative practices.” However, upon information and belief, subsequent to the

27 adoption of this administrative regulation, the District entered into a memorandum of

28

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

24

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 25 of 55

1 understanding with its teachers’ union which prohibits the implementation of these plans. Upon

2 information and belief, the District has not provided schools with the framework for the Annual

3 Site Action Plans, nor has any school in the District created an Annual Site Action Plan on its

4 own.

5

81. The District’s administrative regulations also mandate that the District provide the

6 school sites with disaggregated data to inform necessary reforms. Administrative Regulation

7 5144 states:

8

The District’s administrative regulations also mandate that the District provide the

school sites with disaggregated data to inform necessary reforms. Administrative

9

Regulation 5144 states: The District office will provide all school sites with data

concerning suspensions and expulsions at the site on a monthly basis. This data

10

shall include statistics concerning: race, ethnicity, gender, SES, EL/LEP, students

with disabilities, location, time, grade, type of infraction, duration of suspension,

11

and may also include other relevant data. The data shall be analyzed by the site

team on a monthly basis by utilizing the District provided Data Discussion Guide.

12

The Data Discussion Guide is a resource for assisting with the analysis of

discipline trends and creating the Monthly Action Plans (MAPs). The school

13

site’s data analysis and MAPs shall be evaluated by the District twice annually;

on or before December 1 and May 1, of each school year.

14

82.

15 Upon information and belief, the District has not provided school sites with this data, nor has it

16 evaluated any Monthly Action Plans created by school sites.

17

83. Upon information and belief, the District has a policy of not tracking and

18 recording all disciplinary exclusions. Students with disabilities receive a variety of informal

19 disciplinary removals that are not tracked as suspensions by the District. These informal

20 removals include parents being called to pick up their students from school, students being sent

21 to sit in an office without access to educational instruction, and students being sent to sit in the

22 hallway without access to educational instruction. The District’s policy is to not track these

23 informal removals as discipline. As a consequence, the District does not provide students with

24 disabilities who experience informal removals with evaluations before disciplinary changes in

25 placement.

26

84. Moreover, upon information and belief, the District has a policy of not providing

27 students with disabilities who experience formal disciplinary removals with evaluations before

28

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

25

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 26 of 55

1 disciplinary changes in placement in a lawful and timely manner. As a result of this policy,

2 students with disabilities have been placed in segregated school settings without regard to the

3 relationship between the behavior subject to the disciplinary action and their disability.

4

85. Upon information and belief, the District has a policy of suspending students

5 enrolled in kindergarten through third grade for willful defiance and/or creating an intimidating

6 or hostile environment, in violation of state law prohibiting such suspensions for students in

7 kindergarten through third grade. During the 2017-18 school year, students with disabilities in

8 kindergarten through the third grade were suspended on the basis of willful defiance at twice the

9 rate of all District students, while Black students with disabilities were suspended on the same

10 ground at five times the rate of all District students. In that same year, upon information and

11 belief, students with disabilities in kindergarten through third grade were suspended on the basis

12 of creating an intimidating or hostile environment at twice the rate of all District students, while

13 Black students with disabilities were suspended at eight times the rate of all District students. As

14 a result of this policy, students with disabilities, particularly Black students with disabilities, are

15 unable to access critical support services, academic instruction and social integration with their

16 peers at a young age when such services and experiences are particularly critical to students’

17 social-emotional development and access to education.

18

86. Upon information and belief, the District has a policy of not providing students

19 with disabilities access to education during periods of disciplinary exclusion. Due to the lack of

20 access to education, students with disabilities fall further behind their classmates during

21 disciplinary exclusions. Black students with disabilities suffer the greatest lack of access to

22 education since, as described below, they bear the brunt of the District’s discriminatory overuse

23 of exclusionary discipline.

24

87. These failures result in the inappropriate use of exclusion from school in response

25 to student behaviors, disproportionately impacting students with disabilities, particularly Black

26 students with disabilities.

27

88. Upon information and belief, during the 2018-19 school year, students with

28

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

26

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 27 of 55

1 disabilities were significantly more likely to receive an out-of-school suspension than their peers

2 without disabilities.

3

89. Figure 1 shows the contrast between the rate of suspensions for students with

4 disabilities and their peers without disabilities, as reported to the California Department of

5 Education for school years 2016-17 and 2017-18. During both school years, the rate of

6 suspension for students with disabilities was approximately twice as high as for students without

7 disabilities.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

90. The inappropriate use of removals is worse for Black students with disabilities.

21 Upon information and belief, during the 2018-19 school year, Black students received at least

22 forty percent of total suspensions within SCUSD, although they comprised only fourteen percent 23 of the student population.3 That year, upon information and belief, Black students with

24 disabilities were more than ten times more likely than other students with disabilities to be

25 suspended. Similarly, upon information and belief, they were almost ten times more likely than

26 their non-Black peers without disabilities to be suspended. Moreover, upon information and

27 3 All suspension data for the 2018-19 school year included herein is based on total numbers of
28 suspension rather than unduplicated counts and is upon information and belief.

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

27

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 28 of 55

1 belief, Black students with disabilities were more than fifteen times more likely than their White

2 peers without disabilities to receive an out-of-school suspension.

3

91. Figure 2 displays the significant divergence between the suspension rates of Black

4 students with disabilities and their White peers without disabilities for school years 2016-17 and

5 2017-18 as reported by the California Department of Education. In both school years the

6 suspension rate for Black students with disabilities was approximately ten times as high as the

7 rate for their White peers without disabilities.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

92. Black students with disabilities face an even greater risk of suspension under

22 highly subjective and discretionary categories like “willful defiance” and “created intimidating

23 or hostile environment.” Such offense categories are susceptible to implicit and explicit biases;

24 educators are more likely to view ambiguous behavior as more hostile when performed by Black

25 rather than White actors.4 Thus, highly discretionary and subjective offenses can be expected to

26

27

4 See Kurt Hugenberg & Galen V. Bodenhausen, Facing Prejudice: Implicit Prejudice and the Perception of Racial Threat, 14 Psychol. Science 640, 643 (Nov. 2003), available at

28

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00519/full; Anthony Page, Batson’s Blind-Spot: Unconscious Stereotyping and the Peremptory Challenge, 85 B.U. L. Rev. 155, 222-

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

28

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 29 of 55

1 result in disparate outcomes for Black students when districts fail to mitigate this risk.

2

93. As a result of these failures, during the 2018-19 school year, upon information

3 and belief, Black students were at least five times more likely than their peers to receive an out-

4 of-school suspension for willful defiance. Upon information and belief, Black students with

5 disabilities faced an even greater risk of suspension and were approximately three times more

6 likely than other students with disabilities and approximately fifty times more likely than their

7 White peers without disabilities to receive an out-of-school suspension for willful defiance.

8 Upon information and belief, Black students were approximately six times more likely than their

9 White peers to receive an out-of-school suspension for behavior categorized as “created an

10 intimidating or hostile environment.” Upon and information and belief, Black students with

11 disabilities were approximately two times more likely than other students with disabilities

12 and approximately twenty times more likely than their White peers without disabilities to receive

13 an out-of-school suspension for “created an intimidating or hostile environment.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

24 & n.337 (2005) (collecting studies showing that “that people will assign different significance to identical actions depending on the actors’ race”).

