Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia

Last updated
Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia
Seal of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.png
Court United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Full case namePeter Mills et al. v. Board of Education of District of Columbia et al.
DecidedAugust 1, 1972
Docket nos.Civ. A. No. 1939-71
Citation(s)348 F. Supp. 866
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Joseph Cornelius Waddy

Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia, 348 F. Supp. 866 (D.D.C. 1972), was a lawsuit filed against the District of Columbia in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The court ruled that students with disabilities must be given a public education even if the students are unable to pay for the cost of the education. [1] The case established that "all children are entitled to free public education and training appropriate to their learning capacities". [2] Peter D. Roos, a former staff attorney at Harvard University's Center for Law and Education, described Mills as a "leading case" in a series of lawsuits that attempted to provide access to education for children with disabilities. [3] Mills v. Board was a certified class action lawsuit under Rule 23(b)(1) and (2). [4] These subsections identify a violation of the right to equal treatment under law in a way that would obstruct the ability to protect one's interest as an individual member of a common class. Additionally, subsection b(2) describes a case with refusal of the opposing party to rectify the transgression to a degree that merits corrective adjudication. [5] This was a broad interpretation of the 14th Amendment due process clause of law and was used to make changes to local school district policy. [6]

Children were denied educational opportunities because they were considered to be "exceptional" which included "mentally retarded, emotionally disturbed, physically handicapped, hyperactive and other children with behavioral problems". [7] The seven plaintiffs were all children that couldn't obtain privately funded education and their representatives called for students to be given proper accommodations for public education. The Board of Education did not provide adequate schooling for these children, which violated their own board regulations. 18,000 similar cases were discovered in the Washington D.C. area at the time. It had failed to provide due process hearings and periodic reviews of each exceptional student case. D.C.'s board of education claimed it would take "millions of dollars" to create conditions in the school district to adequately provide education for all exceptional students. The court disagreed, and they ordered the district to serve all students, regardless of disability, in a lengthy and thorough decree. The judge ruled that public education as well as suitable alternatives, be paid for by the Board of Education regardless of the price. They were to distribute all available resources equally in order to make accommodations for disabled students in the district in order to ensure that the burden of the lack of funds was not "permitted to bear more heavily" on children with mental or physical handicaps. [6]

In December of 1971, the settlement agreed to make changes. Since the school board was not able to fulfill the requirements, Judge Joseph Cornelius Waddy said in his order that the board must do the three of the following: name 4 of class representative with publicly funded education, name everyone in the Mills class and provide them publicly funded education, and provide more funding for special education programs and mentors. [8]

Related Research Articles

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that U.S. state laws establishing racial segregation in public schools are unconstitutional, even if the segregated schools are otherwise equal in quality. Handed down on May 17, 1954, the Court's unanimous (9–0) decision stated that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal", and therefore violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. However, the decision's 14 pages did not spell out any sort of method for ending racial segregation in schools, and the Court's second decision in Brown II only ordered states to desegregate "with all deliberate speed".

Special education is the practice of educating students in a way that provides accommodations that address their individual differences, disabilities, and special needs. Ideally, this process involves the individually planned and systematically monitored arrangement of teaching procedures, adapted equipment and materials, and accessible settings. These interventions are designed to help individuals with special needs achieve a higher level of personal self-sufficiency and success in school and in their community which may not be available if the student were only given access to a typical classroom education. Special Education is separate from a 504 plan, as a 504 plan allows students with disabilities to participate in the general education classroom and special education services involve a special classroom that has a class of students only with disabilities that receive special education services. Some students with an IEP go into a special classroom, and some students with an IEP can participate in general education classes with accommodations and/or modifications.

Briggs v. Elliott, 342 U.S. 350 (1952), on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina, challenged school segregation in Summerton, South Carolina. It was the first of the five cases combined into Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the famous case in which the U.S. Supreme Court declared racial segregation in public schools to be unconstitutional by violating the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Following the Brown decision, the district court issued a decree that struck down the school segregation law in South Carolina as unconstitutional and required the state's schools to integrate.

