## Facts

- G.T. and K.M. were students in schools run by the Board of Education of the County of Kanawha (the Board).
- Both students had diagnosed behavioral disorders and received special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
- Each student had an individualized education program (IEP) and also had a functional behavioral assessment and a behavior intervention plan, yet challenging behavior still led to disciplinary removals, including suspensions.
- Through their parents and alongside The Arc of West Virginia, G.T. and K.M. sued in federal court alleging the Board was denying students with disabilities a free appropriate public education by failing to provide effective behavior supports and by relying on disciplinary removals when supports were not working or not delivered.
- Plaintiffs also asserted related claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, seeking mainly declaratory and injunctive relief aimed at Board practices rather than individual damages.
- Plaintiffs moved to certify a class of all Kanawha County students with disabilities who (1) needed behavior supports and (2) had experienced a disciplinary removal from any classroom.
- In support of certification, plaintiffs proposed six shared questions, including whether the Board: identified students needing behavior supports; developed and implemented those supports; monitored academic progress; avoided unnecessary disciplinary removals; trained staff; and ensured students actually received the supports in their plans.
- The district court certified the class under Rule 23(b)(2), reasoning that although each student’s supports would differ, the lawsuit targeted the Board’s procedures for developing and carrying out supports.
- The Board sought interlocutory review under Rule 23(f), challenging whether the class met Rule 23(a)(2) commonality and whether (b)(2) treatment was proper.

## Issues

1. Whether the proposed class satisfied Rule 23(a)(2) commonality by presenting a common contention capable of resolving a central part of every class member’s claim with a common answer.
2. Whether certification under Rule 23(b)(2) was proper where the requested injunctive relief would depend on student-specific determinations about disabilities, educational planning, and disciplinary events.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s class-certification order and remanded.
- The court held plaintiffs did not meet Rule 23(a)(2) commonality because they did not identify a single common contention that could be answered for the class “in one stroke” in a way that would resolve a central issue for all class members.
- The court emphasized that the class swept in students with different disabilities, different plans (or plan components), different school placements, and different disciplinary histories, making liability and relief turn on individualized questions rather than a shared, class-resolving answer.
- Because commonality was lacking, Rule 23(b)(2) certification could not stand; the court did not resolve the merits of the IDEA, ADA, or § 504 claims.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 23(a)(2) requires more than identifying questions stated at a high level of generality; plaintiffs must show a common contention whose truth or falsity can be resolved for the class with a common answer that drives the case.
- Evidence suggesting patterns in outcomes (including statistical proof and record reviews) does not by itself satisfy commonality unless it connects class members to a shared challenged policy or practice that can be adjudicated on a classwide basis.
- In disability-education cases, determining whether a student was denied FAPE or unlawfully removed often depends on student-by-student facts, including the student’s needs, plan contents, plan delivery, and the circumstances of particular disciplinary events.
- Rule 23(b)(2) is meant for cases where a single injunction or declaration can provide relief to each class member; when relief would require many individualized determinations, (b)(2) treatment is generally not suitable.

## Conclusion

In G.T. v. Board of Education of County of Kanawha, the Fourth Circuit reversed certification of an injunctive class challenging behavior-support and discipline practices for students with disabilities, holding that the proposed class failed Rule 23(a)(2) because plaintiffs did not identify a common, class-resolving contention and the claims would require individualized review of students’ needs, plans, and disciplinary incidents.


G.T. v. Board of Education of County of Kanawha, 117 F.4th 193 (2024)