RIDE disability rights case settlement disrupts R.I. House final budget preparations
The Rhode Island Department of Education's Westminster Street entrance in Providence is shown. (Photo by Alexander Castro/Rhode Island Current)
The Rhode Island Department of Education (RIDE) may soon have to pay $1.86 million to settle a class action lawsuit that claimed the state had failed to provide special education services for students with disabilities between the ages of 21 and 22.
That news presented a last minute complication for the Rhode Island House Committee on Finance's fiscal 2026 state budget preparations Tuesday.
'We literally worked to, like, 15 minutes ago to do this budget,' House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi told reporters at a press briefing on the $14.33 billion spending plan that began after 9 p.m. Tuesday night. He cited a figure of nearly $2 million needed because of an adverse ruling against RIDE, but details were unavailable at the time.
The case of K.L. v. Rhode Island Board of Education is close to a settlement, Victor Morente, a RIDE spokesperson, confirmed via email on Wednesday morning. He said officials were still drafting a 'tentative' agreement that is still subject to approval from Rhode Island District Court as well as the Council on Elementary and Secondary Education, RIDE's governing body.
The settlement comes nearly seven years after a federal appeals court ruled that RIDE shortchanged students with disabilities in the 2010s. The class action suit began in 2014 with a single plaintiff: A Warwick parent filing on behalf of their daughter, a Rhode Island student on the autism spectrum who also had ADHD and severe anxiety.
But the student, named K.L. in the lawsuit, aged out of state-sponsored educational accommodations at age 21, before she could finish her high school diploma — something she should have been eligible to receive until age 22 under federal disability laws, her attorneys argued. K.L. had an individualized education program (IEP), which tailors learning for students with disabilities and helps to address their needs. These support programs are the roadmaps to ensure local schools education agencies supply students with a free and 'appropriate' public education per mandates derived from the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
Students 'who were over 21 and under 22 as of February 10, 2012, or turned 21 before July 1, 2019,' Morente wrote, would be eligible for relief under the draft settlement if they did not receive their high school diploma and aged out of support services under previous Rhode Island law.
When the case came before the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, it ruled in favor of RIDE by determining that 'public education' under the federal law would not include adult learning for students with disabilities over age 21. The class members then took their case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston, which vacated the lower court's judgment.
We literally worked to, like, 15 minutes ago to do this budget.
– House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi during a press briefing Tuesday
Senior Judge Kermit Victor Lipez wrote in the first circuit's October 2018 majority opinion that the lower court had relied on too 'narrow' a definition of public education.
'At present, if a 21-year-old student in Rhode Island does not complete high school for a non-disability related reason — say, because she was previously incarcerated — the state will provide her the services needed to attain a secondary-school level of academic proficiency and a route to obtain a high-school level degree,' Lipez wrote. 'However, if the same 21-year-old does not complete high school due to a qualifying disability, the state currently does not offer her ability-appropriate services to attain the same level of educational achievement.'
That imbalance violated disability law, the First Circuit decided, and the court boomeranged the case back to the District of Rhode Island for the two parties to determine remedies for class members.
Sonja Deyoe, the attorney representing class members since the suit's inception, wrote in an email Wednesday that the First Circuit ruling was pivotal for disability rights in Rhode Island.
'The law previously had limited that education until the age of 21,' Deyoe wrote. 'This was a major change for disabled individuals in Rhode Island.'
The First Circuit's ruling predates current RIDE leadership, and in August 2019, then-new education Commissioner Angélica Infante-Green issued a memo instructing how state education officials should comply with the ruling.
'It is now clear that if they have not already done so, school districts … must comply with the recent First Circuit decision and should make services available and give careful consideration to the cost of prospective compliance,' Infante-Green wrote, adding that it was still unclear 'how appropriate remedies will be provided to those eligible class members.'
Deyoe echoed that sentiment, saying that determining damages under the lawsuit 'did span a very long time,' with both parties trying to avoid forcing a legal decision as to whether individual class members could receive relief for damages.
'Whether individualized compensatory education damages could be awarded to the individual class members was always disputed by the RI Department of Education,' Deyoe said.
The settlement also needs to be approved by the members of the class, Deyoe said. The currently draft spares class members from having to undergo individual trials to determine compensational education benefits.
'We are very hopeful the settlement will be approved, but the class members always have the opportunity to object and the Court may approve the settlement only with certain changes,' Deyoe wrote. 'We cannot predict that yet…While all of this took a long time to achieve, we do believe this is a good resolution for the class members.'
