E.G. v. City of New York
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-09879
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In E.G. v. City of New York, Judge Nathan denied ending the preliminary-injunction motion, granted expedited discovery, and ordered an evidentiary hearing.
Parents and school-age children living in New York City homeless shelters, the Coalition for the Homeless, and the City defendants. The order required expedited discovery and an evidentiary hearing but did not yet require the City to provide a preliminary injunction or a specific form of internet access.
What happened
In E.G. v. City of New York, parents of school-age children living in New York City homeless shelters and the Coalition for the Homeless argued that unreliable internet access prevented children from participating in remote school during the COVID-19 pandemic. They claimed this violated state and federal laws and constitutional rights.
The City argued that it was addressing the problem through internet-connected iPads, replacement devices using another cellular provider, troubleshooting, planned wireless internet installations, and other possible services. The City also argued that the claims failed legally and that the preliminary-injunction request should be decided without discovery or a hearing.
The court held that the plaintiffs had stated claims under New York Education Law § 3209 and that factual disputes required expedited discovery and an evidentiary hearing. Judge Nathan denied the City’s request to end the preliminary-injunction motion on the existing record and granted the plaintiffs’ request for expedited discovery; the court did not yet decide whether to issue an injunction.
The detailed version
- E.G. v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-09879
- John Cronan
- Dec. 30, 2020
Background
New York City public schools had largely stopped in-person instruction during the COVID-19 pandemic, requiring students to attend school remotely. The opinion states that approximately 114,000 children living in homeless shelters attended the City’s public schools and that most of the approximately 200 shelters serving families with children initially lacked wireless internet access.
The Department of Education provided some students with iPads and unlimited cellular service. Students reported that the devices often could not connect reliably through T-Mobile service, and some continued to report problems after receiving devices using Verizon service. The City also began planning to install wireless internet in all shelters, but officials said that process might not be completed until summer 2021. The City conducted surveys, provided technical assistance, and considered other options, including access to designated wireless locations and individualized plans.
The named plaintiffs said their children continued to have difficulty connecting to online classes. The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction—a temporary court order issued before the case is finally decided—requiring reliable wireless internet access in shelters housing school-age children. They also requested expedited discovery and an evidentiary hearing. The City opposed discovery and argued that the claims failed as a matter of law.
Court’s analysis
The court accepted the complaint’s allegations as true for purposes of addressing the City’s legal arguments and drew reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs’ favor. The court concluded that at least one claim survived and therefore did not need to decide the viability of the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims or federal statutory claim at that stage.
Under New York Education Law § 3209(6)(b), school districts must review and revise policies or practices that create barriers to homeless children’s school attendance or receipt of comparable services. The court held that the plaintiffs adequately alleged that requiring remote learning without providing a reliable way to access the internet created such a barrier. The court stated that the City’s efforts to provide cellular service and troubleshoot connectivity problems did not eliminate the claim because factual disputes remained about whether those efforts actually solved the students’ problems.
The court also held that the plaintiffs adequately stated a claim under § 3209(7), which requires public welfare officials to provide indigent children with clothing, shoes, books, food, transportation, and other necessities needed to attend school. The court concluded that, during predominantly remote schooling, reliable internet access could qualify as a necessary means of attending school. It rejected the City’s argument that the plaintiffs’ claim failed because the statute did not specifically require installation of wireless internet in every shelter or require a particular accommodation.
Disposition
The court DENIED the defendants’ request to deny the preliminary-injunction motion based on the existing record. It GRANTED the plaintiffs’ request for expedited discovery and directed the parties to work with Magistrate Judge Freeman on a discovery schedule and a proposed week for an evidentiary hearing. The court stated that the remaining issues, including whether an injunction should issue and what its scope should be, required discovery and a hearing. This order did not itself grant a preliminary injunction. Judge Alison J. Nathan presided over the order.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.