Justia Education Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves claims brought by the parents of a minor child, P.F., who was allegedly bullied, harassed, and assaulted by another student at Clay Elementary School during the 2022–2023 school year due to his sexual orientation. The parents assert that the school district and three employees were aware of these incidents but failed to protect P.F. or notify his parents, instead blaming P.F. or dismissing the other student’s conduct. After removing P.F. from the school and filing reports with authorities, the parents pursued legal action, first filing a complaint with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission (ICRC), which issued a right-to-sue letter. The parents then filed an amended petition in the Iowa District Court for Polk County, asserting three claims under the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA) and three common law tort claims.The defendants moved to dismiss all claims, arguing that the heightened pleading requirements and qualified immunity provisions of the Iowa Municipal Tort Claims Act (IMTCA), as amended by Iowa Code section 670.4A, applied. The Iowa District Court for Polk County denied the motion, finding that the ICRA claims were not torts subject to the IMTCA and that the common law claims met the IMTCA’s pleading standard. The defendants appealed, asserting a right to immediate appeal under section 670.4A(4).The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the appeal and held that the IMTCA’s qualified immunity and heightened pleading requirements do not apply to claims brought under the ICRA or to common law tort claims, as clarified in Doe v. Western Dubuque Community School District. Because section 670.4A did not apply to any of the claims, the defendants were not entitled to an appeal as of right. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction and remanded the case. View "Fogle v. Clay Elementary School-Southeast Polk Community School District" on Justia Law

A.P. was a student in Pearland Independent School District who, after a period of homeschooling, returned to the District and began experiencing significant attendance problems. Despite passing her classes with targeted intervention, her absenteeism persisted, and she failed multiple advanced courses that her parents insisted she take against the District’s advice. Her teachers consistently attributed her academic struggles to poor attendance rather than any suspected learning disability. The District recommended less challenging courses and additional support programs, but her parents declined these options and continued to excuse her absences for non-serious reasons.After withdrawing A.P. from the District and homeschooling her, her parents requested a due process hearing, alleging that the District failed to identify and evaluate her for learning disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA). The District offered to conduct an evaluation, but her parents refused consent. Instead, they obtained an independent evaluation, which found some learning disabilities but lacked classroom observations and teacher input. The District determined it did not have enough information to assess her eligibility for special education services. A Special Education Hearing Officer found no IDEA violation, and the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas affirmed, concluding that the District met its child find obligation and that A.P.’s academic issues were primarily due to absenteeism.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case, applying de novo review to mixed questions of law and fact and clear error review to factual findings. The Fifth Circuit held that the District’s child find duty was not triggered by A.P.’s absenteeism or poor grades alone, and that her parents failed to prove she qualified for special education under IDEA. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "A.P. v. Pearland Independent School District" on Justia Law

Several former students and their parents challenged a school district’s policy restricting the length of male students’ hair, alleging that the policy constituted race and sex discrimination and violated constitutional and statutory rights. The school district amended its hair policy during the 2019–2020 school year, removing language that previously allowed certain hairstyles, such as cornrows or locs, if they complied with other requirements. The plaintiffs argued that the enforcement of this policy infringed upon their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment, Title VI, Title IX, and Texas law.The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. During discovery, the plaintiffs sought to depose the superintendent and a former board president. The school district moved for a protective order, asserting legislative privilege to prevent inquiries into the subjective motivations of board members regarding the hair policy. The district court partially denied the motion, establishing a procedure where deponents could assert the privilege but would still be required to answer, with disputed portions of testimony marked confidential for later review. The district court declined to rule on the privilege’s applicability until specific questions were asked during depositions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed whether the district court erred in its handling of the legislative privilege and the protective order. The Fifth Circuit held that none of the appellants—including the school district, the board of trustees, and the individual former officials—had standing to appeal the district court’s order because the privilege holders had not personally invoked the privilege or participated adequately in the proceedings. As a result, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and also dismissed the pending motion to stay as moot. View "Arnold v. Barbers Hill Independent School District" on Justia Law

