Derrick v. Glen Mills Schs.

1

DERRICK, et al. v. GLEN MILLS SCHOOLS, et al.

Civil Action No. 19-1541

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

May 13, 2024

MEMORANDUM

Bartle, J.

This putative class action involves serious and pervasive allegations of widespread abuse, inadequate education, and disability discrimination at the now closed Glen Mills Schools (“Glen Mills”). Before the court is the motion of Plaintiffs, three former Glen Mills residents and two of their parents, to certify against three Defendants Teresa Miller, Theodore Dallas, and Cathy Utz, a damages class under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and to certify against four Defendants, Glen Mills Randy Ireson, the Pennsylvania Department of Education (“PDE”), and Pedro Rivera, twenty-four issue classes under Rule 23(c)(4). See Fed.R.Civ.P 23(b)(3), (c)(4).

I. Background

Plaintiffs are the following individuals: Derrick, through and with his next friend and mother Tina; Walter, through and with his next friend and mother Janeva; and Thomas, through his next friend and mother Michelle.^[1] Derrick, Walter, and Thomas are three individuals who were involuntarily placed at Defendant Glen Mills after being adjudicated delinquent in the state courts of Pennsylvania. They seek class certification on behalf of themselves and other Glen Mills residents who, according to Plaintiffs, suffered physical, oral, and psychological abuse, were deprived of an adequate education, and endured discrimination for their disabilities at the school. Additionally, Derrick's mother Tina and Walter's mother Janeva seek certification on behalf of themselves and other parents and guardians of Glen Mills residents who were excluded from the individualized education process for their children with disabilities.

Defendants can be divided into three groups. First, there are the Glen Mills Defendants, which include the school itself and its former Executive Director, Randy Ireson.^[2] Second, there are the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (“DHS”) Defendants. While Plaintiffs have not named the Department itself as a defendant, they have sued three DHS officials acting in their individual and official capacities. They are former DHS Secretaries Theodore Dallas and Teresa Miller, and former Deputy DHS Secretary for the Pennsylvania Office of Children, Youth, and Families Cathy Utz. The third group, the PDE Defendants, include the Department itself and its former Secretary, Pedro Rivera in his official capacity.

Plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class and several putative subclasses of individuals who were involuntarily detained at Glen Mills.^[3] Most residents, including Derrick, Walter, and Thomas, were involuntarily placed there pursuant to orders from various state courts after they were adjudicated delinquent. Other residents were there involuntarily while awaiting juvenile court proceedings in Philadelphia County.^[4]

The individual circumstances of Derrick, Walter, and Thomas were detailed in this court's memorandum dated December 19, 2019. See Derrick Through Tina v. Glen Mills Sch., No. CV 19-1541, 2019 WL 7019633 at *3-*5 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 19, 2019). Relevant to the instant motion, Derrick and Walter resided at Glen Mills from March 2018 to March 2019. Thomas did so from May 2018 to March 2019. According to Plaintiffs, each of them was subjected to recurring physical, oral, and psychological abuse from Glen Mills staff and other residents. They also assert that they were students with disabilities and received a deficient education.

Glen Mills was established in 1826 as a boarding school for adjudicated juveniles and other troubled youth. It was neither a traditional private boarding school nor a public school under Pennsylvania law. Rather, it was licensed by the DHS as a private residential rehabilitative institution. See 24 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9-914.1-A(c). Local education agencies and intermediate units in Pennsylvania and other jurisdictions contracted with Glen Mills to provide rehabilitative and educational services. See 24 Pa. Stat. §§ 9-914.1-A(a), (c).

Due to its unique status, several state and local agencies were responsible for monitoring the conditions at Glen Mills. The Chester County Intermediate Unit was the local education agency that contracted with Glen Mills.^[5] DHS, in addition to licensing the school, was tasked with ensuring compliance with the hundreds of regulations for youth residential facilities under 55 Pa. Code Chapter 3800 (“DHS regulations”). On July 1, 2017, these state responsibilities were assigned to the Office of Children, Youth, and Families, one of the program offices of DHS. PDE, on the other hand, monitored compliance with state and federal special education laws and the use of classroom physical restraints.

