## Facts

- Spanish-speaking public-school students in Illinois, through named student plaintiffs, sought declaratory and injunctive relief for alleged denial of equal educational opportunity due to limited English proficiency.
- Plaintiffs alleged state-level defendants failed to take required steps to address language barriers, including:
  - failing to issue objective, uniform guidelines to identify limited-English-proficient (LEP) students;
  - failing to issue objective, uniform guidelines governing when LEP students should transition from remedial/bilingual services to regular classrooms;
  - failing to enforce Illinois transitional bilingual-education requirements; and
  - failing to supervise and ensure local district compliance with federal requirements.
- The litigation asserted claims under the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA) and regulations issued under Title VI; related Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI claims had been dismissed on appeal.
- The action was initially dismissed without a ruling on class certification; after appeal, the EEOA and Title VI regulation claims were remanded.
- On remand, plaintiffs moved to certify a statewide class under Rule 23(b)(2) and to withdraw certain named plaintiffs and add others as class representatives.

## Issues

1. Whether the proposed statewide class of Spanish-speaking LEP children satisfied Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2) for certification seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against state education officials.
2. Whether to permit substitution of named plaintiffs to ensure appropriate class representation consistent with the class definition.

## Decision

- The court granted class certification under Rule 23(b)(2).
- The court found an identifiable statewide class tied to allegedly uniform state-level omissions affecting LEP identification, placement, and oversight.
- The court held Rule 23(a) requirements were met, including:
  - numerosity, given the size and dispersion of the LEP student population in Illinois public schools;
  - commonality, because shared legal and factual questions concerned statewide policies and failures to act;
  - typicality, because the named plaintiffs’ alleged injuries arose from the same course of state-level conduct and rested on the same legal theories; and
  - adequacy, finding class counsel competent and scrutinizing whether proposed representatives fit the refined class definition.
- The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to withdraw and add named plaintiffs, allowing substitutions that aligned with the class definition and denying others that raised fit or representation concerns.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 23(b)(2) certification is appropriate when defendants allegedly acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class and unitary injunctive or declaratory relief would address the classwide injury.
- In assessing Rule 23(a) commonality and typicality, courts focus on whether claims arise from the same alleged course of conduct and present shared legal theories, even if individual students’ circumstances differ.
- Courts must independently assess adequacy of representation to protect absent class members, including whether proposed representatives align with the class definition and can fairly represent the class’s interests.
- For class certification purposes, allegations of statewide policy-level failures affecting LEP services can present classwide questions suitable for injunctive relief litigation under the EEOA and related federal regulatory duties.

## Conclusion

The district court certified a Rule 23(b)(2) class of Spanish-speaking LEP students seeking statewide declaratory and injunctive relief based on alleged state-level failures to implement and enforce adequate identification and service policies under the EEOA and Title VI regulations, and it permitted only those representative substitutions consistent with the refined class definition and adequate representation.


Gomez v. Illinois State Bd. of Educ., 117 F.R.D. 394 (N.D. Ill. 1987)