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

29

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 30 of 55

1

94. Figure 3 compares four student groups: all Black students, all White students,

2 Black students with disabilities, and White students without disabilities for school years 2016-17

3 and 2017-18. As reported by the California Department of Education, during both school years,

4 the rate of suspension for all Black students was significantly higher than the rate for all White

5 students – about eight times higher. Black students with disabilities were suspended at a rate

6 approximately fifteen times higher than their White peers without disabilities in 2016-17 and

7 approximately twenty-three times higher in 2017-18.

8

District Policies that Deny Students a Safe Learning Environment

9

95. Defendants have failed to provide a safe and non-discriminatory learning

10 environment for students with disabilities, particularly Black students with disabilities.

11

96. The District, despite being aware of the bullying and harassment in its schools,

12 has engaged in a widespread policy of non-enforcement of its own written Board policy around

13 school-site safety planning. Taken together, Board Policy 0450 and Administrative Regulation

14 5145.5 require that each SCUSD school site create a “Comprehensive Safety Plan” with an

15 attached “bullying prevention plan” and update those plans on an annual basis. The Board is

16 required to review and approve each school’s Comprehensive Safety Plan. Upon information

17 and belief, the Board has not reviewed and approved any SCUSD school site’s Comprehensive

18 Safety Plan that includes the required bullying prevention plan.

19

97. Defendants have failed to hire sufficient trained staff to effectively remedy

20 disability-based harassment of students with disabilities and race-based harassment of Black

21 students with disabilities within District schools. For example, during the 2018-19 school year,

22 the District only employed one anti-bullying specialist for the entire District. Upon information

23 and belief, the District has offered no effective training to address bullying and harassment based

24 on race or disability. Consequently, even when SCUSD school staff respond to reports of

25 harassment, they routinely suggest strategies for addressing it that are not culturally responsive,

26 are counter-productive, or put a large burden on the students who have been harassed. Further,

27 SCUSD staff fail to create, maintain, monitor, update, and/or follow safety plans for students

28

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

30

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 31 of 55

1 who have been bullied or harassed on the basis of disability or race.

2

98. Defendants have also failed to ensure that parents and students have sufficient

3 information about reporting complaints of disability- or race-based harassment. The District

4 points to its “Title IX officer” as the proper official to investigate such complaints. Title IX of

5 the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-88, is a federal law designed to end sex-

6 based discrimination in federally funded programs. The District’s own website states that the

7 Title IX “District compliance officer will investigate any complaints of harassment or

8 discrimination based on gender equity issues for student to student.” Upon information and

9 belief, there is no information on the District’s website that would suggest that a family should

10 make a complaint of disability- and/or race-based harassment to the District’s Title IX officer.

11 The District has consequently failed to structure its reporting mechanism for disability- and race-

12 based harassment in a way that would allow parents and students to access it.

13

99. Defendants have failed to monitor and provide oversight to ensure that students

14 who have experienced disability-based or race-based bullying and harassment are not forced to

15 transfer schools. Upon information and belief, Defendants do not track transfers of students

16 within the District that resulted after the student or parent requested intervention with bullying or

17 harassment. Due to the lack of training on effective strategies to address bullying and the lack of

18 oversight, SCUSD school staff have pressured the families of these students to agree that the

19 student should transfer schools. Consequently, for at least some students with disabilities, they

20 transfer schools multiple times before they even reach middle school. As a result, the disruption

21 in education further denies these students access to education.

22

100. After SCUSD places students in segregated settings, these students experience

23 additional harm from the unnecessary use of traumatic interventions such as restraints and

24 seclusion of students rather than positive behavioral interventions, services and supports. Upon

25 information and belief, Black students with disabilities experience this harm at significantly

26 greater rates than other students.

27

101. Upon information and belief, the District continues to contract with segregated

28

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

31

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 32 of 55

1 placements that unnecessarily rely upon traumatic restraints and seclusion of students rather than

2 positive behavioral interventions, services and supports. Upon information and belief, students

3 who are placed by SCUSD in segregated placements are more likely to experience seclusion and

4 restraint than students in the general education environment. Upon information and belief, for

5 similar behaviors, Black students are more likely to experience seclusion and restraint than

6 White students. Upon information and belief, in recent school years, Black students in

7 segregated settings were significantly more likely than White students to be restrained and

8 secluded for “out of seat/ disruptive behavior.” Black students were also significantly more

9 likely than White students to be restrained and secluded for behavior described as “student

10 frustrated or agitated.” Upon information and belief, Black students who were placed in

11 segregated settings by SCUSD were significantly more likely to experience physical restraints

12 than other students. Upon information and belief, when White students were restrained, they

13 were significantly more likely than Black students to receive an escort restraint, a less traumatic

14 form of restraint than a physical restraint.

15

102. The District’s policy of contracting with segregated placements that unnecessarily

16 rely upon restraints and seclusion, denies students with disabilities, particularly Black students

17 with disabilities, access to a safe learning environment and consequently denies access to

18 education. The trauma caused by these interventions, upon information and belief, compounds

19 the harm of segregation for these students.

20

Plaintiff Facts

21

Black Parallel School Board

22

103. Plaintiff Black Parallel School Board is a community-based membership

23 organization developed to serve Black children, primarily those attending SCUSD. It is an

24 unincorporated association located in Sacramento, California and is governed by a member-

25 elected and member-run Executive Council.

26

104. The BPSB’s primary responsibility is to support the educational growth and

27 achievement of Black students by monitoring all educational activities and programs of SCUSD

28

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

32

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 33 of 55

1 to ensure that they are compatible with the needs of Black students in the district. BPSB

2 primarily focuses on promoting and advocating for Black student achievement and educational

3 quality and attainment, and classroom and District practices that are supportive and culturally

4 relevant as opposed to those that punish and exclude Black children.

5

105. One of BPSB’s primary activities is to monitor school sites and the district as a

6 whole, and to publish their findings in an annual report that informs BPSB advocacy efforts.

7 BPSB’s other primary activities are to advocate and help parents and children in the District

8 advocate for themselves before the School Board and in other school forums, provide trainings

9 for parents and educators, and to coordinate with and support other Black-student focused

10 advocacy groups throughout the Sacramento region and Central Valley of California. BPSB also

11 regularly provides and connects SCUSD students to education scholarships and provides support

12 services to parents regarding school discipline and academic performance.