In June 2018, DHS began investigating Glen Mills in response to anonymous written complaints of staff aggression towards residents. The Philadelphia Inquirer ran an article on Glen Mills in February 2019, in which it exposed the physical, oral, and psychological abuse suffered by residents. Lisa Gartner, “Beaten, Then Silenced,” Phila. Inquirer, Feb. 20, 2019, at ¶ 1. Defendant Ireson, who had been the school's Executive Director since 2013, resigned a week after the article was published.

On March 25, 2019, DHS concluded its investigation and issued an order revoking the licenses for all fourteen residential halls at the school. As a result, Glen Mills was closed. In its order, DHS detailed numerous incidents of physical, oral, and psychological abuse by staff members and other residents, including:

•. . . staff failed to intervene to protect a child from another resident resulting in the child suffering a broken jaw . . . .

•. . . a child was assaulted by a staff person causing an injury to his eye.

The child was then coerced into saying that his injury was a result of playing basketball.

•. . . a child was choked by three staff and then slammed to the floor . . . .

•. . . a staff person punched a child in the chest . . . .

•. . . a child was assaulted by a staff person causing an injury to his eye . . . .

•. . . a child . . . was asked to sign a document for court stating that he wished to remain at Glen Mills if he could not be sent home.

• . . . an incident occurred where at least one student entered another student's room and took money from the student.

•. . . the youth was subjected to harassment, unreasonable restraint, unusual and an extreme form of discipline by more than one Child Care Residential staff. . . .

•. . . Glen Mills failed to provide or delayed providing the appropriate medical treatment of the child's injuries . . . .

DHS further described Glen Mills as operating under “a culture of intimidation,” where “youth were told to lie about the care they received and the physical mistreatment they endured.”

DHS linked this culture to risk of injury faced by residents:

These findings verify that Glen Mills failed to protect the youth entrusted to its care, placed youth at risk of serious physical injury, permitted youth to sustain physical injuries by their acts and failure to act and Glen Mills engages in a culture that instills fear in youth through coercion and intimidation. As a result, we find that youth placed at Glen Mills are at imminent risk and their safety is in jeopardy.

DHS concluded that conditions at Glen Mills “constitute gross incompetence, negligence and misconduct in operating a facility.”

On April 11, 2019, less that one month after DHS issued its order revoking the school's licenses, Plaintiffs filed their 149-page complaint in this court. They asserted eighteen claims for relief encompassing the following grounds: (a) violations of the Eighth Amendment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983;^[6] (b) violations of the right to a public education under Pennsylvania law, 24 P.S. §§ 13-1306, 9-914.1-A; (c) violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401(3), 1414(d); (d) violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (“Section 504”), 29 U.S.C. § 794; (e) violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq.; and (f) common law negligence.

Plaintiffs seek damages as well as equitable relief in the form of compensatory education.

Plaintiffs focus on evidence which they characterize as showing that the culture at Glen Mills was not merely one of intimidation but one of confrontation. Staff and residents were encouraged to enforce unwritten norms through threats and physical force. Residents who regularly confronted peers earned “Bull Status” and favored treatment by the staff. Furthermore, staff at Glen Mills resorted to physical restraints more often than staff at other youth residential facilities to keep residents in line. According to Plaintiffs, this culture of confrontation can be traced back to April 2017. They maintain that this culture persisted at the school because of the policies and practices of Glen Mills leadership and state regulators-DHS and PDE-that monitored staff and residents.

Plaintiffs assert that Glen Mills failed to provide residents with an appropriate public education. Instruction was largely conducted through a self-directed computer program called PLATO/Edmentum. In-person instruction was limited to infrequent “tutoring” by “counselor-teachers” who were not required to hold any teaching certifications or credentials. Plaintiffs challenge not only the quality of instruction but also the number of hours provided, which they contend were below the Pennsylvania statutory requirements for a private residential rehabilitative institution. They attribute the deficient education at Glen Mills to the school itself and ineffective monitoring by PDE.

Additionally Plaintiffs point to...