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 6 of 51altered and approved the parties’ proposed form of notice; (2)prescribed time frames for the distribution of the notice; (3)established time frames for the submission of objections to theproposed Settlement Agreement; and (4) set a date for a FairnessHearing.The Court received nineteen objections to theSettlement Agreement, of which only sixteen where submitted byclass members or their parents. At the Fairness Hearing, whichwas held on June 24, 2005, the Court heard oral argument from theparties and other interested persons and received testimony froma special-education expert, Commonwealth officials, parents ofseveral named Plaintiffs, and certain representatives fromadvocacy groups. The parties submitted additional evidencethrough declarations and reports. Thereafter, the Court orderedthe parties to file a joint motion for final approval of theproposed Settlement Agreement (doc. no. 318). The joint motionwas filed on August 5, 2005. (doc. no. 326).II.PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTWith the Court’s final approval, the SettlementAgreement will resolve--finally and completely--the case ofGaskin v. Pennsylvania, No. Civ. A. 94-4048 (E.D. Pa. 1994).Rather than continuing to litigate this action, the parties haveagreed to follow the terms and conditions of the proposed6
Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 7 of 51Settlement Agreement fully and comprehensively to resolve alloutstanding claims in the case.The life of the Settlement Agreement will be the fiveyearperiod of time commencing on the date on which the Courtformally enters an order dismissing the case and ending exactlyfive years later. (Settlement Agreement, Provisions II(B)-(C),doc. no. 295.) As a foundation to the Settlement Agreement, theparties have affirmed the following mutual goals and principlesthat will guide interpretation of the Settlement Agreement.(1) The IDEA and related case law,including Oberti v. Board ofEducation, 995 F.2d 1204 (3dCir. 1993), require specialeducation students to beeducated with students who donot have disabilities to themaximum extent appropriate.(2) It is desirable that schooldistricts increase theircapacity to provideappropriate specially designedinstruction, related services,supplementary aids andservices and support tospecial education studentsplaced in regular educationclassrooms.(3) When the law requires thatspecial education studentsreceive supplementary aids andservices in order to beeducated with students who donot have disabilities to themaximum extent appropriate,such supplementary aids andservices should be: (a)available to all students in7
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?