Sanchez v. Office of the State Superintendent of Educ.

513 F.Supp.3d 101

Altagracia SANCHEZ, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.OFFICE OF the STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 18-975 (RC)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed January 13, 2021

Robert J. McNamara, Pro Hac Vice, Renee Flaherty, Institute for Justice, Arlington, VA, for Plaintiffs.

Mateya Beth Kelley, Gavin Noyes Palmer, Gregory Martin Cumming, Michael A. Tilghman, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

This case involves regulations promulgated by the D.C. Office of the State Superintendent of Education ("OSSE") that impose minimum education requirements on certain childcare providers that operate in the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs, two childcare providers and one parent, argue that the regulations resulted from an unconstitutional delegation of power and that they violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims. This Court previously considered a motion to dismiss but ruled that Plaintiffs’ failed to overcome several jurisdictional hurdles. Plaintiffs appealed and the D.C. Circuit reversed and remanded for consideration of the merits of Plaintiffs’ allegations. See Sanchez v. Off. of the State Superintendent of Educ. , 959 F.3d 1121 (D.C. Cir. 2020). Defendants now argue that, accepting as true the factual allegations in the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs have failed to state a plausible claim to relief. For the reasons set forth below, the Court agrees and, therefore, grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Statutory and Regulatory Framework

The Child Development Facilities Regulation Act of 1998 ("Facilities Act"), D.C. Law 12-215, 46 D.C. Reg. 274 (1999) (codified as amended at D.C. Code § 7-2031 et seq. ), requires certain childcare providers in the District of Columbia to obtain a license to operate, see D.C. Code § 7-2034(a). The Facilities Act delegates rulemaking power to the Mayor to promulgate "all rules necessary to implement the provisions of" the Facilities Act. Id. § 7-2036(a)(1). The delegation of authority requires that the Mayor set "[m]inimum standards of operation of a child development facility concerning staff qualification, requirements and training, facility size, staff-child ratios and group size, program design and equipment requirements, safety and health standards, care for children with special needs, nutrition standards, and record keeping requirements." Id. § 7-2036(a)(1)(A). The Facilities Act defines "child development facility" as "a center, home, or other structure that provides care and other services, supervision, and guidance for children, infants, and toddlers on a regular basis, regardless of its designated name." Id. § 7-2031(3). The Facilities Act specifically exempts from its requirements babysitters, informal playgroups, parent-led play cooperatives, childcare furnished in places of worship during religious services, care provided by relatives, childcare provided by the federal government, and certain pre-kindergarten education programs. Id. § 7-2033. The Mayor has delegated the rulemaking power under the Facilities Act to OSSE. See Mayor's Order 2009-130, 56 D.C. Reg. 6883 (July 16, 2009).

Pursuant to this authority, OSSE issued regulations that set minimum education requirements for childcare staff at child development facilities. See generally D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 5-A1, §§ 100–99. Under the regulations, teachers at childcare development centers, located on premises other than a dwelling that serve more than twelve children, must obtain at least an associate's degree from an accredited college "with a major in early childhood education, early childhood development, child and family studies, or a closely related field." Id. § 165.1. Caregivers in an expanded child development home, which is a facility located in a private residence where two or more caregivers oversee up to twelve children, must obtain the same. Id. § 170.2. The requirements did not become immediately binding; when initially promulgated, the regulations generally provided a grace period of anywhere between three and six years. See, e.g. , 63 D.C. Reg. 14,786, 14,799 (original versions of D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 5-A1, §§ 164.1(b), (c) and 170.2(a)(1)(2)).¹ The regulations also provided that OSSE could waive compliance with any of the education requirements if presented with clear and convincing evidence that (1) "[t]he demonstrated ... economic impact or hardship on the Facility or staff member [was] sufficiently great to make immediate compliance impractical despite diligent efforts;" (2) "[t]he facility or staff member [was] meeting or exceeding the intent of the regulation for which the waiver [was] requested; and" (3) "[t]he health and welfare of staff and children [we]re not jeopardized." D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 5A-1, § 106.1. OSSE provided for another exemption for certain staff positions for individuals who had, as of December 2016, "continuously served" in the relevant staff position for ten or more years. Id. §§ 165.4, 170.2.

