## Facts

- Spanish-speaking students of limited English proficiency (LEP) sued the Illinois State Board of Education and the Illinois Superintendent of Education, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of a putative statewide class.
- Illinois required local districts to identify LEP students and to provide transitional bilingual education when a district had 20 or more LEP students sharing a common primary language.
- Plaintiffs alleged the state regulatory scheme lacked a standardized method for identifying LEP students and did not require bilingual services for language groups below the 20-student threshold.
- Plaintiffs alleged districts therefore used varied and sometimes ineffective tests, resulting in under-identification of LEP students and insufficient language services.
- Plaintiffs alleged state defendants failed to issue objective, uniform identification and exit criteria and failed to monitor and enforce local compliance, denying LEP students equal access to instructional programs and to federally funded educational benefits.
- Plaintiffs asserted claims under the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA), Title VI and its implementing regulations, and the Fourteenth Amendment, and brought the action via 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- The district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), reasoning the state defendants met their obligations by issuing regulations and that any deficiencies were solely attributable to local districts.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint stated a claim under 20 U.S.C. § 1703(f) that state education authorities failed to take “appropriate action” to overcome language barriers impeding equal participation by LEP students.
2. Whether the complaint stated a claim under Title VI implementing regulations based on discriminatory effects (disparate impact) in educational services for LEP students.
3. Whether the Eleventh Amendment barred federal claims against state education authorities and officials seeking prospective relief.
4. Whether the complaint adequately alleged intentional discrimination sufficient for a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim and a direct statutory Title VI claim.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- It reversed the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of the EEOA claim, holding the allegations plausibly described a failure by state authorities to take “appropriate action,” including issuing adequate guidance and supervising local implementation.
- It reversed the dismissal of the Title VI regulatory claim, holding the allegations plausibly stated a disparate-impact theory under Title VI regulations.
- It affirmed dismissal of the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim for failure to allege intentional discrimination.
- It affirmed dismissal of the direct statutory Title VI claim to the extent it required intentional discrimination.
- It rejected Eleventh Amendment immunity as a bar to the reinstated EEOA and Title VI regulatory claims, including because the suit sought prospective relief against the Superintendent in his official capacity.

## Legal Principles

- On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, courts must accept well-pleaded factual allegations as true and determine whether the complaint plausibly states a claim for relief.
- Under 20 U.S.C. § 1703(f), state educational authorities may be liable for failing to take “appropriate action” to overcome language barriers; “appropriate action” can include issuing effective statewide standards for LEP identification/exit and monitoring local compliance.
- State-level responsibility under the EEOA is not avoided solely by delegating implementation to local school districts when the state retains regulatory authority and oversight duties.
- Title VI’s implementing regulations may support a disparate-impact claim for practices that have unjustified discriminatory effects in federally funded programs, even where the statute itself requires proof of intentional discrimination.
- Equal protection and direct statutory Title VI claims generally require allegations of intentional discrimination, not merely deficient policy or oversight.
- Eleventh Amendment immunity does not categorically bar federal enforcement of EEOA obligations against state education entities where Congress permits such suits, and prospective injunctive relief against state officials in their official capacities is generally available.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that LEP students plausibly alleged that Illinois education officials failed to take “appropriate action” under the EEOA and maintained policies with unlawful disparate effects under Title VI regulations, requiring remand for further proceedings, while leaving dismissed the constitutional equal protection and direct Title VI statutory claims for lack of alleged intentional discrimination.


Gomez v. Ill. State Bd. of Educ., 811 F.2d 1030 (7th Cir. 1987)