Reach Academy for Boys & Girls, Inc. v. Delaware Department of Education
8 F.Supp.3d 574, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 525, 2014 WL 229473 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state's action that results in the elimination of the only single-sex public school option for one gender, while preserving such an option for the other gender and statutorily prohibiting the creation of new single-sex schools, likely violates the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX.
Facts:
- The State of Delaware had one all-girls public charter school, Reach Academy for Girls (“Reach”), and one all-boys public charter school, Prestige Academy (“Prestige”).
- In June 2012, Delaware's Department of Education (“DOE”) renewed Prestige Academy’s charter for a five-year term.
- A Delaware statute, effective June 30, 2013, enacted a "sunset" provision that prohibited the DOE from considering any new applications for single-sex charter schools.
- In November 2013, the DOE decided not to renew Reach’s charter, designating it a “failing” school based in part on low standardized test scores.
- The non-renewal of Reach's charter would result in boys having a single-sex public school option in Delaware, while girls would have none.
Procedural Posture:
- On November 25, 2013, Reach Academy, individual students, and their parents (collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed a lawsuit against the Delaware Department of Education and its Secretary ("Defendants") in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
- The complaint alleged violations of the Equal Protection Clause, Title IX, Due Process, and state law.
- On December 11, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking an order to compel Defendants to renew Reach's charter for one year.
- On December 16, 2013, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the entire complaint, arguing that Reach lacked standing and that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
- The District Court expedited its consideration of both motions.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state's decision not to renew the charter of its only all-girls public charter school, while an all-boys charter school remains open and a state statute prohibits new single-sex school applications, likely violate the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX, thus warranting a preliminary injunction?
Opinions:
Majority - Stark, J.
Yes. The state's action likely violates the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX. The court granted the preliminary injunction after finding the Individual Plaintiffs (students and parents) satisfied the four-factor test. First, they demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits because the combination of Reach's non-renewal and the statutory ban on new single-sex schools would deprive girls of a unique educational opportunity available only to boys, a distinction based solely on sex. Second, the students would suffer irreparable harm if the school were to close, as they would permanently lose the option to attend it, even if they ultimately won the lawsuit. Third, this irreparable harm to the students outweighs the harm to the DOE, whose authority to close failing schools is only temporarily and minimally impacted, as it can still impose conditions on the one-year renewal. Finally, the public interest in protecting constitutional rights outweighs the public interest in closing a failing school under these unique and non-replicable circumstances.
Analysis:
This case highlights how facially neutral state actions, when viewed in combination, can produce an unconstitutional discriminatory effect. The court's analysis focused not just on the DOE's performance-based decision to close Reach, but on the overall result: boys retain a single-sex school option while girls do not, with no possibility of a new girls' school opening. This decision establishes that courts will scrutinize the aggregate impact of a state's educational policies to ensure equal opportunity. The ruling underscores that even a legitimate state interest, such as holding schools accountable for academic performance, may be subordinated to prevent a likely violation of fundamental equal protection rights.
