Opinion Approving Settlement - Public Interest Law Center of ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 46 of 51parties, students with brain injury who are eligible for specialeducation services are included in the category of “students withsignificant disabilities,” under Provision IV.7 of the SettlementAgreement. Additionally, the list of disabilities following thedefinition of “students with significant disabilities” is notexhaustive and cannot be used to exclude students with braininjury from benefitting under the Settlement Agreement. Theparties also comment that if a needs assessment required underProvision IV.2(L) of the Settlement Agreement reveals thatteachers lack knowledge and experience in teaching children withbrain injury in a regular classroom, then training will beprovided in response to the assessment.The Court finds that brain injury is addressed underthe Settlement Agreement, as argued by the parties. As such, theCourt will overrule this objection.C. Inadequate Length of the Settlement AgreementTwo class members opposed the length of the SettlementAgreement, arguing that a five-year time frame is inadequate.The parties, however, have indicated that this duration was anecessary compromise to reach a Settlement Agreement.Additionally, as the parties appropriately point out, “[m]any ofthe provisions of the settlement, when implemented, will have animpact lasting far longer than the agreement terms and will buildthe Commonwealth’s capacity for inclusive practices.” (Joint46
Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 47 of 51Motion for Final Approval of Settlement Agreement at 30-31; seealso Gaskin Decl. 10.) In fact, at the Fairness Hearing, Dr.Rhen testified that the “five years gives us the time toimplement the settlement agreement and get some sound informationon which . . . to build future plans.” (Fairness Hr’g Tr.,06/24/2005, 24-25.)The Court concludes that any period lengthier than fiveyears will require Court entanglement in the delivery of stateeducational services for longer than necessary to fulfill theobjectives of the Settlement Agreement. Accordingly, theobjection will be overruled.D. Large Compensation to the Individual Plaintiffs andAttorneysTwo class members object to the compensation that theindividually named Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel willreceive under the Settlement Agreement. As previously addressedin Part IV.B.3 of this decision, the Court finds that thecompensation is fair and reasonable. Therefore, this objectionwill be overruled.E. Potential Effects of Provisions for Training andTechnical AssistanceOne parent expressed concern that the school districtswould use Provision IV.7 of the Settlement Agreement, which47
Page 4 and 5: Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330

Opinion Approving Settlement - Public Interest Law Center of ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?