The funding source to resolve the settlement was not immediately available from RIDE or the House on Wednesday.
But Shekarchi detailed in a statement over email that the sudden news had cost the House some time on Tuesday.
'After the budget is posted for consideration by the House Finance Committee 48 hours in advance, there are always a number of policy decisions, options and calculations that must be finalized,' wrote the Speaker. 'The notification of a $1.86 million additional expense on the morning of the budget adoption certainly complicated the final process.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
33 minutes ago
- USA Today
'Afraid' for court: Trump DOJ sues NY over immigration enforcement in state courthouses
'Afraid' for court: Trump DOJ sues NY over immigration enforcement in state courthouses Show Caption Hide Caption Three Democratic governors testify in House hearing over immigration New York Governor Kathy Hochul, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, and Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, testify on Capitol Hill over immigration policies. NEW YORK − The Trump administration on June 12 sued New York state for its law restricting federal immigration enforcement inside state courthouses. The lawsuit challenges a New York state law that blocks immigration officials from arresting people at or near New York courthouses. The complaint, filed in federal court in Albany, New York, alleges the law frustrates federal immigration enforcement at a venue - state courthouses - where authorities can safely make arrests. U.S. Justice Department lawyers said New York's law and policies restricting cooperation with federal immigration officers violated the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which gives federal law precedence over state law. The lawsuit filed in federal court in Albany comes after the administration has increased immigration enforcement at workplaces and while people appeared for immigration court hearings. People have protested against the federal actions in cities across the country. Attorney General Pam Bondi blamed so-called 'sanctuary city policies' for violence seen in California. Sanctuary policies generally refers to those limiting local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement. The Justice Department has also sued four New Jersey cities for their laws. New York state had similar policies preventing agents from apprehending migrants, Bondi said in a statement. 'This latest lawsuit in a series of sanctuary city litigation underscores the Department of Justice's commitment to keeping Americans safe and aggressively enforcing the law,' she said. Justice Department lawyers challenged the 2020 state law preventing federal officials from arresting people for civil immigration violations at state courthouses without a signed judicial warrant. New York's 2020 law doesn't apply to federal courthouses or immigration court, according to the legislation's author, state Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal, a Manhattan Democrat who called the lawsuit 'baseless and frivolous." The Justice Department said in a news release that enforcement at courthouses reduces risk of people fleeing or dangerous situations, especially since there is enhanced screening inside court buildings. 'Ongoing assault' on rule of law in NY, state officials say State officials said federal agents entering local courthouses make communities unsafe by preventing people from accessing the judicial system. The law ensures New Yorkers can pursue justice without fear, Geoff Burgan, a spokesperson for state Attorney General Letitia James, said in a statement. 'Due process means nothing if people are too afraid to appear in court,' he said. James would defend the law and 'all of New York's laws, just as she will continue to defend the rights and dignity of all who call New York home,' Burgan said. Hoylman-Sigal, who authored the law, said the lawsuit was part of the administration's 'ongoing assault on the rule of law in New York.' To avoid conflicting with federal law or federal immigration authority, the law doesn't apply to federal courts or immigration courts, he said in a statement. Meanwhile, it allows U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to arrest people in local courthouses when they have 'actual, valid judicial warrants.' 'At a time when masked ICE officials are roaming the state and lawlessly detaining New Yorkers without any due process, the law preserves access to justice and participation in the judicial process,' he said. 'Sensitive' areas targets of immigration enforcement A contentious issue has been federal agents targeting people in 'sensitive" areas. Prior Department of Homeland Security guidelines banned enforcement in areas such as schools, places of worship and hospitals. When President Donald Trump took office in January, DHS overturned the longstanding policy to give agents discretion on such actions. The administration enacted another policy permitting enforcement at or near courthouses. Justice Department lawyers also challenged two New York executive orders restricting civil immigration arrests at state facilities, and a separate policy preventing state employees from sharing information to federal officers related to civil immigration enforcement. 'Through these enactments, New York obstructs federal law enforcement and facilitates the evasion of federal law by dangerous criminals, notwithstanding federal agents' statutory mandate to detain and remove illegal aliens,' the complaint said. The same day as the lawsuit, Gov. Kathy Hochul was one of three Democratic governors testifying before Congress about "sanctuary" policies and immigration enforcement. Hochul said her state has cooperated with ICE since she's taken office. "But we have to draw a line somewhere,' Hochul said. 'New York cannot deputize our state officers to enforce civil immigration violations, such as overstaying a visa.' The administration's attack on the 2020 law would turn courthouses 'into traps,' Donna Liberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. It would further force immigrant communities into the shadows. An initial conference date for the lawsuit was scheduled for Sept. 10, court records showed. Contributing: Bart Jansen, USA TODAY Eduardo Cuevas is based in New York City. Reach him by email at emcuevas1@ or on Signal at emcuevas.01.