13

106. BPSB has approximately 150 members including parents of Black students with

14 disabilities who reside within the District, attend a wide array of schools, and are not receiving

15 adequate, necessary, and appropriately individualized services, accommodations, and

16 modifications. Instead, children of BPSB’s members experience high rates of exclusionary

17 discipline, segregated and restrictive placements, discrimination, and harmful and hostile school

18 environments.

19

107. BPSB has diverted resources away from their primary activities in order to

20 mitigate the District’s unlawful policies and practices. Executive Council members have

21 attended meetings as advocates on behalf of their members, conducted classroom observations to

22 investigate members’ complaints regarding the education of students with disabilities, and

23 identified referrals for members requiring legal assistance. For example, since January 2017,

24 BPSB has attended nearly twenty meetings on behalf of members after members complained that

25 their children were not receiving the services, accommodations, and modifications they needed.

26 The BPSB was not formed to provide these types of supportive services and does not receive

27 funding to provide these services.

28

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

33

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 34 of 55

1

Individual Plaintiffs

2

108. Student Plaintiffs Stephen, Kurtis, and Konrad are all school-aged children who

3 reside within the boundaries of SCUSD. No two Student Plaintiffs currently attend or have

4 attended the same schools within the District.

5

109. Each Student Plaintiff has known disabilities that impair one or more of his or her

6 major life activities under Section 504 and the ADA, including, but not limited to, the activity of

7 learning.

8

110. All of the Student Plaintiffs are either Black or mixed-race Black. As discussed

9 below, each of the Student Plaintiffs have experienced discrimination, segregation (including

10 exclusionary discipline), and unequal educational opportunities that are illustrative and

11 symptomatic of the District’s unlawful and discriminatory policies, as outlined above.

12

111. Unless and until the Defendants’ address the problems outlined herein, the

13 Student Plaintiffs will be unable to be free from discrimination and receive the equal access to

14 their public education in the integrated and inclusive school setting to which they are entitled.

15

Stephen Doe

16

112. Stephen Doe is a ten-year-old student who attends a K-8 school operated by

17 SCUSD. Stephen is a fifth-grade student.

18

113. Stephen enjoys playing basketball, watching his favorite athletes, and sketching.

19 Stephen lives with his mother and siblings within the boundaries of the District.

20

114. Stephen has been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Anxiety

21 Disorder. Stephen is a qualified individual with a disability under Section 504 and the ADA.

22

115. Stephen is one of fewer than two dozen Black students remaining at his public

23 school. Although Black and White students each make up approximately fifteen to seventeen

24 percent of the District’s overall enrollment each year, Black enrollment at Stephen’s school has

25 dropped below five percent whereas White student enrollment now accounts for nearly two-

26 thirds of the school’s student body. Upon information and belief, all academic staff at Stephen’s

27 school are also White.

28

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

34

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 35 of 55

1

116. The District has failed to provide Stephen with appropriate mental health,

2 behavioral, or social evaluations, nor has the District provided him the services,

3 accommodations, and modifications that would allow him to be successful in the general

4 education environment. In addition, upon information and belief, none of the teachers at

5 Stephen’s school is credentialed to be a primary instructor for students with Autism Spectrum

6 Disorder.

7

117. Stephen is not provided with equal access to the instruction, programs, and

8 services available to other students at his school. For example, Stephen is frequently removed

9 from his class during core parts of the curriculum.

10

118. To date, Stephen has not received culturally relevant and responsive education,

11 programs, and services while attending a District school.

12

119. Instead of providing these services, supports, and equal access at Stephen’s

13 neighborhood school, the District has recommended that Stephen be removed to a more

14 segregated placement and has repeatedly excluded Stephen from his classroom.

15

120. Upon information and belief, Stephen has been removed from class without

16 documentation on more than eighty occasions since he started first grade at his K-8 school.

17

121. During the 2018-19 school year, Stephen was excluded from his class on at least

18 23 school days – the equivalent of more than four weeks of school. Stephen was formally

19 suspended from school for seven of those days. In addition, Stephen’s classroom teacher sent

20 Stephen home or to another room on at least sixteen other occasions.

21

122. Upon information and belief, the District did not document or track Stephen’s

22 sixteen additional removals from school during the 2018-19 school year. These additional

23 removals typically occurred at the beginning of the school day and lasted for the remainder of the

24 day. He was typically sent out without any school work and deprived of any school instruction.

25 The District did not document or track removals not resulting in formal suspension, and thus

26 failed to recognize that Stephen had been removed for more than ten days of school during the

27 2018-19 school year. Upon information and belief, Stephen did not receive any instruction or

28

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

35

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 36 of 55

1 access to education on his eleventh day of removal and beyond during the 2018-19 school year.

2

123. Upon information and belief, all of these suspensions and informal removals

3 during the 2018-19 school year resulted from disability-related behavior or behavior related to

4 his response to experiencing identity-based bullying and harassment. Nevertheless, the District

5 did not conduct a manifestation determination review or a Functional Behavior Assessment for

6 Stephen.

7

124. Upon information and belief, Stephen – the only known Black student with

8 Autism Spectrum Disorder at his school – was suspended and removed more than any other

9 student in the school during the 2018-19 school year.

10

125. These excessive removals result in lost instructional time, hindering Stephen’s

11 academic progress. On a school campus that lacks diversity in race and ability, such targeted and

12 persistent exclusion also stigmatizes Stephen and students like him, fostering an environment

13 that is unwelcoming and unaccommodating.

14

126. Stephen is at constant risk of being removed from his public K-8 school and

15 placed in a segregated setting where he also will not have equal access to his public education

16 and where he is likely to be subjected to additional harms, such as a heightened risk of restraint

17 and seclusion.

18

127. Stephen has been the repeated target of disability- and race-based biases and

19 stereotypes. Despite his medical diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder, school staff continue

20 to openly treat him as if he is a dangerous child to be feared. For example, Stephen’s teacher

21 locked the classroom door and refused to let Stephen enter, telling the other students that they

22 were on “lock down” – a term that connotes fear and threats of violence in today’s culture – and

23 that they were not to let Stephen inside the classroom.

24

128. Stephen has endured severe and pervasive identity-based bullying and harassment

25 at school from both staff and students. This has included, for example, other students calling

26 Stephen names like “stupid Black boy” and physically attacking Stephen. Despite notice,

27 Defendants failed to intervene in a timely or effective manner to ensure that Stephen has access

28

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

36

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 37 of 55

1 to a safe educational environment. Defendants’ actions and failures effectively endorse fear-

2 based racial and disability biases and discrimination. These actions and failures have caused

3 Stephen to feel afraid at school and isolated from his peers, creating a hostile learning

4 environment for Stephen and other students and limiting Stephen’s access to benefits provided

5 by the school.

6

129. Upon information and belief, Stephen’s experiences are illustrative of and result

7 from the District’s unlawful policies as outlined above.

