Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantcomplianceclass actionrehabilitation
plaintiffdefendantattorneystatutediscriminationcomplianceregulationclass actionrehabilitation

Related Cases

Shilkret v. Annapolis Emergency Hospital Ass’n, 276 Md. 187, 349 A.2d 245, 99 A.L.R.3d 1119
View Case »
Cobbs v. Grant, 8 Cal.3d 229, 502 P.2d 1, 104 Cal.Rptr. 505
View Case »
Dyer v. Trachtman, 470 Mich. 45, 679 N.W.2d 311
View Case »
Higdon v. Carlebach, 348 Mich. 363, 83 N.W.2d 296
View Case »
Hiser v. Randolph, 126 Ariz. 608, 617 P.2d 774
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

New Mexico Ass’n for Retarded Citizens v. State of N.M., 495 F.Supp. 391

Facts

The plaintiffs, including several organizations and individually named handicapped children, filed a class action against the State of New Mexico and local school districts, claiming they were denied a free appropriate public education as required by federal and state laws. The class included handicapped children aged 5 to 21 who were not receiving the education mandated by the Education of the Handicapped Act and the Rehabilitation Act. The court had to determine whether the defendants complied with these laws during the relevant time period.

This class action suit was brought by several plaintiff-organizations and numerous individually named plaintiffs represented by their next friends against the State of New Mexico, several State agencies and their representatives and local public school districts and the members of their respective local school boards, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from defendants' allegedly illegal conduct in failing to afford plaintiffs a free appropriate public education and related services as mandated by various New Mexico statutes, federal laws and federal Constitutional provisions.

Issue

Did the State of New Mexico and its local school districts violate the Rehabilitation Act by failing to provide a free appropriate public education to handicapped children?

Did the State of New Mexico and its local school districts violate the Rehabilitation Act by failing to provide a free appropriate public education to handicapped children?

Rule

The court applied the provisions of the Education of the Handicapped Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which mandates that no qualified handicapped individual shall be excluded from participation in or denied benefits of any program receiving federal financial assistance.

Section 504 reads No otherwise qualified handicapped individual in the United States, as defined in Section 706(7) of this title, ( 29 USC 706(7) ), shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

Analysis

The court analyzed the compliance of the State and local school districts with the Education of the Handicapped Act and found that they were substantially in compliance prior to 1977. However, it determined that the failure to provide adequate educational services constituted a violation of the Rehabilitation Act. The court noted that the State's funding formula and lack of qualified personnel contributed to the inadequate services provided to handicapped children.

I find, then, that because the State plan comports with the requirements of the Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder, and because the State was not obligated under the Act to provide full educational and related services to all handicapped children within the State until September 1, 1978, that the State and its local school districts, including APS, were substantially in compliance with the Act during the time prior to and including fiscal year 1977.

Conclusion

The court concluded that the defendants violated the Rehabilitation Act and granted declaratory and injunctive relief, requiring them to provide a free appropriate public education to the members of the plaintiff class.

Declaratory and injunctive relief granted.

Who won?

The plaintiffs prevailed in the case as the court found that the defendants failed to comply with the Rehabilitation Act, thus granting them the relief they sought.

Plaintiffs, prevailing on Count V, shall be awarded their costs and attorneys' fees, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. s 794a(a)(2) and (b) and 42 U.S.C. s 1988, such costs and attorneys' fees to be borne in their entirety by the State defendants.

You must be