The regulations make three distinctions relevant to the current case. First, the regulations, like the Facilities Act, specifically exempt certain childcare providers, such as babysitters and nannies, from the degree requirements. Id. § 101.5. Second, the regulations specifically exempt private schools that provide "education services to children in grades pre-K-through twelfth (12^th) grade during [ ] a full school day." Id. § 101.5(l). Under this exemption, private, parochial, or independent schools that have full-time elementary or secondary educational programs in addition to infant and toddler care on the same premises need not comply with the minimum degree requirements. See id. § 165.6. Third, teachers at childhood development centers who already possess a college degree in a major other than an early childhood field must obtain at least twenty-four credit hours of college coursework in an early childhood field. Id. § 165.1.

B. Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiff Altagracia Sanchez is subject to the new education requirements as an "expanded home caregiver." See generally id. §§ 169–71. She runs a licensed daycare out of her house and currently cares for nine children. See Am. Compl. ¶ 164, ECF No. 31. Although she carries a doctoral degree in law from her home country, id. ¶ 157, she never attended college in the United States, id. ¶ 159. Plaintiffs allege that, given the demands of her work schedule, it would take Ms. Sanchez at least five years to complete the degree requirements as a part-time student, which they estimate would require around sixty credit hours. See id. ¶¶ 170–75. However, Plaintiffs allege that Ms. Sanchez cannot afford to attend college, even part-time. Id. ¶¶ 180–83. Ms. Sanchez received a waiver to the degree requirement in April 2019, but she fears that OSSE may revoke the waiver at some point in the future. Id. ¶¶ 190–91.

Plaintiff Dale Sorcher is what the regulations refer to as a teacher at a child development center. See D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 5A-1, § 165. Ms. Sorcher teaches children ages zero to three at a Jewish preschool attached to the synagogue she attends. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 193–95. Although Ms. Sorcher has two master's degrees and a bachelor's degree, she does not have the requisite education in early childhood education called for by the regulations. Id. ¶¶ 192, 211–12. The synagogue does have educational programs for elementary and secondary students but does not offer full-time educational programs. Id. ¶ 197. Plaintiffs allege that Ms. Sorcher is not eligible for a waiver of the degree requirement, id. ¶ 226, and that she does not have time to go back to college, id. ¶ 229. Furthermore, Plaintiffs maintain that Ms. Sorcher does not need more education in order to competently do her job. Id. ¶ 230.

Plaintiff Jill Homan is a parent whose young daughter attends a licensed daycare center subject to the regulations. Id. ¶¶ 234, 245–50. Ms. Homan is "afraid that the caregivers she trusts will not be able to comply with the college requirement and will lose their jobs." Id. ¶ 247. She worries that daycare providers forced to attend college in addition to their work duties will be "exhausted, stressed, and overwhelmed" and "will provide worse care than those who do not have to worry about attending school." Id. ¶ 250. She also believes that "day care will continue to become more expensive under the college requirement." Id. ¶ 251.

Plaintiffs bring three counts against the District of Columbia and OSSE (together "Defendants") related to the OSSE regulations. First, Plaintiffs argue that the Facilities Act's delegation of authority to the Mayor to promulgate minimum educational standards violates the District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act (the "D.C. Home Rule Act"), D.C. Code §§ 1-201.01 –1.207.71, and the U.S. Constitution's nondelegation doctrine. Id. ¶¶ 263–75. Second, Plaintiffs claim that the OSSE regulations violate their Fifth Amendment Due Process rights because "[t]here is no rational basis for prohibiting someone from working in a day care because she does not have a college degree." Id. ¶ 279. Finally, Plaintiffs argue that the OSSE regulations draw arbitrary and irrational distinctions between different types of day-care providers and facilities, which they maintain violates the Equal Protection Clause. Id. ¶¶ 281–88.

This Court previously considered a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Compliant. See Sanchez v. Off. of State Superintendent of Educ. , No. 18-cv-975, 2019 WL 935330 (D.D.C. Feb. 26, 2019). The Court dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ claims on threshold, jurisdictional grounds. See id. at *5–6 (dismissing Ms. Homan's claims for lack of standing); id. at *6–9 (dismissi...