## Facts

- Children involved with Philadelphia’s child welfare system sued state and city officials in their official capacities, alleging systemic failures in the operation of child protective and foster care services.
- The proposed class encompassed abused or neglected children in Philadelphia who were or should have been known to the Philadelphia Department of Human Services (DHS).
- Plaintiffs asserted federal statutory and constitutional claims (pleaded via 42 U.S.C. § 1983), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief aimed at structural reform rather than individualized damages.
- Plaintiffs alleged that agency policies and practices exposed class members to a significant risk of harm, including failures to investigate abuse or neglect in a timely manner, provide required services, and ensure appropriate case planning and permanency efforts.
- Plaintiffs moved to certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).
- The district court denied certification, reasoning that differences among children’s circumstances defeated commonality and that plaintiffs failed to satisfy typicality and adequacy.
- Plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the denial of class certification.

## Issues

1. Whether the proposed class satisfied Rule 23(a)’s commonality requirement when plaintiffs alleged systemwide policies or practices that placed all class members at risk of harm despite varying individual circumstances.
2. Whether the proposed class satisfied Rule 23(a)’s typicality requirement where named plaintiffs’ claims arose from the same course of systemic conduct and relied on the same legal theories as the class.
3. Whether the proposed class satisfied Rule 23(a)’s adequacy requirement, including alignment of interests between representatives and absent class members and competency of counsel.
4. Whether certification was proper under Rule 23(b)(2) when the requested declaratory and injunctive relief would address conduct allegedly applicable to the class as a whole.
5. Whether the district court abused its discretion by focusing on individualized injuries rather than the systemic nature of the challenge.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit reversed the order denying class certification and remanded.
- The court held the district court abused its discretion in concluding that commonality, typicality, and adequacy were not satisfied.
- The court directed certification of an appropriately defined Rule 23(b)(2) class consistent with its opinion.
- The court explained that alleged systemic deficiencies can supply common questions even when class members’ factual situations and the degree of harm vary.
- The court held that Rule 23(b)(2) is suited to civil-rights-style actions seeking declaratory or injunctive relief against policies or practices generally applicable to a broad, sometimes amorphous group.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 23(a)(2) commonality is satisfied when named plaintiffs share at least one common question of law or fact with the proposed class; divergent factual circumstances do not defeat commonality where the challenge targets systemwide conduct.
- Shared legal issues may satisfy commonality even if factual predicates and individual outcomes differ, particularly in actions seeking programmatic relief.
- Rule 23(a)(3) typicality is met when the representatives’ claims arise from the same event, practice, or course of conduct and are based on the same legal theory as the class, even if individual harms vary.
- Rule 23(a)(4) adequacy turns on absence of conflicts between representatives and absent class members and the capability of counsel to litigate the action; differences among class members do not alone create inadequacy.
- Rule 23(b)(2) certification is appropriate when defendants allegedly acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class and a single declaratory judgment or injunction would provide relief to each member.
- In systemic reform litigation, the Rule 23 inquiry may center on whether challenged policies or practices expose class members to a significant risk of harm, not whether each member has already suffered the same injury.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that children challenging alleged systemic failures in a public child welfare system could proceed as a Rule 23(b)(2) class because commonality, typicality, and adequacy were satisfied by shared allegations of systemwide policies or practices that uniformly placed class members at risk, and because the requested injunctive relief was classwide in nature.


Baby Neal for & by Kanter v. Casey, 43 F.3d 48 (3d Cir. 1994)