8

Kurtis Doe

9

130. Kurtis Doe is a sixteen-year-old student who has been placed by SCUSD in a

10 nonpublic school that exclusively serves students with disabilities. Kurtis is an eleventh-grade

11 student.

12

131. Kurtis enjoys cooking and reading science-fiction novels. He is interested in

13 learning about culinary arts and wishes he could participate in a Regional Occupational Program

14 or “ROP” at school. Kurtis wants to graduate with a regular high school diploma and would like

15 to be ready to attend college after graduation.

16

132. Kurtis has a history of trauma and has been diagnosed with various mental health

17 conditions. Kurtis is a qualified individual with a disability under Section 504 and the ADA.

18

133. Kurtis is Black. He lives with his siblings and guardian, J.E., within the

19 boundaries of the District.

20

134. During the 2017-18 school year, Kurtis attended the ninth grade at a public

21 SCUSD high school. Although he was on a public campus, he was placed in a separate class for

22 students with disabilities for a majority of his school day. The District failed to provide Kurtis

23 with appropriate mental health, behavioral, or social evaluations, supports, or services that would

24 help him to be successful in the general education environment. In addition, upon information

25 and belief, Kurtis was not provided with equal access to the instruction and courses that were

26 available to other students without disabilities at his school.

27

135. Additionally, Kurtis did not receive culturally relevant and responsive education,

28

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

37

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 38 of 55

1 programs, and services while attending a District school that year. Kurtis also did not receive

2 trauma-informed services or instruction.

3

136. Also during the 2017-18 school year, Kurtis endured severe and pervasive

4 identity-based bullying and harassment at school from both staff and students. Kurtis was the

5 target of peers’ homophobic, race-based, and disability-based slurs. Kurtis sought help from

6 staff and was directed to fill out the bullying and harassment form. Kurtis estimates that he

7 submitted at least two dozen forms that year but received no responses to those complaints. The

8 discrimination, bullying, and harassment persisted, causing Kurtis to feel unsafe, unprotected,

9 and unsupported in his school. In addition, Kurtis’s teacher placed a sign outside the classroom

10 door that informed all passing students and staff that the class was for “Emotionally Disturbed”

11 students. This sign remained in place throughout the school year and was not removed by the

12 District, despite its violation of students’ privacy and its further perpetuating biases and

13 stereotypes about these students.

14

137. During the 2017-18 school year, Kurtis was excluded from school on at least

15 twenty-two school days – the equivalent of more than four weeks of school. Kurtis was formally

16 suspended from school for eleven of those days. In addition, Kurtis was sent home or excluded

17 from school on at least eleven other occasions. Upon information and belief, the District did not

18 document or track Kurtis’s eleven additional removals from school during the 2017-18 school

19 year. While removed from school, Kurtis was deprived of any school instruction or school work.

20 Upon information and belief, Kurtis did not receive any instruction or access to education on his

21 eleventh day of removal and beyond during the 2017-18 school year.

22

138. Upon information and belief, all of these suspensions and informal removals

23 during the 2017-18 school year resulted from disability-related behavior or behavior related to

24 his response to experiencing identity-based bullying and harassment. Nevertheless, the District

25 did not intervene appropriately or conduct a Functional Behavior Assessment. Although the

26 District conducted one manifestation determination review in May 2018, it failed to return Kurtis

27 to his school after determining that his alleged behavior was a manifestation of his disabilities.

28

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

38

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 39 of 55

1

139. Instead of providing Kurtis with services, accommodations, modifications, and

2 equal access at his neighborhood school, the District unilaterally removed Kurtis from his public

3 high school in May 2018. The District failed to provide him with any instruction or school

4 placement between May 2018 and September 2018, causing Kurtis to miss the last eleven days

5 of his ninth grade year and approximately the first seven days of his tenth grade year.

6

140. In September 2018, the District placed Kurtis in a segregated nonpublic school

7 that exclusively serves students with disabilities. Kurtis remained in this segregated setting for

8 the duration of the 2018-19 school year. He is still placed there for the 2019-20 school year.

9

141. While segregated in a nonpublic school, Kurtis does not receive equal access to

10 California’s comprehensive and rigorous high school curriculum, including access to the full A-

11 G coursework required for University of California and California State University admission or

12 the opportunity to enroll in Advanced Placement courses. Kurtis does not get to experience or

13 participate in typical high school social experiences and rites of passage that are afforded to other

14 SCUSD students, such as football games and dances.

15

142. While segregated in a nonpublic school, Kurtis experiences stigma and additional

16 harms, such as multiple physical restraints. By removing him from his community and typically

17 developing peers, SCUSD has effectively denied Kurtis meaningful access and participation in

18 an integrated educational opportunity.

19

143. Upon information and belief, Kurtis’s experiences are illustrative of and result

20 from the District’s unlawful policies as outlined above.

21

Konrad Doe

22

144. Konrad Doe is a nine-year-old student who attends a public elementary school

23 operated by SCUSD. Konrad is a fourth-grade student.

24

145. Konrad enjoys playing basketball, and participates in multiple recreational

25 leagues outside of school. Konrad lives with his grandparents, who are his legal guardians,

26 within the boundaries of the District.

27

146. Konrad has been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder, Dyslexia, a specific

28

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

39

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 40 of 55

1 learning disability in the area of written expression, and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity

2 Disorder. Konrad is a qualified individual with a disability under Section 504 and the ADA.

3

147. From the 2015-16 school year to the 2018-19 school year, Konrad attended his

4 neighborhood elementary school in SCUSD for kindergarten through third grade. Konrad was

5 one of fewer than three dozen Black students at his neighborhood school, which was located in

6 one of the wealthiest areas of Sacramento. Although Black and White students each make up

7 approximately fifteen to seventeen percent of the District’s enrollment in any given school year,

8 Black students made up only 5.2 percent of the students at Konrad’s school between 2015 and

9 2019 whereas about half of all enrolled students are White. Upon information and belief, all or

10 nearly all of the academic staff at Konrad’s school were also White during this time period.

11

148. After experiencing discrimination and harassment at his neighborhood school,

12 Konrad has transferred to a different public elementary school that is farther from his home for

13 the start of the 2019-20 school year.

14

149. To date, the District has failed to provide Konrad with appropriate mental health,

15 behavioral, or social evaluations, supports, or services that would help him to be successful in the

16 general education environment. In addition, upon information and belief, none of the teachers at

17 either of Konrad’s elementary schools is credentialed to be a primary instructor for students with

18 Autism Spectrum Disorder.

19

150. To date, Konrad has not been provided with equal access to the instruction,

20 programs, and services available to other students at his school. Instead, Konrad has been

21 frequently removed from his class during core parts of the curriculum. He has been repeatedly

22 excluded from the District’s extracurricular and afterschool activities and has been singled out

23 and subjected to shortened school days for prolonged periods of time.

