## Facts

- A mental-health advocacy organization, a state protection-and-advocacy entity, and students with serious emotional disturbance challenged Springfield’s operation and use of a separate “public day school” for certain students with mental health disabilities.
- Plaintiffs alleged the school district unnecessarily placed students who could be educated in neighborhood schools with appropriate supports into the separate day school, resulting in segregation and an inferior educational experience.
- The suit was pleaded under Title II of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, framed as an “integration mandate” claim (unnecessary segregation) rather than an IDEA special-education due process claim.
- The district court concluded IDEA administrative exhaustion applied to the claims and dismissed portions for failure to exhaust; it also denied class certification for lack of Rule 23(a) commonality and found the organizational plaintiffs lacked standing.
- A student (S.S.) was allowed to intervene for the limited purpose of appealing the denial of class certification.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by permitting a student to intervene solely to appeal denial of class certification.
2. Whether IDEA’s exhaustion requirement, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(l), applied to the ADA and § 504 claims as pleaded.
3. Whether exhaustion was excused because the claims were “systemic” or because exhaustion would be futile or inadequate.
4. Whether the proposed class satisfied Rule 23(a)(2) commonality.
5. Whether the advocacy organizations had Article III standing (organizational or associational).

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the district court in all material respects.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting S.S. to intervene for the limited purpose of appealing the class-certification ruling.
- IDEA exhaustion applied because, under the gravamen-of-the-complaint analysis, the claims were substantively about failure to provide the educational services and supports needed for placement in mainstream neighborhood schools (i.e., denial of FAPE).
- Plaintiffs did not show exhaustion was futile or inadequate, and their allegations were not the type of “systemic” claims exempt from IDEA exhaustion because they centered on educational services and placement determinations addressed by IDEA procedures.
- Denial of class certification was upheld because the proposed class lacked commonality given individualized IEP and placement reasons and varying student needs and services.
- The organizational plaintiffs lacked standing because they failed to show a concrete and particularized injury traceable to defendants beyond resource expenditures connected to pursuing the litigation; associational standing was also not established.

## Legal Principles

- IDEA’s exhaustion requirement applies to ADA and § 504 suits when the gravamen of the complaint seeks relief for denial of FAPE, even if styled as an “integration mandate” or unnecessary-segregation claim.
- Courts evaluate gravamen by asking whether essentially the same claim could be brought against a non-school public facility or by an adult in the school setting; if not, the claim likely concerns FAPE.
- Exhaustion may be excused only on a showing that IDEA procedures would be futile or inadequate; alleging districtwide practices does not, by itself, establish a “systemic” exception.
- Rule 23(a)(2) commonality requires a common contention capable of classwide resolution; individualized educational circumstances and placement decisions can defeat commonality in special-education-related class actions.
- Organizational standing requires a concrete, particularized injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s conduct; reallocating resources to prosecute litigation, without more, is insufficient.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit held that IDEA exhaustion could not be avoided by pleading ADA/§ 504 unnecessary-segregation claims where the substance was failure to provide FAPE-related services and placements, and it affirmed denial of class certification for lack of commonality and dismissal of organizational plaintiffs for lack of standing.


Parent/Pro. Advoc. League v. City of Springfield, 934 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2019)