Case 1:20-cv-09879-AJN Document 1 Filed 11/24/20 Page 1 of 38
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`----------------------------------------------------x
`E.G., individually and as parent and natural
`guardian of A.I. and L.I., minor children;
`M.M., individually and as parent and natural
`guardian of E.H., L.H., Ev.P., and E.P.,
`minor children; O.M., individually and as
`parent and natural guardian of A.M., a minor
`child; and COALITION FOR THE
`HOMELESS, on behalf of themselves and
`all others similarly situated,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`-against-
`
`
`THE CITY OF NEW YORK; NEW YORK
`CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION;
`RICHARD A. CARRANZA, as Chancellor of
`the New York City Department of Education;
`NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF
`SOCIAL SERVICES; STEVEN BANKS, as
`Commissioner of the New York City
`Department of Social Services; NEW YORK
`CITY DEPARTMENT OF HOMELESS
`SERVICES; JOSLYN CARTER, as
`Administrator of the New York City
`Department of Homeless Services; NEW
`YORK CITY HUMAN RESOURCES
`ADMINISTRATION; GARY JENKINS as
`Administrator of the New York City Human
`Resources Administration; NEW YORK
`CITY DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION
`TECHNOLOGY AND
`TELECOMMUNICATIONS; and JESSICA
`TISCH, as Commissioner of the New York
`City Department of Information Technology
`and Telecommunications,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`----------------------------------------------------x
`
`
`
`
`:
`Index No. ____________
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`: CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`: DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-09879-AJN Document 1 Filed 11/24/20 Page 2 of 38
`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`1.
`
`This action seeks to vindicate the rights of homeless children residing in New York
`
`City shelters to receive a sound basic education during the COVID-19 pandemic.
`
`2.
`
`The pandemic has transformed the school experience for New York City’s
`
`children. Since the virus necessitated the repeated shutdown of school buildings, attending school
`
`has not meant walking through a schoolhouse door every day. It has meant that every student is
`
`required to enter a “virtual classroom” by logging onto a tablet, computer, or other electronic
`
`device anywhere from one to five days per week. Once connected by videoconference, children
`
`see their teachers and classmates. Class is called to order and attendance is taken. Teachers jump
`
`into their lesson plans. Students raise their hands to answer questions or pose questions of their
`
`own. Classwork and homework are completed electronically and submitted through online
`
`platforms. The educational experience is imperfect, but it is still school.
`
`3.
`
`The children of Plaintiffs E.G., M.M., and O.M.1 have been denied this experience.
`
`So have thousands of other students residing in shelters throughout New York City. They lack
`
`access to the kind of reliable internet that would enable them to participate meaningfully in
`
`school—indeed, to enter school at all—because the City has failed to provide it.
`
`4.
`
`The City’s failure was perhaps understandable at the outset of the pandemic. The
`
`rapid onset of the COVID-19 pandemic plunged the City and its educational system into
`
`chaos. The abrupt closure of schools forced teachers and students alike to transition to remote
`
`
`1 Plaintiffs (other than Coalition for the Homeless) are identifying themselves in this pleading and all other public
`filings in this case through initials only. These Plaintiffs are parents of minor children, all of whom are homeless as
`defined by the McKinney-Vento Act Homeless Assistance Act (the “McKinney-Vento Act”). See 42 U.S.C.
`§ 11434a(2). The McKinney-Vento Act, and the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act incorporated therein,
`protect the privacy rights of homeless children. See 42 U.S.C. § 11432(g)(3)(G); 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b); see also P.M.
`v. Evans-Brant Cent. Sch. Dist., 2008 WL 4379490, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2008) (“[S]ince a parent must proceed
`on behalf of a minor child, the protection afforded to the minor would be eviscerated unless the parent was also
`permitted to proceed using initials.”).
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-09879-AJN Document 1 Filed 11/24/20 Page 3 of 38
`
`
`
`learning with essentially no preparation. And the City made some initial efforts to provide children
`
`residing in shelters with technology to facilitate their attendance in the virtual classroom.
`
`5.
`
`For months, however, it has been clear that the City’s initial efforts have fallen short.
