Court Upholds Dismissal of Language Accessibility Class Action Against Pennsylvania School District

By William J. Zee and Megan E. Bomba

July 13, 2021

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted summary judgment in a suit filed against Pennsylvania school district by non-English-speaking parents. Brought as a putative-class action lawsuit T.R. v. School District of Philadelphia, alleges that parents were denied adequate translation and interpretation services in relation to their children's individualized education plans (IEPs) from the district.

Plaintiffs argued that the failure offer sufficient translation services to non-English speaking parents was a denial of free appropriate public education (FAPE). The parents were unable to read the provided copies of the IEPs for their children which were written in English. While the school district made translated final versions of the IEPs available, interpretation was difficult when discussing special education terms.

The trial court concluded that the parents had exhausted their administrative remedies under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), awarding damages to the parents for compensatory education. When two other parents joined the suit for the same inadequate translation and interpretation service reasons, the original plaintiffs dropped their claims. The second set of parents continued in the appellate process, alleging that the school district did not offer translation services to the parents who sought meaningful discussion about their children’s IEPs. They did not seek punitive damages, but sought injunctive relief seeking changes to the District’s language services’ policies and practices.

The Third Circuit Court judge granted summary judgement, holding that the plaintiffs had not exhausted their administrative remedies under IDEA. The plaintiffs argued that even though they had not exhausted administrative remedies, their claims fell within the futility exception and challenged system legal deficiencies. The Court opined that the shortcomings of the district’s language services did not denote a systemic issue, but rather a single component of the translation and interpretation services. Due to the gravamen of the case being a denial of FAPE, and the lack of exhaustion of administrative remedies, the Court granted summary judgment. The Third Circuit Court affirmed the orders of the District Court.

Should you have any questions regarding this case, or any other issue related to special education services, please do not hesitate to contact William J. Zee, or any of the attorneys in the Appel, Yost & Zee Education Law group.