Student rights are those rights, such as civil, constitutional, contractual and consumer rights, which regulate student rights and freedoms and allow students to make use of their educational investment. These include such things as the right to free speech and association, to due process, equality, autonomy, safety and privacy, and accountability in contracts and advertising, which regulate the treatment of students by teachers and administrators. There is very little scholarship about student rights throughout the world. In general most countries have some kind of student rights enshrined in their laws and proceduralized by their court precedents. Some countries, like Romania, in the European Union, have comprehensive student bills of rights, which outline both rights and how they are to be proceduralized. Most countries, however, like the United States and Canada, do not have a cohesive bill of rights and students must use the courts to determine how rights precedents in one area apply in their own jurisdictions.

NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund

The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. is a leading United States civil rights organization and law firm based in New York City.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act United States law

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a piece of American legislation that ensures students with a disability are provided with Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) that is tailored to their individual needs. IDEA was previously known as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) from 1975 to 1990. In 1990, the United States Congress reauthorized EHA and changed the title to IDEA. Overall, the goal of IDEA is to provide children with disabilities the same opportunity for education as those students who do not have a disability.

Mendez, et al v. Westminister [sic] School District of Orange County, et al, 64 F.Supp. 544, aff'd, 161 F.2d 774, was a 1947 federal court case that challenged Mexican remedial schools in Orange County, California. In its ruling, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in an en banc decision, held that the forced segregation of Mexican American students into separate "Mexican schools" was unconstitutional and unlawful, not because Mexicans were "white," as attorneys for the plaintiffs argued, but because as US District Court Judge Paul J. McCormick ruled, "The equal protection of the laws pertaining to the public school system in California is not provided by furnishing in separate schools the same technical facilities, textbooks and courses of instruction to children of Mexican ancestry that are available to the other public school children regardless of their ancestry. A paramount requisite in the American system of public education is social equality. It must be open to all children by unified school association regardless of lineage." Judge McCormick went as far to state that "The evidence clearly shows that Spanish-speaking children are retarded in learning English by lack of exposure to its use because of segregation, and that commingling of the entire student body instills and develops a common cultural attitude among the school children which is imperative for the perpetuation of American institutions and ideals."

Special education programs in the United States did not always exist. "The idea of excluding students with any disability from public school education can be traced back to 1893, when the Massachusetts Supreme Court expelled a student merely due to poor academic ability". This exclusion would be the basis of education for all individuals with special needs for years to come. In 1954, Brown v. Board of Education sparked the belief that the right to a public education applies to all individuals regardless of race, gender, or disability. Finally, special education programs in the United States were made mandatory in 1975 when the United States Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) "(sometimes referred to using the acronyms EAHCA or EHA, or Public Law 94-142) was enacted by the United States Congress in 1975, in response to discriminatory treatment by public educational agencies against students with disabilities." The EAHCA was later modified to strengthen protections to students with disabilities and renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). IDEA requires states to provide special education and related services consistent with federal standards as a condition of receiving federal funds.

The right to a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) is an educational entitlement of all students in the United States, guaranteed by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

<i>National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp.</i>

National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corporation, 452 F. Supp. 2d 946, was a class action lawsuit in the United States that was filed on February 7, 2006 in the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda, and subsequently moved to federal court. The case challenged whether the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, specifically Title III's provisions prohibiting discrimination by "places of public accommodation" apply to websites and/ or the Internet, or are restricted to physical places.

Michael Rebell

Michael A. Rebell is the executive director of the Center for Educational Equity at Teachers College, Columbia University. He is an experienced litigator in the field of education law, and he is also professor of law and educational practice at Teachers College and Columbia Law School. He has also taught at Harvard Law School and Yale Law School.

<i>Tompkins v. Alabama State University</i>

Tompkins v. Alabama State University, 15 F. Supp. 2d 1160, was a legal case involving affirmative action, that was decided in a United States Federal Court.

Morgan v. Hennigan was the case that defined the school busing controversy in Boston, Massachusetts during the 1970s. On March 14, 1972, the Boston chapter of the NAACP filed a class action lawsuit against the Boston School Committee on behalf of 14 black parents and 44 children. Tallulah Morgan headed the list of plaintiffs and James Hennigan then chair of the School Committee, was listed as the main defendant.

This disability rights timeline lists events relating to the civil rights of people with disabilities in the United States of America, including court decisions, the passage of legislation, activists' actions, significant abuses of people with disabilities, and the founding of various organizations. Although the disability rights movement itself began in the 1960s, advocacy for the rights of people with disabilities started much earlier and continues to the present.