`
`With no reliable internet service for residents at numerous shelters throughout the City, Plaintiffs’
`
`children have routinely been unable to connect to their virtual classroom and participate in school.
`
`The City’s ongoing failure to provide Plaintiffs and other members of the Class (as defined in
`
`paragraph 116 below) with reliable internet access—eight months into the pandemic—violates the
`
`law and requires legal redress in the form of an injunction.
`
`6.
`
`The New York Constitution guarantees a “sound basic education” for each and every
`
`child living in the state. N.Y. Const. art. XI, § 1; see also Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. New
`
`York, 655 N.E.2d 661, 665 (1995). New York statutory law further ensures that indigent children
`
`such as Plaintiffs receive the necessary tools for attendance at school. N.Y. Educ. L. § 3209(7).
`
`7.
`
`Federal law provides additional, independent protections. Through the McKinney-
`
`Vento Act, Congress sought to eradicate the barriers to education that arise when a child suffers
`
`from homelessness and to ensure that homeless children can enroll in, attend, and succeed in
`
`school. 42 U.S.C. §§ 11431-11435. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
`
`commands the same result by guaranteeing the equal protection of the laws, including in the realm
`
`of education. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.
`
`8.
`
`The City’s ongoing failure to provide reliable internet service at shelters throughout
`
`the City violates each of these constitutional and statutory obligations. Indeed, the Mayor of New
`
`York has publicly admitted that reliable internet access is a necessity at all shelters, declaring that
`
`he has instructed City officials to begin installation of “WiFi”—that is, wireless internet access via
`
`routers or access points that are connected to a building’s wired internet connection—in all of the
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-09879-AJN Document 1 Filed 11/24/20 Page 4 of 38
`
`
`
`City’s shelters. But City officials have refused to articulate any clear timeline for meeting this
`
`directive. Instead, they have stated vaguely that WiFi installation will be complete at some shelters
`
`“this winter,” and at the vast majority of the City’s other shelters in the summer of 2021—that is,
`
`after the current school year is over. And the same officials have described this unacceptable result
`
`as an “aggressive goal,” suggesting doubts that it will actually be achieved.
`
`9. Ultimately, an education delayed is an education denied. It is neither acceptable nor
`
`lawful to require Plaintiffs and other Class members to accept a lack of genuine access to the
`
`virtual classroom for most, if not all, of the 2020-21 school year. This is especially so now that
`
`the City, just days prior to the filing of this lawsuit, has indefinitely suspended in-person education
`
`across the City’s public schools due to increases in positive COVID-19 cases. Plaintiffs
`
`accordingly seek, by this class action, expedited redress for the City’s ongoing violation of its
`
`constitutional and statutory duties to provide the basic educational access the City’s most
`
`vulnerable residents have been persistently denied since the outset of the pandemic.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`10.
`
`Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court.
`
`11. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, on the ground that this
`
`action arises under the laws of the United States.
`
`12. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) over
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims of violations of the New York Constitution, Article XI, § 1, and New York State
`
`Education Law § 3209.
`
`13. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), on the ground
`
`that each of the Defendants resides in this District.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-09879-AJN Document 1 Filed 11/24/20 Page 5 of 38
`
`
`
`PARTIES
`
`14. Plaintiff E.G. lives in a DHS-run family shelter in Harlem. She is a single parent of
`
`four children and a survivor of domestic violence. E.G.’s children, A.I. and L.I., are enrolled in
`
`DOE elementary and middle schools, respectively, in Manhattan, while the youngest are too young
`
`to enroll in school. Since March 2020, when full-time in-person schooling was shut down in New
`
`York City, E.G.’s children have attended school remotely using the devices provided to them by
`
`DOE. When given the option of sending her children to school for part-time, in-person learning
`
`in September, E.G. chose to keep them home because she did not want to risk exposing them to
`
`the virus.
`
`15. Plaintiff M.M. lives in an HRA-run domestic violence family shelter. Four of
`
`Plaintiff’s five children, E.H., L.H., Ev.P., and E.P., attend the same DOE school in Manhattan.
