## Facts

- Plaintiffs were a minor student, through her parent, and a putative class of minority students and parents associated with Boys & Girls High School in Brooklyn.
- Defendants were the New York City Department of Education and the New York City Board of Education.
- The school served an overwhelmingly minority student body with high poverty levels.
- Plaintiffs alleged systemic practices that denied meaningful access to high school education, including placing hundreds of students on shortened or “modified” schedules that did not provide sufficient instruction or credit toward graduation.
- Plaintiffs further alleged that some students were placed in non-credit, shortened-day programming rather than a full course schedule.
- Plaintiffs alleged wrongful exclusion of registered students from the building, including being turned away at the door.
- Plaintiffs alleged discouragement tactics tied to building entry requirements, including confiscation of winter coats and student identification needed to enter the school.
- The suit asserted federal civil-rights claims, principally under the Fourteenth Amendment, alleging unequal educational opportunity falling disproportionately on poor minority students.
- After filing as a putative class action, the parties negotiated a settlement providing injunctive relief, remedial educational services for affected students, staff training, and monitoring for an initial two-year period (subject to extension).

## Issues

1. Whether the proposed class and any subclasses satisfied Rule 23 requirements (including numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, and an appropriate Rule 23(b) category).
2. Whether the proposed settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate for the class under Rule 23(e), given the asserted systemic denial of educational services and the requested institutional relief.

## Decision

- The court certified the class under Rule 23.
- The court granted final approval of the negotiated settlement under Rule 23(e).
- The court entered judgment implementing the settlement’s injunctive provisions, remedial services program, and monitoring requirements.
- The court accepted the settlement structure as appropriate for class-wide resolution of alleged school-wide practices.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 23 permits class treatment where challenged conduct is systemic, affects a large group, and presents common questions capable of class-wide resolution.
- In assessing Rule 23(a), courts consider whether the number of affected persons makes joinder impracticable and whether representative claims are aligned with, and adequately protect, absent class members’ interests.
- A class settlement may be approved only if it is fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e), considering the benefits obtained, litigation risks and delay, and indications of arms-length negotiation and class reaction.
- In public-law education cases, settlement relief may properly include forward-looking institutional constraints, staff training, and monitoring, coupled with remedial educational services tailored to address alleged educational deprivation.

## Conclusion

The court certified a class of affected students and approved a settlement requiring school-system safeguards against wrongful exclusion, training and monitoring, and substantial remedial educational services, concluding the agreement satisfied Rule 23’s certification standards and Rule 23(e)’s fairness requirements.


D.S. ex rel. S.S. v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., 255 F.R.D. 59 (E.D.N.Y. 2008)