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
21 bills still waiting on decision by Gov. Stitt
OKLAHOMA CITY (KFOR) – Governor Kevin Stitt still has to make a decision on 21 bills that made it to his desk by the end of session. During the session, the Governor has five days to sign or veto a bill. Now that the session is over, he will have until June 14 to take action on the remaining bills. 'He can sign them. He can do a direct veto or he can do a pocket veto, which is basically where he just holds on to it and it doesn't become law,' said Sen. Julia Kirt (D-Oklahoma City). Kirt said it was not unusual for a few remaining bills to be waiting on the Governor's signature after the session concludes. But the way legislators wrapped up the final days, with chaotic overrides on 47 vetoes, has some lawmakers worried. Lawmakers override majority of Gov. Stitt's vetoes Lawmakers also voted to oust Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services Commissioner Allie Friesen, who was handpicked by Stitt. 'I wouldn't be surprised if he'd veto some things just because he's upset with the Senate or upset with the House or specific members,' said Kirt. Stitt announced an interim preplacement to lead the department on Tuesday. He tasked retired Rear Admiral Gregory Slavonic with the job. Among the 21 bills, five deal with public education. Senate Bill 235 is one of them. It included a match of $5 million to the state's 'Grow Your Own' program. The program would help school districts grow their teacher pipeline by paying for their certification. 'You are taking dedicated paraprofessionals, teacher's aids, and other support staff personnel who have been in that district – some of them maybe for two decades – and they're on a path to teacher certification,' said Sen. Adam Pugh (R-Edmond). House Bill 1727 is another one. It would modify and fund 'Oklahoma's Promise' to allow college scholarships for children of state teachers.'If their kid goes to Oklahoma, a higher ed institution for them to get Oklahoma Promise even if they don't qualify financially,' said Kirt. 'It's, I think, meaningful to educators to know they'd have that option.'Here is a list of the remaining 21 bills waiting on Governor Stitt's desk: SB 130 – Directing Corporation Commission to conduct certain feasibility study subject to certain process. SB 140 – Creating the Oklahoma Math Achievement and Proficiency Act. SB 207 – Establishing the Oklahoma Rare Disease Advisory Council. SB 235 – Providing grant application process, funding for the Grow Your Own Educator Program. SB 1039 – Modifying grounds for certain denials for medical marijuana license. HB 1087 – Extending the amount of classroom instruction time; minimum salary schedule for teachers. HB 1166 – Annexation of territory without consent of majority of owners. HB1282 – Oklahoma Rising Scholars Award; remaining; eligibility; awards; waivers. HB1287 – Authorizing the Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma to create a math tutoring pilot program for certain students. HB 1378 – Sales tax exemptions for agriculture, including timber. HB 1486 – Designating various memorial roads and bridges. HB 1727 – Oklahoma Higher Learning Access Program; eligibility for children of certain teachers. HB 2104 – Classification of felony offenses HB 2262 – Alzheimer's Dementia and Other Forms of Dementia Special Care Disclosure Act. HB 2513 – Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services; addressing the consent degree. HB 2610 – Nonrecurring adoption expenses credit. HB 2645 – Practice of medicine, tax credit. HB 2646 – Revenue and taxation; adjustments; wagering, tax year. HB 2752 – Eminent domain of electricity, facilities on private property. HB 2753 – Rural Jobs Act. HB 2758 – Preserving and Advancing County Transportation Fund. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Lawmakers approve budget and teacher pay push as session wraps up
BATON ROUGE, La. (LSU Manship News Service) — The Louisiana House voted 98-1 Thursday to give final legislative approval to $53.5 billion budget package for the upcoming fiscal year without objecting to any of the major changes that the Senate had made earlier this week. With three hours to go in the session, lawmakers also agreed to ask voters to approve a constitutional amendment in a new attempt to fund permanent salary raises for K-12 public school teachers and support staff. Voters had rejected a long and complicated amendment in March that could have provided funding for permanent raises. Under the latest plan, voter approval could lead to salary increases of $2,250 for teachers and $1,225 for staff members. The proposed constitutional amendment would dissolve three state education trust funds and used $2 billion to pay down debt on teacher retirement plans. That would save parishes enough money to provide the raises. While waiting to see if voters approve the amendment, the state will pay stipends of $2,000 to teachers and $1,000 to support