24

151. Konrad has never received culturally relevant and responsive education,

25 programs, and services while attending a District school.

26

152. Konrad has also been subject to excessive and repeated exclusionary discipline.

27 During the 2018-19 school year, for example, nine-year-old Konrad was formally suspended

28

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

40

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 41 of 55

1 from his class on for seventeen school days – the equivalent of more than three weeks of school.

2

153. In addition, Konrad was sent home or kept in the office for most of the school

3 day, and accordingly deprived of academic instruction, on many other occasions. Upon

4 information and belief, the District did not document, track, or report Konrad’s additional

5 removals from school during the 2018-19 school year.

6

154. The District failed to recognize in a timely manner that he had been removed for

7 more than ten days of school or respond in a lawful manner. Upon information and belief,

8 Konrad did not receive any instruction or access to education on his eleventh day of removal and

9 beyond during the 2018-19 school year.

10

155. Upon information and belief, all of these suspensions and informal removals

11 during the 2018-19 school year resulted from disability-related behavior or behavior related to

12 his response to experiencing identity-based bullying and harassment. Nevertheless, the District

13 did not conduct a manifestation determination review until after Konrad’s seventeenth day of

14 formal suspension. Although the District determined that his conduct was a manifestation of his

15 disabilities, the District failed to document the meeting or offer and conduct a functional

16 behavior assessment.

17

156. Upon information and belief, Konrad has been removed from class or had his

18 school day administratively shortened without documentation on dozens of occasions since he

19 started kindergarten in the District.

20

157. Upon information and belief, on one or more occasions, Konrad was suspended

21 for “willful defiance” while he was in kindergarten through third grade in violation of state law.

22

158. These removals constitute excessive and unlawful exclusionary discipline. They

23 result in lost instructional time, hindering Konrad’s academic progress. On a school campus that

24 lacks diversity in race and ability, such targeted and persistent exclusion also stigmatizes Konrad

25 and students like him, fostering an environment that is unwelcoming and unaccommodating.

26

159. Konrad has been the repeated target of disability and race-based biases and

27 stereotypes. For example, rather than appropriately responding to and addressing his disability-

28

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

41

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 42 of 55

1 based needs, school staff have repeatedly characterized Konrad as an aggressor or bully. Upon

2 information and belief, Konrad – the only Black student with Autism Spectrum Disorder at his

3 school – was suspended and removed more than any other student in his school during the 2018-

4 19 school year.

5

160. Over the past few years, Konrad has become keenly aware that he is different

6 from other students. He has started referring to himself as “bad” and struggling with suicidal

7 thoughts and actions. As recently as spring 2019, he tried to run out into traffic to get hit by a

8 car during the middle of the school day. When his grandparents and doctor requested an

9 accommodation in the form of temporary home instruction, District staff suggested in writing

10 that he instead dis-enroll from the District.

11

161. In February 2019, Konrad filed for due process alleging that the District had

12 failed to provide him with a free appropriate public education as guaranteed by the Individuals

13 with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., as well as violations under

14 Section 504, the ADA, Title VI, and California Government Code section 11135. In March

15 2019, the Office of Administrative Hearings dismissed all non-IDEA claims for lack of

16 jurisdiction.

17

162. Because of the District’s policies that deny students with disabilities access to the

18 general education environment, Konrad is at constant risk of being removed from his elementary

19 school and placed in a segregated setting where he also will not have equal access to his public

20 education and where he is likely to be subjected to additional harms, such as a heightened risk of

21 restraint and seclusion. He remains at constant risk of experiencing exclusionary discipline.

22

163. Upon information and belief, Konrad’s experiences are illustrative of and result

23 from the District’s unlawful policies as outlined above.

24

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

25

164. Pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

26 Plaintiffs bring this action for injunctive and declaratory relief on their own behalf and on behalf

27 of all similarly situated students. The Plaintiffs seek to represent the following Classes in this

28

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

42

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 43 of 55

1 matter, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2), as follows:

2

CLASS 1: All students who currently or will in the future reside within the boundaries of

3

SCUSD, who have known or suspected disabilities, who require or may require services,

4

accommodations, and/or modifications to access and benefit from their public education

5

in the general education environment, and who have been or will be deprived of those

6

services, accommodations, and/or modifications due to the policies alleged herein.

7

8

SUBCLASS to CLASS 1: All Black students who currently or will in the future reside

9

within the boundaries of SCUSD, who have known or suspected disabilities, who require

10

or may require services, accommodations, and/or modifications to access and benefit

11

from their public education in the general education environment, and who have been or

12

will be deprived of those services, accommodations, and/or modifications due to the

13

policies alleged herein.

14

165. This action is an appropriate class action under Rule 23(b)(2), as SCUSD has

15 acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to each Class, so that final injunctive

16 relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting each Class as a whole.

17

166. Numerosity. The persons in these Classes are so numerous that joinder of all such

18 persons is impracticable. Upon information and belief, there are currently approximately 6,000

19 SCUSD students with identified disabilities, including approximately 1,200 Black students with

20 identified disabilities. Upon information and belief, almost half of these students are currently in

21 segregated settings. Additionally, more than ten percent of SCUSD students with disabilities

22 receive recorded suspensions each year. Accordingly, Defendants’ deficient policies and

23 practices impact many hundreds of current and future students.

24

167. Commonality. There are questions of law and fact common to each Class

25 identified above, namely:

26

Whether SCUSD’s policies, procedures and practices related to segregating students with

27

disabilities, including through lack of timely identification and evaluation; denial of

28

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

43

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 44 of 55

1

services, accommodations, and modifications; discriminatory exclusionary discipline;

2

and failure to provide a safe learning environment violate Section 504, and the ADA; and

3

Whether SCUSD’s policies, procedures and practices related to segregating students with

4

disabilities, including through lack of timely identification and evaluation; denial of

5

services, accommodations, and modifications; discriminatory exclusionary discipline;

6

and failure to provide a safe learning environment violate Title VI, the Equal Protection

7

Clause, and state law.

8

168. Typicality. The claims of the Student Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the

9 Classes, identified above, in that each of the Student Plaintiffs is a student with a disability that

10 qualifies him or her as eligible for services, accommodations, and modifications under Section

11 504 and/or the ADA, but Student Plaintiffs: (1) have not received a timely and appropriate

12 evaluation; (2) have not received timely and appropriate provision of services, accommodations,

13 and modifications; and (3) have been excluded from the general education environment in the

14 absence of those necessary services, accommodations, and modifications.

15

169. Adequate Representation. The Student Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately

16 protect the interests of the Class and Subclass. Student Plaintiffs do not have any interests

17 antagonistic to the members of any Class. The relief sought by Student Plaintiffs will inure

18 benefit to the members of each Class. Additionally, Student Plaintiffs are represented by counsel

19 who are experienced, skilled, and knowledgeable about civil rights litigation, disability rights,

20 and class action litigation.

