Case: Smiley v. California Department of Education

On May 8, 2001, plaintiff students, by guardians ad litem and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and the Learning Disabilities Association of California, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the California Department of Education ("CDE") and Fremont Unified School District ("FUSD"). The case proceeded under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. ("the ADA"), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, et seq., the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et seq. ("IDEA"), and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; it sought to halt the administration of the CDE's High School Exit Exam ("the Exam"). Plaintiffs, represented by the Disability Rights Advocates and private counsel, asked the Court for injunctive relief to prevent the examinations from being administered, claiming that the Exam discriminated against students with disabilities because, inter alia, there was no alternate assessment procedure for requesting accommodations on the Exam or procedure for appealing denials of accommodation requests, and the Exam tested disabled students on material they had never been taught. On December 10, 2001, plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint; at this time, a different plaintiff was named as lead.

The District Court (District Judge Charles A. Breyer) granted plaintiffs' class certification on January 6, 2002. On Feb. 6, 2002, the District Court (Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen) granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion to compel. Chapman v. Cal. Dep't of Ed., No. 01-1780, 2002 WL 32854376 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2002). On February 21, 2002, the District Court (Judge Charles R. Breyer) granted plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction. Judge Breyer held that disabled students had standing to challenge the Exam under IDEA and the Rehabilitation Act; there was private right of action under IDEA; students were not required to exhaust administrative remedies; the likelihood of prevailing on merits requirement was satisfied; students satisfied irreparable injury requirement; and the state would be required to honor testing accommodations and alternate assessment provisions contained in student's Individualized Education Programs prepared under IDEA and plans under the Rehabilitation Act. Chapman v. Cal. Dep't of Ed., 229 F.Supp.2d 981 (N.D. Cal Feb. 21, 2002).

On March 19, 2002, CDE filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (On April 3, 2002, the District Court granted the parties' stipulation to dismiss without prejudice defendants Fremont Unified School District (FUSD); more claims were dismissed by the District Court on May 3 and May 7 2002.) On Sept. 4, 2002, the Ninth Circuit (Circuit Judges Cynthia Holcomb Hall, M. Margaret McKeown, and Richard R. Clifton) reversed in part and remanded with directions to dissolve certain portions of the preliminary injunction, with each party to bear its own costs on appeal. Smiley v. Cal. Dep't of Educ., 45 Fed. Appx. 780 (9th Cir. Sept. 4, 2002). The Court amended and reaffirmed this order on December 19, 2002. Smiley v. Cal. Dep't of Educ., 53 Fed.Appx. 474 (9th Cir. Dec. 19, 2002).

On December 20, 2002, plaintiffs filed their second (final) amended complaint, asking the court to determine that their action could be maintained as a class action; to grant a declaratory judgment that CDE had violated the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, IDEA, and the United States Constitution; to issue a preliminary injunction to stay the administration of the Exam during Spring, 2002; to issue a permanent injunction requiring CDE to develop appropriate policies for handling requests for accommodation; and to award attorneys' fees and costs.

Instead, the District Court (District Judge Breyer) ordered dismissed as unripe all of plaintiffs' claims with the exception of plaintiffs' challenges under the IDEA, the ADA, and the Declaratory Judgment Act to the process for obtaining a waiver of the exit exam requirement on March 12, 2003. Then, on July 9, 2003, the nine members of the state Board of Education voted unanimously to eliminate the Exam as a graduation requirement for the class of 2004 but to reinstate it for the class of 2006. On Sept. 5, 2003, Judge Breyer held that students no longer had standing to challenge the process for obtaining a waiver of the test and ordered the matter dismissed without prejudice. Chapman v. Cal. Dep't of Educ., 2003 WL 22114264 (N.D. Cal Sept. 5, 2003). The case mostly concluded on September 8, 2003.

On April 7, 2004 Judge Breyer awarded plaintiffs $129,827.46 in attorneys' fees and costs, because they had substantially prevailed. In July 2005, they parties met for an additional settlement conference. Defendants were instructed to draft additional settlement documents, to be submitted to Magistrate Judge Spero with plaintiffs’ comments. Per the docket, no further action was taken, so the case is presumably closed.