`
`M.M. is a survivor of domestic violence and lives alone in a shelter with her five children. Since
`
`March 2020, when full-time in-person schooling was shut down in New York City, M.M.’s
`
`children have attended school remotely using the devices provided to them by DOE.
`
`16. Plaintiff O.M. lives in a DHS-run shelter in Brooklyn with his wife and son, A.M.
`
`A.M. is enrolled as a student in a DOE public school. A.M. attended a middle school across the
`
`street from the family’s shelter at the beginning of the pandemic. Since March 2020, A.M. has
`
`been accessing his education through remote-only learning due to O.M.’s medical conditions,
`
`which put him at risk for severe complications if he were to contract COVID-19.
`
`17. Plaintiff COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS is a not-for-profit organization
`
`focused on advocating for, and providing services to, homeless individuals and families in New
`
`York City.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-09879-AJN Document 1 Filed 11/24/20 Page 6 of 38
`
`
`
`18. Defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK (“New York City” or the “City”) is a
`
`municipality of the State of New York, and is responsible for, among other things, providing a
`
`sound basic education to the children of New York City, including Plaintiffs and other Class
`
`members.
`
`19. Defendant NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (“DOE”) is an
`
`agency of New York City. DOE has control over educational matters affecting students in New
`
`York City, and is responsible for the general supervision and management of the City’s public
`
`schools. DOE is responsible for ensuring its schools comply with federal, state, and local laws.
`
`20. Defendant RICHARD A. CARRANZA is the Chancellor of DOE. Defendant
`
`Carranza is responsible for the day-to-day operations of both DOE and all New York City public
`
`schools. Defendant oversees the education of approximately 1.1 million students in over 1,800
`
`schools throughout New York City, including those students residing in the City’s shelters.
`
`Defendant Carranza has developed DOE’s policies and plans to address the COVID-19 pandemic
`
`and its impact on New York City’s public schools. Defendant Carranza is sued in his official
`
`capacity.
`
`21. Defendant NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES (“DSS”)
`
`is an agency of New York City. DSS is responsible for the majority of the City’s social services
`
`programs, including oversight and management of the New York City Human Resources
`
`Administration and the New York City Department of Homeless Services.
`
`22. Defendant STEVEN BANKS is the Commissioner of DSS. Defendant Banks is
`
`responsible for the day-to-day operations of DSS, which include, among other things, oversight
`
`and management of DHS and HRA. Together with Defendants Carter and Jenkins, Defendant
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-09879-AJN Document 1 Filed 11/24/20 Page 7 of 38
`
`
`
`Banks has developed policies for DHS and HRA and plans to address the COVID-19 pandemic
`
`and its impact on New York City’s shelters. Defendant Banks is sued in his official capacity.
`
`23. Defendant NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION
`
`(“HRA”) is an agency of New York City. HRA provides services to indigent New Yorkers by
`
`providing food assistance, rental assistance, and other benefits, and is responsible for managing
`
`the City’s domestic violence shelters. HRA operates approximately 55 domestic violence shelters
`
`throughout New York City. On information and belief, approximately 50 of these shelters house
`
`individuals with children.
`
`24. Defendant GARY JENKINS is the Administrator of HRA. Defendant Jenkins is
`
`responsible for the day-to-day operations of HRA, which include, among other things,
`
`administering the City’s domestic violence shelter system for homeless adults and families with
`
`minor children. Defendant Jenkins oversees approximately 55 confidential shelters, which house
`
`2,514 emergency beds. Together with Defendant Banks, Defendant Jenkins has developed HRA’s
`
`policies and plans to address the COVID-19 pandemic and their impact on New York City’s
`
`domestic violence shelters. Defendant Jenkins is sued in his official capacity.
`
`25. Defendant NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HOMELESS SERVICES
`
`(“DHS”) is an agency of New York City. DHS provides services to the City’s homeless and is
`
`responsible for managing the City’s shelters. DHS operates approximately 450 shelters throughout
`
`New York City. On information and belief, 247 of these shelters house families with children.