21

LEGAL CLAIMS

22

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

23

Violations of Section 504

29 U.S.C. § 794, 34 C.F.R. Pt. 104

24

(On Behalf of All Plaintiffs and Class Members

Against Defendants District and Board of Education)

25

26

170. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if set forth in

27 full herein.

28

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

44

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 45 of 55

1

171. All Plaintiffs are, and Class Members are, or are suspected of being, qualified

2 individuals with disabilities within the meaning of Section 504 and are or may be otherwise

3 qualified to participate in or receive benefits from Defendants’ programs or activities. 29 U.S.C.

4 § 794(a).

5

172. Defendants SCUSD and Board of Education have been and are a recipient of

6 federal financial assistance sufficient to invoke the coverage of Section 504. Id. § 794(b)(3).

7

173. As set forth above, Defendants’ policies and practices violate the Section 504 and

8 unnecessarily segregate students with disabilities into highly restrictive placements and

9 discriminate against all Plaintiffs and Class Members by reason of their disability. The

10 Defendants’ policies and practices regarding identification and evaluation; provision of services,

11 accommodations, and modifications; student discipline; and addressing bullying and harassment

12 constitute a persistent and systemic failure to meet the requirements of Section 504.

13

174. Thus, Defendants have deprived each Plaintiff and have or may deprive Class

14 Members of participation in and the benefits of general education.

15

175. Defendants have further used methods of administration that have subjected

16 students with disabilities to discrimination on the basis of their disabilities.

17

176. As a result of Defendants’ violations, Plaintiffs have suffered, and Class Members

18 suffer or may suffer, irreparable harm, including substantial losses of educational opportunities.

19

177. Due to Defendants’ ongoing violations of Section 504 and implementing

20 regulations, injunctive and declaratory relief are appropriate remedies.

21

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

22

Violations of Title II of the ADA

42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 et seq., 28 C.F.R. § 35.130

23

(On Behalf of All Plaintiffs and Class Members Against All Defendants)

24

178. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if set forth in

25 full herein.

26

179. Each Defendant is either a public entity subject to Title II of the ADA or an

27 official responsible for supervising the operations of a public entity subject to Title II of the

28

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

45

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 46 of 55

1 ADA. 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1).

2

180. All Plaintiffs and Class Members are, or are suspected of being, qualified

3 individuals with disabilities within the meaning of Title II of the ADA and meet the essential

4 eligibility requirements for the receipt of services, programs, or activities of Defendants. Id. §

5 12131(2).

6

181. As set forth above, Defendants’ policies and practices constitute a persistent and

7 systemic failure to meet the requirements of Title II of the ADA and discriminate against all

8 Plaintiffs and Class Members, by reason of their disability, by denying all Plaintiffs and Class

9 Members an equal and equally effective educational opportunity in the most integrated setting

10 appropriate, and instead providing all Plaintiffs and Class Members with a separate, different,

11 and inferior educational experience.

12

182. Thus, Defendants have deprived each Plaintiff and have or may deprive Class

13 Members of from participation in or the benefits of services, programs, or activities of a public

14 entity.

15

183. Defendants have further used methods of administration that have subjected

16 students with disabilities to discrimination on the basis of their disabilities.

17

184. As a result of Defendants’ violations, Plaintiffs have suffered, and Class Members

18 suffer or may suffer, irreparable harm, including substantial losses of educational opportunities.

19

185. Due to Defendants’ ongoing violations of Title II of the ADA and implementing

20 regulations, injunctive and declaratory relief are appropriate remedies.

21

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

22

Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

to the U.S. Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983

23

(On Behalf of All Plaintiffs and Subclass Members

Against Defendants Aguilar, Baeta, Ryan, Woo, Minnick,

24

Murawski, Garcia, Pritchett, and Vang in Their Individual Capacities)

25

186. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if set forth in

26 full herein.

27

187. Defendants Aguilar, Baeta, Ryan, Woo, Minnick, Murawski, Garcia, Pritchett,

28

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

46

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 47 of 55

1 and Vang have, on the basis of race, intentionally discriminated against Plaintiffs and the

2 Subclass Members by excluding and segregating Black students with disabilities from an equal

3 education. These Defendants have excluded and segregated Black students with disabilities by

4 disciplining or allowing the discipline of Black students with disabilities and denying Black

5 students with disabilities the services, accommodations, and modifications to which they are

6 entitled.

7

188. These Defendants have demonstrated a widespread pattern of discrimination by

8 selectively enforcing facially neutral disciplinary policies, which has resulted in Black students

9 with disabilities being denied access to education, and for which there is no nondiscriminatory

10 justification.

11

189. In addition, these Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to the hostile

12 educational environment that exists for Black students with disabilities in SCUSD, despite their

13 actual knowledge of this hostile educational environment. In addition and in the alternative,

14 these Defendants’ implicit and unconscious biases and stereotypes against Black students with

15 disabilities have been a significant factor in causing, allowing the continued existence of, and the

16 District’s deliberate indifference to the gross race-based disparities in the discipline, exclusion,

17 segregation, and deprivation of services and supports for Black students.

18

190. In addition, the Defendants’ policies have had a disproportionate negative impact

19 on Black students with disabilities with regard to exclusion, segregation, discipline, harassment,

20 and deprivation of services and supports to which those students are entitled.

21

191. The acts and omissions complained of were committed by the Defendants who

22 were at all times acting under color of state law to deprive the Plaintiffs and Subclass Members

23 of their federal right to equal protection within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

24

192. As a result of Defendants’ violations, Plaintiffs have suffered, and Subclass

25 Members suffer or may suffer, irreparable harm, including substantial losses of educational

26 opportunities.

27

193. Due to Defendants’ ongoing violations of the Equal Protection Clause, injunctive

28

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

47

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 48 of 55

1 and declaratory relief are appropriate remedies.

2

Fourth Claim for Relief

3

Violations of Title VI and 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(On Behalf of All Plaintiffs and Subclass Members

4

Against Defendants District and Board of Education)

5

194. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if set forth in

6 full herein.

7

195. Upon information and belief, Defendants SCUSD and Board of Education are

8 recipients of federal funding sufficient to invoke the coverage of Title VI. 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et

9 seq. Defendants have, on the basis of race, intentionally discriminated against Plaintiffs and the

10 Subclass Members by excluding and segregating Black students with disabilities from an equal

11 education. These Defendants have intentionally denied Black students with disabilities the

12 services and supports to which they are entitled.

13

196. These Defendants have demonstrated a widespread pattern of intentional

14 discrimination by selectively enforcing facially neutral disciplinary policies, in violation of Title

15 VI of the Civil Rights Act. This selective enforcement has resulted in Black students with

16 disabilities being denied access to education, and for which there is no nondiscriminatory

17 justification.