<i>Doe ex. rel. Tarlow v. District of Columbia</i>

Doe ex. rel. Tarlow v. District of Columbia, 489 F.3d 376, is a unanimous decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, written by Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh, in which the Court upheld a 2003 District of Columbia statute that stated the conditions for authorizing a non-emergency surgical procedure on a mentally incompetent person. This case developed out of an appeal to a district court decision that was brought on behalf of a mentally incompetent patient who was subjected to an abortion without her consent and another patient who was subjected to an eye surgery without the patient's consent. Under the appellate court's interpretation of the statute, a court located in the District of Columbia must apply the "best interest of the patient" standard to a person who was never competent, and the court must apply the "known wishes of the patient" standard to a person who was once competent. The appellate decision was remanded to the District Court.

Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the interpretation of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. Amy Rowley was a deaf student, whose school refused to provide a sign language interpreter. Her parents filed suit contending violation of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Rehnquist, the Court held that public schools are not required by law to provide sign language interpreters to deaf students who are otherwise receiving an equal and adequate education.

Hobson v. Hansen, 269 F. Supp. 401, was a federal court case filed by civil rights activist Julius W. Hobson against Superintendent Carl F. Hansen and the District of Columbia's Board of Education on the charge that the current educational system deprived Black people and the poor of their right to equal educational opportunities relative to their white and affluent counterparts, on account of race and socioeconomic status. Having established de jure segregation unconstitutional in Bolling v. Sharpe (1954), the federal court addressed questions of de facto segregation in D.C. schools, seen in the trends that survived legal desegregation, in Hobson v. Hansen. Judge J. Skelly Wright's decision, in favor of the plaintiffs, sought to remedy the re-segregation or de facto segregation enforced by the educational policies, including tracking and optional-transfer zones, adopted by the Board of Education in an attempt to accommodate the consequences of the shift to integrated schools in the aftermath of Bolling, and within the wider context of emerging racially and socioeconomically rigid residential patterns.

Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools, 580 U.S. ___ (2017), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Handicapped Children's Protection Act of 1986 does not command exhaustion of state-level administrative remedies codified in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) when the gravamen of the plaintiff's lawsuit is not related to the denial of free appropriate public education (FAPE).

<i>Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania</i>

Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 334 F. Supp. 1257, was a case where the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was sued by the Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens (PARC), now The Arc of Pennsylvania, over a law that gave public schools the authority to deny a free education to children who had reached the age of 8, yet had not reached the mental age of 5. The law had also been used by the state in multiple occasions to deny free public education to children who had a hard time integrating into classroom environments and schools. This was the first major legal case to provide equality to students with disabilities. The case was filed and settled by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and lasted between 1971-1972. The case was over seen by three judges, Circuit Judge Adams, and two District Judges, Masterson and Broderick. The language used during this case is outdated to modern times; therefore, the use of the word "mentally retarded" refers to any intellectual disability.

Southeastern Community College v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court Case from 1979. Its plaintiff was a hearing-impaired student who, after being denied access to the school's nursing department, filed a lawsuit against claiming injustice to the Fourteenth amendment and to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

References

  1. Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia, 348F. Supp.866 , 877-78(D.D.C.1972).
  2. Henry A. Beyer, A Free Appropriate Public Education, 5 W. New Eng. L. Rev. 363, 365 (1983).
  3. Peter D. Roos, The Potential Impact of Rodriguez on Other School Reform Litigation, 38 Law & Contemp. Probs. 566, 572 (1974).
  4. "Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia, 348 F. Supp. 866 (D.D.C. 1972)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2021-05-14.
  5. "Rule 23. Class Actions". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2021-05-14.
  6. 1 2 "The Right to Education". Disability Justice. Retrieved 2021-05-14.
  7. Yudof, M.G., Levin, B., Moran, R.F., Ryan, J.E., & Bowman, K.L. (2012). Education Policy and the Law.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  8. Schlanger, Margo (2018-11-29). "The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse: Origins and Goals". KULA: Knowledge Creation, Dissemination, and Preservation Studies. 2: 16. doi:10.5334/kula.40. ISSN   2398-4112.

https://usedulaw.com/438-mills-v-board-of-education-of-the-district-of-columbia.html