`
`26. Defendant JOSLYN CARTER is the Administrator of DHS. Defendant Carter is
`
`responsible for the day-to-day operations of DHS, which include, among other things,
`
`administering the City’s shelter system for homeless adults and families. Defendant Carter
`
`oversees approximately 450 New York City shelters, 247 of which house nearly 10,000 homeless
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-09879-AJN Document 1 Filed 11/24/20 Page 8 of 38
`
`
`
`families. Together with Defendant Banks, Defendant Carter has developed DHS’s policies and
`
`plans to address the COVID-19 pandemic and their impact on New York City’s shelters.
`
`Defendant Carter is sued in her official capacity.
`
`27. Defendant NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF
`
`INFORMATION
`
`TECHNOLOGY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS (“DoITT”) is an agency of New York City.
`
`DoITT is responsible for the sustained, efficient, and effective delivery of information technology
`
`services, infrastructure, and telecommunications to residents of New York City. DoITT oversees
`
`the City’s use of existing and emerging technologies in its delivery of services to the public and
`
`helps facilitate the technology needs of other New York City agencies.
`
`28. Defendant JESSICA TISCH is the Commissioner of DoITT. Defendant Tisch is
`
`responsible for the day-to-day operations of DoITT, which include, among other things, providing
`
`for the delivery of IT services, infrastructure, and telecommunications to New York City residents.
`
`Together with Defendants Banks, Carter, and Jenkins, Defendant Tisch is responsible for the
`
`provision, installation, and maintenance of internet services at the City’s shelters. Defendant Tisch
`
`is sued in her official capacity.
`
`29. Defendants New York City, DOE, DSS, DHS, HRA, DoITT, Carranza, Banks,
`
`Jenkins, Carter, and Tisch are referred to herein as “Defendants.”
`
`30. Defendants have, at all relevant times, been acting or purporting to act under color
`
`of the law of the State of New York.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`I.
`
`COVID-19 Forces New York City Schools to Close
`
`31.
`
`In or around December 2019, COVID-19, an acute respiratory disease caused by the
`
`novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, began spreading in various locations around the world,
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-09879-AJN Document 1 Filed 11/24/20 Page 9 of 38
`
`
`
`principally China and Europe. COVID-19 has spread to 215 countries and territories since its
`
`initial emergence. As of the time of this filing, more than 12 million people have contracted
`
`COVID-19 and more than 550,000 people globally have died from it. So far, there is no readily
`
`available vaccine or effective anti-viral treatment for COVID-19.
`
`32.
`
` On January 21, 2020, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention confirmed
`
`the first case of COVID-19 in the United States. Shortly thereafter, on January 30, 2020, the World
`
`Health Organization declared a global health emergency, identifying COVID-19 as a “public
`
`health emergency of international concern.” The next day, the U.S. government declared the
`
`COVID-19 outbreak a public health emergency.
`
`33. As the number of COVID-19 cases shot up globally in March 2020, the New York
`
`City metropolitan area became the epicenter of the outbreak in the United States. On March 1,
`
`2020, New York State confirmed its first COVID-19 case. Days later, on March 3, 2020, a second
`
`case of the virus was confirmed in Westchester County. By March 31, 2020, New York State
`
`reported 75,795 COVID-19 cases and 1,550 deaths.
`
`34. On March 15, 2020, Mayor de Blasio ordered the New York City public schools to
`
`shut down in response to the pandemic. More than one million students in the City’s public
`
`schools, including the estimated 114,000 homeless students who attend those schools,2 were
`
`required to continue their education remotely. Teachers and students quickly shifted from
`
`traditional in-person classroom learning to an entirely online program, as best as they were able.
`
`35. When the City’s public schools moved entirely online, DOE made plans to provide
`
`remote instruction to students. DOE created an online platform through which students could
`
`
`2 The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act requires that public schools ask incoming students about their
`housing status; at the end of last year, New York City reported that 114,000 school-aged children met the McKinney-
`Vento definition of homelessness: lacking a “fixed, regular and adequate nighttime residence.” 42 U.S.C. § 11434a(2).
`Not all 114,000 school-aged children live in a homeless shelter.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-09879-AJN Document 1 Filed 11/24/20 Page 10 of 38
`
`
`
`access their remote classes. When online, students would participate virtually with their instructors
`
`and classmates, download homework and other assignments, and obtain other educational
`
`resources while not in the physical classroom. An effective and reliable internet connection was
`
`thus necessary to attend and participate in school.