18

197. In addition, these Defendants have engaged in intentional discrimination by

19 denying Black students with disabilities access to education by being deliberately indifferent to

20 the hostile educational environment that exists for Black students with disabilities in SCUSD,

21 despite their actual knowledge of this hostile educational environment.

22

198. The acts and omissions complained of were committed by these Defendants who

23 were at all times acting under color of state law to deprive the Plaintiffs and Subclass Members

24 of their federal right to nondiscrimination within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

25

199. As a result of Defendants’ violations, Plaintiffs have suffered, and Subclass

26 Members suffer or may suffer, irreparable harm, including substantial losses of educational

27 opportunities.

28

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

48

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 49 of 55

1

200. Due to Defendants’ ongoing violations of the Title VI, injunctive and declaratory

2 relief are appropriate remedies.

3

Fifth Claim for Relief

4

Violations of California Government Code § 11135

5

and Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2, § 11154 (On Behalf of All Plaintiffs and Subclass Members

6

Against Defendants District and Board of Education)

7

201. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if set forth in

8 full herein.

9

202. California Government Code section 11135 prohibits discrimination against

10 persons on the basis of race and other protected statuses in state-run or state-funded programs

11 and activities.

12

203. Upon information and belief, Defendants SCUSD and Board of Education are

13 recipients of state funding.

14

204. The District’s application of policies in their administration of educational

15 services within District schools has had and continues to have the effect of denying Plaintiffs and

16 Subclass Members full and equal access to the benefits of the programs or activities administered

17 by the District, or of subjecting Plaintiffs and Subclass Members to discrimination under such

18 programs or activities, on the basis of their race.

19

205. As a result of the manner in which the District has administered the policies

20 described above, Plaintiffs and Subclass Members have been denied full and equal access to the

21 benefits of educational opportunities within District schools, or have been subjected to

22 discrimination under such programs or activities, on the basis of race, in violation of California

23 Government Code section 11135(a) and Title 2 of the California Code of Regulation, section

24 11154.

25

206. The District has therefore violated and continues to violate California

26 Government Code section 11135.

27

207. Plaintiffs and Subclass Members are entitled to injunctive relief to enjoin the

28

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

49

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 50 of 55

1 District’s violation of California Government Code section 11135.

2

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

3 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court:

4

1. Certify this case as a class action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and

5

23(b)(2).

6

2. Appoint Plaintiffs as Class Representatives of the Classes and their attorneys as Counsel

7

for all Classes.

8

3. Declare that Defendants’ policies, practices and procedures regarding segregation and

9

discipline of students with disabilities and regarding students with disabilities who

10

require access to services, accommodations, and modifications to access education in the

11

general education environment violate the rights of all Plaintiffs and Class Members

12

under Section 504, the ADA, and state law.

13

4. Declare that Defendants’ policies, practices and procedures regarding segregation and

14

discipline of Black students with disabilities, and peer-on-peer and staff-on-student racial

15

harassment violate the rights of all Plaintiffs and Subclass Members under the Equal

16

Protection Clause, Title VI, and state law.

17

5. Issue permanent injunctions pursuant to Section 504, the ADA, the Equal Protection

18

Clause, Title VI, and state law that enjoin Defendants, their successors in office, agents,

19

employees and assigns, and all persons acting in concert from violating Section 504, the

20

ADA, the Equal Protection Clause, Title VI, and state law and require Defendants to

21

promulgate compliant policies, procedures, and practices.

22 And order Defendants to:

23

6. Immediately discontinue all policies, procedures and practices that do not comply with

24

the laws cited in this complaint;

25

7. Create and broadly disseminate to teachers and other District staff, parents, and students a

26

new Board of Education-approved written policy statement, which must include the

27

following, acknowledging the rights of students with disabilities and Black students with

28

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

50

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 51 of 55

1

disabilities as set forth in this complaint, and reasserting Defendants’ commitment to

2

honor those rights, including:

3

a. The right of access to the same educational opportunities as their peers regardless

4

of disability or race;

5

b. The right to services, accommodations, and modifications necessary to remain in

6

the general education environment; and

7

c. The right to an educational environment free of discriminatory discipline and

8

harassment and bullying;

9

8. Take immediate action to reform policies, procedures and practices to fully comply with

10

Section 504, ADA the Equal Protection Clause, Title VI, and state law; such action must

11

include securing a team of third-party experts to assist the District to:

12

a. Develop and implement a clear and defined plan to achieve inclusivity for all

13

students throughout the District, including students with disabilities and Black

14

students with disabilities, that enables these students to receive access to equal

15

education side-by-side with their peers without disabilities in a safe and

16

welcoming educational environment;

17

b. Implement a districtwide Multi-Tiered System of Supports to identify the needs of

18

and improve educational outcomes for all students using multiple data measures,

19

and to provide strategic, targeted, appropriate, and culturally relevant

20

interventions for all students that are available regardless of a student’s disability,

21

status or race;

22

c. Establish appropriate programs, that are based on peer-reviewed research or other

23

evidence-based programs to provide services, accommodations, and modifications

24

to students with disabilities in the general education environment;

25

d. Provide for immediate and continuing education for all District staff and

26

evaluation of progress toward compliance with Section 504, ADA the Equal

27

Protection Clause, Title VI, and state law by qualified third-party experts; such

28

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

51

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 52 of 55

1

education or training must include:

2

i. identification of students with disabilities,

3

ii. provision of appropriate and culturally relevant instruction, services,

4

accommodations, and modifications in the least restrictive environment,

5

iii. stopping and preventing harassment and bullying based on disability or

6

race,

7

iv. eliminating or significantly reducing reliance on exclusionary discipline,

8

v. implicit bias, and

9

vi. administration of discipline without racial discrimination;

10

e. Develop and implement a system to identify staff who are not complying with any

11

of the laws cited in this Complaint, retrain and provide appropriate supports to

12

any such staff to enable them to come into compliance, and take appropriate

13

disciplinary action regarding any staff who fail to come into compliance after

14

such retraining or provision of supports;

15

f. Analyze the current racial make-up of the District’s teachers, social workers and

16

psychologists, respectively, relative to the current racial make-up of the District’s

17

student body; create and implement separate plans that include clear goals to

18

increase the diversity of the teachers, social workers, and psychologists,

19

respectively, based on the foregoing analysis; and achieve substantial compliance

20

with those plans and goals within three years and total compliance within seven

21

years;

22

g. Analyze all aspects of education for students with disabilities in the District for

23

implicit racial bias and structural discriminatory racialization; develop a

24

comprehensive plan to eliminate or mitigate such bias and discrimination; and

25

achieve substantial compliance with such plan within three years and total

26

compliance within seven years;

27

h. Review and analyze the credentials and qualifications of all District

28

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

52

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 53 of 55

1

administrators and staff; identify gaps in credentials or qualifications to

2

administer or instruct students with disabilities; develop a detailed plan to

3

eliminate such gaps; and achieve substantial compliance with such plan within

4

three years and total compliance within seven years; and

5

i. Determine appropriate District staffing levels, staff qualifications, methods of

6

data collection and analysis, and effective measures to prevent and protect all

7

students, including students with disabilities and Black students with disabilities,

8

against bullying; develop a detailed plan based on such determination; and

9

achieve substantial compliance with such plan within three years and total

10

compliance within seven years.