staff at K-12 schools for a third year in a row. The state budget and the new teacher pay plan both passed on the final day of a legislative session that also saw significant changes in car insurance regulation designed to lower some of the highest annual premiums in the nation. Other high-profile legislation stalled during the session. A bill to reinforce President Donald Trump's ban on diversity, equity and inclusion programs at public agencies and colleges failed after the Senate declined to take it up, even as similar bans gained traction in other Republican-led states. The bill had narrowly passed the House after a lengthy debate during which Black lawmakers called it 'racially oppressive.' Gov. Jeff Landry's push to more than double funding for his LA GATOR private school voucher program also failed. The House had approved the $93.5 million that Landry sought to sharply increase the number of families that could use public funds to send their children to private schools. During the session, the Senate limited funding on the vouchers to $43.5 million, and the House acquiesced. That funding will allow students already enrolled in private schools under the similar program to stay there, but there will not be any money for new families to join, as Landry had envisioned. Lawmakers approved another national conservative priority—the 'Make America Healthy Again' efforts led by Trump and health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The bill bans ultra-processed ingredients, such as artificial dyes and synthetic additives, in meals served in schools that receive state funding, starting in the 2027-28 school year. All bills that passed now go to Landry for his approval or veto. The budget bill would take effect on July governor has the power to veto individual items in it. As part of the budget, lawmakers agreed to spend $1.2 billion in one-time money from the state's Revenue Stabilization Trust Fund–which collects corporate and severance taxes–on transportation projects, economic development, water system upgrades, college maintenance and criminal justice infrastructure. They also approved using $1.1 billion in extra cash for short-term needs like infrastructure projects, debt payments and deposits into state savings accounts. That total includes last year's surplus, additional general fund dollars recognized by the state's revenue forecasting panel, and unspent agency money, either because fewer people used certain programs or agencies found other ways to cover costs. The stipends for the K-12 teachers and support workers will cost $199 million. The Senate also restored $30 million for high-dose tutoring programs that had been cut in the House's version. Legislative leaders were reluctant to expand spending in other areas, like for Landry's signature voucher plan to pay for more students to go to private schools. Some lawmakers are concerned that potential cuts in federal Medicaid spending and federal disaster-relief could force the state to absorb hundreds of millions in additional costs. The House approved a resolution on Thursday by Appropriations Chair Jack McFarland, R-Jonesboro, urging Congress not to cut Medicaid funding in a way that would hurt the state. Legislators from rural areas also expressed concern that expanding private school vouchers could eventually cut into support for public school district. Some lawmakers noted that the final level of spending on the LA GATOR program was not a cut but rather keeping funding flat. 'We always use the word cut,' Rep. Eric Tarver, R- Lake Charles, said. 'When really we mean it just isn't an increase.' The Legislature also passed a supplemental spending bill for the current fiscal year with about $130 million, mostly in lawmakers' earmarks for projects in their districts. Taking steps to try to bring down auto insurance rates was another major focus during the session. Landry signed a package aimed at lowering premiums by limiting certain lawsuits and increasing oversight of insurers. However, on Wednesday, he vetoed Senate Bill 111, which would have restricted when policyholders can sue insurers for bad faith. Landry said the bill risked making it easier for companies to deny claims, leaving policyholders with fewer options to challenge delays, especially after major disasters. Landry had said at the start of the session that he was seeking a balanced approach in trying to cut rates. He also persuaded lawmakers to give the insurance commissioner more power to block companies from charging auto insurance rates that appeared excessive. 'It was still chasing her': 9-year-old girl attacked by shark while swimming at Florida beach Judge invokes monarchy talk while mulling Trump's National Guard deployment Day one of Rocco's Jello Shot Challenge: LSU in third place Democratic New York lawmaker erupts with f-bombs at GOP Rep. Lawler on House floor Yosemite changes rulebook after trans pride flag hung on El Capitan Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