`
`36.
`
`In March 2020, aware that the dramatically increased importance of internet access
`
`would erect an educational barrier to the City’s underprivileged children, Defendant Carranza
`
`announced the City’s plan to distribute iPad devices to students in need. Defendant Carranza stated
`
`that students residing in shelters would be prioritized.
`
`37. DOE eventually distributed over 300,000 devices to New York City students who
`
`did not have a device at home that would allow them to attend class virtually.
`
`38. DOE also contracted with T-Mobile, a provider of cellular technology services, to
`
`equip the devices with cellular plans that would enable them to connect to the internet, assuming
`
`adequate cellular service where the device is located.
`
`II.
`
`COVID-19’s Impact on Homeless Children’s Education
`
`39. Even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, children residing in shelters faced significant
`
`challenges. For these children, school provides an essential source of stability, offering not only
`
`an education, but also meals, physical and mental health services, and a support network of
`
`teachers and administrators.
`
`40. When the City’s education program moved to a remote format, many students,
`
`especially students living in shelters, were left without the necessary technology to access their
`
`classes. While DOE reacted by distributing iPad devices equipped with cellular plans, problems
`
`with that solution quickly emerged and have yet to be remedied.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-09879-AJN Document 1 Filed 11/24/20 Page 11 of 38
`
`
`
`41. As early as March 26, 2020, reports emerged that children residing in shelters were
`
`consistently unable to access their remote classes. The problems were twofold. First, the T-Mobile
`
`cellular service provided with the iPad devices distributed by DOE was plagued by rampant “dead
`
`zones.” At the Flatlands Family Residence in Brooklyn, for example, T-Mobile’s services did not
`
`provide sufficiently robust cellular coverage to enable reliable access to the internet. Second, at
`
`the Flatlands shelter and many others throughout the City, staff refused or were unable to provide
`
`access to existing WiFi networks utilized by shelter staff.
`
`42. Plaintiffs and other Class members experienced these impediments to school
`
`attendance virtually from the outset of the school closures mandated in response to the pandemic.
`
`Plaintiffs reported their children were unable to do simple tasks on the DOE-provided iPads, such
`
`as downloading homework. Spotty service meant that engaging in real-time learning was almost
`
`impossible. Although DOE arranged for a support hotline to assist students and parents with
`
`technical support, when Plaintiffs and other Class Members engaged with that hotline, or with
`
`shelter staff and school administration, they were unable to address the underlying problem and
`
`thus unable to attend school, a right they have under the law.
`
`Plaintiff E.G.
`
`43. Since full-time in-person schooling was shut down in March 2020, E.G.’s children
`
`have attended school remotely. When given the option of sending them to school for part-time,
`
`in-person learning in September, E.G. chose to keep them home to avoid exposing them to the
`
`virus.
`
`44. The DOE-provided iPads, however, have not worked consistently, and E.G.’s
`
`daughters have been unable to fully participate in school. E.G. called the DOE support hotline and
`
`spoke to staff at her daughters’ school, but no one was able to provide long-term solutions. The
`
`shelter staff provided E.G. with the shelter’s WiFi password, but the service did not consistently
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-09879-AJN Document 1 Filed 11/24/20 Page 12 of 38
`
`
`
`cover the needs in the family’s living space. E.G. set up a hotspot to connect to the internet by
`
`using her cell phone, but only one of her daughters could use it at a time, and the signal was often
`
`not strong enough to allow either of her daughters to participate in classes on Zoom, a video
`
`platform that requires a significant amount of bandwidth to operate properly. Additionally, E.G.
`
`often ran out of data, which prevented anyone from accessing the hotspot. E.G. was able to obtain
`
`computers for her daughters, but, without reliable internet service, her children were still unable
`
`to attend school.
`
`45. Since September, E.G. has called the DOE support hotline between eight and ten
`
`times, and her daughters are still unable to reliably connect to the internet to attend school. DOE
`
`has not offered to replace the iPads or the cellular carrier for the iPads.
