Filed Date: June 20, 2011
Closed Date: 2017
Clearinghouse coding complete
On June 20, 2011, Philadelphia school children with autism filed a class action lawsuit against the School District of Philadelphia in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504), the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) and relevant state law. The plaintiffs, represented by attorneys from the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia and private counsel, sought declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that the District's Automatic Autism Transfer Policy was illegal under the IDEA, Section 504 and the ADA. The challenged policy routinely transferred students with autism from school to school at a certain age solely because they were disabled as a result of autism.
On October 31, 2011, the District Court (Judge Legrome D. Davis) denied the defendant's motion to strike class action allegations and motion to dismiss the suit. P.V. ex rel. Valentin v. Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia, 2011 WL 5127850 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2011).
On February 19, 2013, Judge Davis granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment in part and denied in part. P.V. ex rel. Valentin v. Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia, 2013 WL 618540 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 19, 2013). The Court concluded that the policy violated the IDEA, but that it did not violate Section 504 or the ADA. The Court ordered the school district to alter its policy to meet the procedural requirements under the IDEA and provide parents the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the educational placement of their autistic children.
In addition, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. P.V. ex rel. Valentin v. Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia, 289 F.R.D. 227, 228 (E.D. Pa. 2013). The class included all children with autism in the School District of Philadelphia in grades Kindergarten through eight who had been transferred, were in the process of being transferred, or were at risk of being transferred, as a result of the School District's upper-leveling process; the parents and guardians of those children; and future members of the class.
The parties entered into settlement negotiations in May 2013. The parties filed their preliminary settlement agreement on April 15, 2014. The proposed class settlement:
(1) required the district to publish a list of all of its schools with autistic-support classrooms and provide notice of these schools in two separate letters to the parents of children with autism,
(2) allowed class members to retain their individual rights to challenge the circumstances of their particular transfers, and
(3) provided for the court to retain jurisdiction over the agreement's settlement through Jan. 2, 2017, though the agreement was to remain enforceable after this time.
The parties also agreed to $325,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs. The court granted final approval of the agreement on June 4, 2014.
The settlement ended in 2017 without any further litigation. The case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Emma Bao (6/5/2013)
Virginia Weeks (11/8/2017)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4979508/parties/pv-v-the-school-district-of-philadelphia/
Davis, Legrome D. (Pennsylvania)
Bowers, Daniel G. (District of Columbia)
Kelly, Tara L. (Pennsylvania)
Kerr, Sonja D. (Pennsylvania)
Krause, Cheryl (Pennsylvania)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4979508/pv-v-the-school-district-of-philadelphia/
Last updated Aug. 19, 2025, 7:31 a.m.
State / Territory: Pennsylvania
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Post-WalMart decisions on class certification
Key Dates
Filing Date: June 20, 2011
Closing Date: 2017
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Philadelphia school children with autism assigned and transferred routinely and automatically by the school district from one school to another after they complete a certain grade.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
School District of Philadelphia (Philadelphia, Philadelphia), City
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
Indv. w/ Disab. Educ. Act (IDEA), Educ. of All Handcpd. Children Act , 20 U.S.C. § 1400
Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Amount Defendant Pays: 325000
Order Duration: 2014 - 2017
Issues
General/Misc.:
Parents (visitation, involvement)
Disability and Disability Rights:
Discrimination Area:
Discrimination Basis: