Filed Date: June 10, 1991
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This is a case about special education in Ohio's public schools. This lawsuit was brought on May 9, 1991, by a student (through his parent), a teacher, a local Board of Education, and a district superintendent. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel and later by the Ohio Legal Rights Service, sued the state of Ohio, the State Board of Education, the state superintendent, and the state Department of Education. The plaintiffs sued under state constitutional and statutory law, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (based on the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses), and the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), alleging that Ohio's statutory scheme for financing public schools did not provide a sufficient education and discriminated against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that public education is a fundamental right under state and federal law and that Ohio had violated that right, as well as attorneys' fees.
The plaintiffs argued that Ohio's funding structure for public schools led to illegal disparities between districts. Much of the funding came from local property taxes, and the wealthiest districts in the state had 45 times the property value per student as the least wealthy. The plaintiffs alleged that this system discriminated against students and teachers in schools with less funding, in violation of the state Constitution's requirement of a "thorough and efficient system of common schools," as well as state and federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process. The plaintiffs also alleged that school districts lacked funding to provide special education to students with disabilities, in violation of both state law and the IDEA.
The plaintiffs initially filed in the Court of Common Pleas in Perry County, Ohio, but the defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio based the latter court's jurisdiction over federal claims. The case was assigned to Chief Judge John D. Holschuh.
The plaintiffs moved to remand the case to state court, but the federal court denied the motion on September 19, 1991. Some of the plaintiffs then filed a similar case in state court (DeRolph v. Ohio) seeking a declaration that Ohio's current system of funding public education (including special education programs) violated the Ohio Constitution and Ohio law.
The plaintiffs amended their complaint on June 3, 1991, and August 25, 1992. The second amended complaint also included claims under the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In addition to declaratory relief, the plaintiffs sought an injunction requiring Ohio to implement a new funding system to address the disparities in the current system.
The defendants moved for summary judgment on January 19, 1993. On October 6, 1993, Judge Holschuh granted the motion in part, though the Clearinghouse was unable to determine any details about this decision. Judge Holschuh also temporarily stayed the case pending a decision in DeRolph.
In August 1993, while this case was stayed, the Ohio Legal Rights Service (OLRS) moved to intervene as a plaintiff in the case, as did a student with disabilities and his parents. The court granted the motion on February 9, 1994. These plaintiffs sought to represent a class of all students with disabilities in Ohio, and brought claims under the IDEA, the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.
On June 6, 1994, the plaintiffs moved for class certification. On February 27, 1995, as the class certification motion was pending, the remaining original plaintiffs stipulated to a dismissal of their broader claims, leaving only OLRS and the plaintiffs bringing claims related to special education. In July 1995, the motion to certify class action was denied without prejudice, and the Court requested a briefing on OLRS's standing to maintain the action. OLRS voluntarily dismissed its claims on September 5, 1995, leaving only the student and his parents as plaintiffs.
After the plaintiffs moved again for class certification, the court certified a class on February 20, 1996. The class was defined as "All children, ages three through 21, currently enrolled or seeking enrollment, now or in the future, in Ohio's public school system, who have a disability . . . and who require, as a result of their disability, special education and related services or accommodations . . . and the parents or guardians of such children." 1996 WL 35069419. However, because overlapping issues remained, the case remained stayed pending the Ohio Supreme Court's final decision in DeRolph.
In April 1997, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a ruling in DeRolph, holding that the state's elementary and secondary public school financing system violated the state Constitution. 78 Ohio St.3d 419. A couple months later, on June 3, the plaintiffs in this case moved for summary judgment based on the Ohio Supreme Court's findings of fact in DeRolph. Judge Holschuh denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in September 2000, stating that the initial facts in DeRolph had grown stale in the 9 years since filing, and the court here could not find that the current system of funding in Ohio violated relevant federal laws without updated facts. 2000 WL 1456995.
DeRolph continued to develop; the legislature made changes to public school funding, but in May 2000 the Ohio Supreme Court again held that the system was unconstitutional, and provided additional time to comply with its order. 728 N.E.2d 993. After various other developments, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a decision on December 11, 2002, re-affirming its declaration that the funding system needed "a complete systemic overhaul." 780 N.E.2d 529.
Activity in this case resumed after the 2002 DeRolph decision. In May 2003, the defendants moved for summary judgment or for decertification of the class. On July 9, 2004, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion for summary judgement. Judge Holschuh dismissed claims brought under the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the ADA (for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted), and their claim of Due Process violations (for failure to state a claim). However, the court denied the defendants' motion with respect to the plaintiff's IDEA and Equal Protection claims. 2004 WL 7347115.
Discovery continued through 2004 and into 2005. In July 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging violations of the IDEA, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. On January 6, 2006, the defendants moved to dismiss or for partial summary judgment. While the motion was pending, the parties agreed to settlement negotiations under a mediator.
Negotiations continued for several years, and the parties reached a partial settlement in May 2009. The court approved the settlement two months later, on July 2. Under the settlement, Ohio agreed to change: its review of requests for waivers of standards for students with disabilities; its monitoring of districts' compliance with IDEA requirements; and its complaints investigations about rights violations under the IDEA. The settlement was entered as a consent order on October 21, 2009. The settlement did not resolve claims related to the funding of special education in Ohio, so the court gave the plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint.
On June 1, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint alleging that the current school funding scheme violated the IDEA, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. Three months later, on September 1, the defendants filed a motion for partial dismissal. While the motion was pending, the case was reassigned to Judge Michael H. Watson.
On February 16, 2012, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for partial dismissal, limiting the claims to acts or omissions that occurred on or after July 1, 2009 (when the new state school funding scheme became effective). The court also dismissed the plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment claims, but allowed the IDEA and Rehabilitation Act claims to proceed. 2012 WL 12985973. In May 2012, Judge Watson set a bench trial for December 2013.
On November 19, 2013, the defendants filed another motion to dismiss. Days later, the Court moved the trial date back to April 2016. The court partially granted the defendants' motion to dismiss on May 14, 2014, holding that the plaintiffs' challenges to aspects of Ohio's old funding scheme were moot. 2014 WL 12718161. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a third amended complaint on June 27, 2014.
Due to disagreements arising from discovery, the bench trial was further delayed. Settlement mediation continued, and on November 5, 2019, the parties submitted a joint motion to the court for preliminary approval of a class action settlement agreement.
Under the settlement, the defendants agreed to create and implement a plan to redesign the state support system for special education in order to improve rates of achievement and increase the number of students learning in the "least restrictive environment" (LRE), particularly in the 11 districts where experts found systemic denials of a "free appropriate public education” (FAPE). The plan, which would be developed with an advisory group of experts, was required to incorporate measures to 1) reach targets for achievement rates and LRE rates; 2) increase literacy; 3) increase professional development, 4) improve school climate; 5) improve post-secondary transition services; and 6) assist the 11 districts in creating their own plans. The defendants agreed to pay attorneys' fees of $3,000,000. The agreement was set to last for five years
After a fairness hearing, the court granted final approval of the settlement on March 2, 2020. 2020 WL 996561. On January 29, 2025, the court granted the parties' joint request to extend the settlement agreement through March 2, 2027. There have been no further developments on the docket as of March 15, 2025.
Summary Authors
NDRN (10/18/2022)
Carlos Hurtado-Esteve (1/1/2024)
Isobel Blakeway-Phillips (4/12/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4972408/parties/doe-v-state-of-ohio/
Bossing, Lewis L. (Ohio)
Boylan, Jason Charles (Ohio)
Burnim, Ira Abraham (Ohio)
Abshier, Brandon Lee (Ohio)
Albert, John Curtis (Ohio)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4972408/doe-v-state-of-ohio/
Last updated July 9, 2025, 9:44 p.m.