`
`46. The elementary school attended by L.I., E.G.’s 11-year-old daughter, has threatened
`
`to bring a child protective matter in Family Court against E.G. based on the issues with L.I.’s
`
`attendance. This threat was made despite the fact E.G. is in constant communication with her
`
`daughters’ schools when they have issues signing into class. Despite making every effort to engage
`
`her children with school, E.G. has been threatened with punishment, and is concerned that her
`
`daughters will need to repeat fifth and sixth grade due to the internet access issues plaguing their
`
`education during the pandemic.
`
`Plaintiff M.M.
`
`47. M.M.’s four school-age children have been using DOE-provided iPads since March
`
`2020 when school was closed due to the pandemic. The only way her children can currently attend
`
`school remotely is by using the cellular-enabled iPads, as the shelter does not have broadband
`
`internet or WiFi. Despite help from the elementary school’s technology teacher, M.M.’s children
`
`have never been able to consistently use the iPads. They are sometimes barely able to find service
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-09879-AJN Document 1 Filed 11/24/20 Page 13 of 38
`
`
`
`long enough to download their homework assignments. Starting this semester, the schools
`
`expected the children to spend more time online participating in live classes via Zoom, which has
`
`made the ineffective iPads even less helpful than in the spring. For example, earlier this month,
`
`none of M.M.’s children were able to connect to the internet at any time for two consecutive days.
`
`48. During a recent parent-teacher conference, M.M. was told that her children had
`
`already missed so much instruction that they might have to repeat this year of school. M.M. was
`
`not willing to send her children to school in person; as a single mother of five, contracting COVID-
`
`19 presents a heightened risk.
`
`Plaintiff O.M.
`
`49. Plaintiff O.M. lives in a DHS-run shelter in Brooklyn with his wife and son, A.M.
`
`50. At the beginning of the pandemic, A.M. attended a middle school across the street
`
`from the family’s shelter. He has been engaged in remote-only learning since that time due to
`
`O.M.’s medical conditions, which put him at risk of severe complications if he were to contract
`
`COVID-19.
`
`51. A.M.’s middle school provided him with a Chromebook computer so he could
`
`complete his schoolwork. However, because the family’s shelter does not have WiFi, A.M. had
`
`to use O.M.’s cell phone as a hotspot, a solution which worked only intermittently. A.M.’s school
`
`gave him an iPad with cellular service, but it too did not work consistently.
`
`52. At the beginning of the current school year, A.M.’s new high school provided him
`
`with another Chromebook computer, but the family still had to rely on O.M.’s smartphone as a
`
`hotspot, which again meant internet access was intermittent. More recently, DOE provided an
`
`iPad with Verizon cellular service, but A.M. is still unable to consistently access the internet; he
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-09879-AJN Document 1 Filed 11/24/20 Page 14 of 38
`
`
`
`loses his internet connection during class at least once a day, and sometimes many times a day. In
`
`addition, the DOE devices block certain websites he needs to access to complete his schoolwork.
`
`53. Plaintiff O.M. has contacted the DOE support line many times over the past few
`
`months, but the issues have not improved. The shelter staff recently told O.M. that the earliest
`
`they will have WiFi access from the shelter is next year.
`
`54. A.M. has an Individualized Education Plan, which mandates special education
`
`services, including specialized instruction, due to his disability. However, without the ability to
`
`consistently engage with this instruction online, O.M. is concerned A.M. will continue to fall
`
`further behind.
`
`55. Plaintiffs’ experiences have not been unique. Upon information and belief, families
`
`in shelters across the City have been forced to take drastic measures such as standing outside at
`
`the nearest “LinkNYC” sidewalk WiFi kiosk, or sitting in a fast-food restaurant, in order to find a
`
`sufficiently reliable internet connection to download schoolwork. Attending class virtually while
`
`standing on the sidewalk or sitting in a restaurant has not been a realistic possibility.
`
`56. There are more than 200 shelters serving families with children in the DHS system.
`
`According to DHS, most of these shelters do not have WiFi available for residents.