11

9. Enjoin all disciplinary action, including any pending action, against any Black student

12

with disabilities unless a manifestation determination has been completed, and maintain

13

such injunction until a districtwide Multi-tiered System of Services and Supports has

14

been implemented and determined effective by a qualified third-party expert or experts;

15

10. Enjoin the use of so-called District Student Study Teams until a districtwide Multi-Tiered

16

System of Supports is in place and a qualified third-party expert or experts have

17

determined whether the District should continue use of such teams;

18

11. Offer assessments or reassessments to all students enrolled in the District who requested

19

assessment for disability or who were referred to a Student Study Team within the last

20

two years;

21

12. Offer all Black students currently enrolled in the District who have been classified as

22

having Emotional Disturbance the option of having an independent educational

23

evaluation at the District’s expense, and provide such assessments for all students who

24

accept the offer;

25

13. Identify, offer, and provide services, accommodations, and modifications to all students

26

found eligible for the same in accordance with Section 504 and the ADA; and

27

14. Provide the Court and the public with an annual report on the District’s compliance with

28

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

53

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 54 of 55

1

the Court’s orders for four consecutive years.

2 Plaintiffs further respectfully request that the Court:

3

15. Retain jurisdiction of this case until Defendants have fully complied with the orders of

4

this Court, and there is reasonable assurance that Defendants will continue to comply in

5

the future absent continuing jurisdiction;

6

16. Award Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and disbursements as authorized by

7

law; and

8

17. Grant further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

9

10 DATED: September 5, 2019

Respectfully submitted,

11

MONA TAWATAO

EVA PATERSON 12

13

EQUAL JUSTICE SOCIETY

14

/s/ Mona Tawatao (as authorized on 9/5/2019)

_______________________________________

15

Mona Tawatao

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 16

17

CARLY J. MUNSON

18

BRIDGET CLAYCOMB

19

DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA

20

/s/ Carly J. Munson

21

_______________________________________

Carly J. Munson

22

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

23 MICHAEL HARRIS
24

25

NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW

26

/s/ Michael Harris (as authorized on 9/5/2019)

_______________________________________

27

Michael Harris

28

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

54

1

Case 2:19-at-00821 Document 1 Filed 09/05/19 Page 55 of 55

1

2

ANTOINETTE DOZIER

3

RICHARD ROTHSCHILD

4

WESTERN CENTER ON LAW AND POVERTY

5

/s/ Antoinette Dozier (as authorized on 9/5/2019)

_______________________________________

6

Antoinette Dozier

7

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Black Parallel School Board, et al. v. Sacramento City Unified School District, et al.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

55

1

 
 Black Parallel School Board et al v. Sacramento City Unified School District et al, Docket No. 2_19-at-00821 (E.D. Cal. Sept 05,

Current on Bloomberg Law as of Sept. 06, 2019 10:04:10
U.S. District Court Eastern District of California - Live System (Sacramento)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:19-at-00821

Black Parallel School Board et al v. Sacramento City Unified School District et al

DOCKET INFORMATION Minimize
Date Filed: Nature of suit: Cause: Jurisdiction: Jury demand:

Sept 5, 2019 448 Civil Rights: Education 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act Federal Question Plaintiff

Parties and Attorneys
Expand All Minimize

Plaintiff
Representation
Antionette Dozier Western Center on Law and Poverty 3701 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 208 Los Angeles, CA 90010 (213) 235-2629 adozier@wclp.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Harris National Center for Youth Law 405 14th Street, Floor 15 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 835-8098 mharris@youthlaw.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Black Parallel School Board Plaintiff
Bridget Michelle Claycomb Disability Rights California 1330 Broadway Suite 500 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 267-1200 Fax: (510) 267-1201 bridget.claycomb@disabilityrightsca.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rau Mona Tawatao Equal Justice Society 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 818 Oakland, CA 94612 (415) 288-8700 mtawatao@equaljusticesociety.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carly Jean Munson Disability Rights California 1831 K Street Sacramento, CA 95811-4114 (916) 504-5962 Fax: (916) 504-5801 carly.munson@disabilityrightsca.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard A. Rothschild Western Center on Law and Poverty 3701 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 208 Los Angeles, CA 90010 (213) 487-7211 Fax: (213) 487-0242 rrothschild@wclp.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Representation Antionette Dozier

Stephen Doe Plaintiff

Bridget Michelle Claycomb

Carly Jean Munson

© 2019 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Service // PAGE 1

Black Parallel School Board et al v. Sacramento City Unified School District et al, Docket No. 2_19-at-00821 (E.D. Cal. Sept 05,

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Harris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rau Mona Tawatao (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard A. Rothschild (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Representation
Antionette Dozier (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Harris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kurtis Doe Plaintiff
Bridget Michelle Claycomb (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rau Mona Tawatao (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carly Jean Munson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard A. Rothschild (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Representation
Antionette Dozier (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Harris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Konrad Doe Plaintiff
Bridget Michelle Claycomb (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rau Mona Tawatao (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carly Jean Munson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard A. Rothschild (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant

Sacramento City Unified School District Defendant

Defendant

Jorge A Aguilar Defendant

Defendant

Christine A Baeta Defendant

Defendant

Jessie Ryan Defendant
© 2019 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Service // PAGE 2

Black Parallel School Board et al v. Sacramento City Unified School District et al, Docket No. 2_19-at-00821 (E.D. Cal. Sept 05,

Defendant

Darrel Woo Defendant

Defendant

Michael Minnick Defendant

Defendant

Lisa Murawski Defendant

Defendant

Leticia Garcia Defendant

Defendant

Christina Pritchett Defendant

Defendant

Mai Vang Defendant

Defendant

Sacramento City Unified School District Board of Education Defendant

Docket Entries

Print Entries Request Entries Reverse Entries
Numbers shown are court assigned numbers

Entry

Filed

Description

1

Sept 5, 2019

COMPLAINT against All Defendants by Kurtis Doe, Konrad Doe, Stephen Doe, Black Parallel

School Board. (Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0972-8445541) (Munson, Carly) (Entered:

09/05/2019)

© 2019 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Service // PAGE 3

Black Parallel School Board et al v. Sacramento City Unified School District et al, Docket No. 2_19-at-00821 (E.D. Cal. Sept 05,
General Information

Court
Federal Nature of Suit Docket Number

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California; United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Civil Rights - Education[448]
2:19-at-00821

© 2019 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Service // PAGE 4