`
`57. These internet access issues also exist for young adults between the ages of 18 and
`
`21 who are enrolled in public school. These young adults, some of whom may reside with their
`
`parents in the adult family or single adult shelter systems, may also reside in the DHS-run single
`
`adult shelter system where they are sharing living space with many other adults. Although a vast
`
`majority of single adults have been moved to hotels to de-densify the congregate shelter settings,
`
`they usually share a small room with another adult and are not guaranteed WiFi or internet access
`
`to attend school.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-09879-AJN Document 1 Filed 11/24/20 Page 15 of 38
`
`
`
`58. There are approximately 50 domestic violence shelters serving families with children
`
`in the HRA system. According to HRA, most of these shelters do not have WiFi available for
`
`residents.
`
`III. Even with Prior Notice of the Problem, Defendants Fail to Provide Adequate
`Internet Access in Advance of the 2020-2021 School Year
`
`59. As early as the spring of 2020, Coalition for the Homeless conveyed its concerns to
`
`representatives of DOE and DHS about the lack of adequate internet access for school-age children
`
`residing in shelters.
`
`60. Even prior to the closing of schools in March 2020, DHS indicated to Plaintiff
`
`Coalition for the Homeless that it planned to install WiFi at both the Flatlands shelter and the
`
`Jamaica Residence, another shelter where families with school-age children have experienced
`
`internet connectivity issues. DHS was notified that, in the course of Plaintiff Coalition for the
`
`Homeless’s efforts to provide online after-school programming at both residences, it became clear
`
`that cellular-based internet service was inconsistent at best at both locations. On March 20,
`
`Plaintiff Coalition for the Homeless and other advocates sent a letter calling for students who are
`
`homeless to have access to Regional Enrichment Centers.
`
`61.
`
`In late May 2020, The Legal Aid Society, on behalf of students enrolled in a child
`
`care service run by Plaintiff Coalition for the Homeless, contacted DOE-designated technology
`
`staff to follow up on support requests that families residing at Flatlands had submitted but had not
`
`been addressed. On June 11, DOE confirmed via telephone its knowledge that many families were
`
`unable to connect to the internet. By July 6, however, the first day of DOE’s summer school
`
`program, no improvement had been made.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-09879-AJN Document 1 Filed 11/24/20 Page 16 of 38
`
`
`
`62. On July 7, 2020, The Legal Aid Society notified DOE’s Office of Students in
`
`Temporary Housing of the internet connectivity issues at the Flatlands shelter. In response, DOE
`
`indicated that it had received approval that morning from DHS to coordinate a T-Mobile site visit.
`
`63.
`
`In or around the same time, Plaintiff Coalition for the Homeless and The Legal Aid
`
`Society jointly alerted DHS to the problems students in its shelters were experiencing with
`
`connecting their iPads via the T-Mobile service. Plaintiff Coalition for the Homeless and The
`
`Legal Aid Society continued to raise this issue during weekly calls with DHS throughout the
`
`summer in anticipation of the 2020-2021 school year. Not until August 28, however, did DOE
`
`schedule the site visit from T-Mobile that it had promised on July 7. And even then, technicians
`
`only checked signal strength outside of the building. Despite T-Mobile’s apparent effort that day
`
`to “boost” service, nothing improved for families residing in the shelter.
`
`64. Weekly discussions continued between Defendant DHS, Plaintiff Coalition for the
`
`Homeless, and The Legal Aid Society through the summer and into the fall. Defendant DHS
`
`insisted that the iPads previously distributed by DOE were an appropriate solution to the
`
`connectivity problem, despite extensive and persistent reports of cellular dead zones. Defendant
`
`DHS declined to assess the feasibility of installing WiFi in the City’s shelters, in the face of
`
`repeated urging by Plaintiff Coalition for the Homeless.
`
`65. At no time in the course of these discussions did Defendants contest that some or all
`
`of the 2020-2021 school year was likely to be conducted remotely. Nor did Defendants contest
`
`that reliable internet access is a prerequisite to participation in remote schooling. Nonetheless,
`
`despite their knowledge that cellular-based internet service was inadequate, at no point prior to the
`
`2020-2021 school year did Defendants facilitate the installation