A group of student and parent organizations, along with individual students, brought suit against state and city officials responsible for New York City’s public education system. They alleged that admissions and screening policies, curriculum content, and a lack of teacher diversity in the city’s schools discriminated against Black and Latino students, resulting in segregation, unequal educational opportunities, and poor educational outcomes. The plaintiffs claimed these practices violated the New York State Constitution’s Education Article, the State Equal Protection Clause, and the New York State Human Rights Law, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to eliminate admissions screens and address alleged discrimination.The Supreme Court, New York County, dismissed the complaint, finding the issues nonjusticiable as they involved educational policy decisions reserved for the legislature. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified that decision, holding that the claims were justiciable and that the complaint stated viable causes of action under the Education Article, the Equal Protection Clause, and, as to the City defendants, the Human Rights Law. The Appellate Division granted leave to appeal and certified the question of whether its order was properly made.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the sufficiency of the complaint under the standard for motions to dismiss. The Court held that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead a deprivation of a sound basic education, as their allegations of deficient resources and discriminatory policies were vague, conclusory, and did not demonstrate a district-wide failure or causation. The Court also found that the equal protection claim lacked sufficient allegations of intentional discrimination, and the Human Rights Law claim was not supported by specific facts. The Court of Appeals modified the Appellate Division’s order and dismissed the complaint, answering the certified question in the negative. View "IntegrateNYC, Inc. v State of New York" on Justia Law

A student, E.A., resided in the Pittsfield School District, which operates its own middle and high school. E.A. applied to and was accepted by Prospect Mountain School, an open enrollment public school located outside the district. When Prospect Mountain requested tuition payment from the Pittsfield School District for E.A.’s attendance, the district refused, asserting that because it had not adopted the provisions of RSA chapter 194-D, it was not obligated to pay tuition for students attending open enrollment schools outside its district.E.A.’s parents appealed the superintendent’s decision to the Pittsfield School Board, which denied their request. They then appealed to the New Hampshire State Board of Education. After a hearing, a hearing officer recommended upholding the school board’s decision, reasoning that the district was not required to pay tuition unless it had formally adopted an open enrollment program. However, after oral argument, the State Board rejected this recommendation. The State Board interpreted the statute to require a resident district to pay tuition for students attending an open enrollment school in another district, regardless of whether the sending district had adopted the statute. The Pittsfield School District’s motion for rehearing was denied, and it appealed to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the statutory language and recent legislative amendments. The court held that under RSA chapter 194-D, a sending school district must pay tuition to an open enrollment receiving school in another district, even if the sending district has not adopted an open enrollment program. The court found that the statutory scheme and recent clarifying amendments support this interpretation. The court affirmed the State Board’s decision. View "Appeal of Pittsfield Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

After their property in DeKalb County was annexed by the City of Atlanta, two parents sought to enroll their children in Atlanta Public Schools (APS). APS, however, denied enrollment, citing a 2021 Georgia law (SB 209) that prevents the expansion of APS boundaries to include newly annexed areas unless specifically authorized. The City of Atlanta had approved the annexation and expressed its intent for the APS boundaries to expand accordingly, but APS maintained that SB 209 prohibited such an extension.The parents and the City of Atlanta filed a petition for declaratory and injunctive relief against the State of Georgia, arguing that SB 209 was unconstitutional under the Georgia Constitution’s Single Subject Rule. The case was initially filed in Fulton County, transferred to DeKalb County, and then refiled in Fulton County against the State after the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the DeKalb action. The DeKalb County School District (DCSD) was allowed to intervene as a plaintiff. The trial court denied motions to dismiss, found that the plaintiffs had standing, determined there was a justiciable controversy, and ruled that SB 209 violated the Single Subject Rule, granting declaratory and injunctive relief to the plaintiffs.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed whether the trial court had jurisdiction to grant relief. The Supreme Court of Georgia held that the plaintiffs failed to establish an actual or justiciable controversy with the State, as the alleged harm stemmed from APS’s actions, not from any enforcement by the State. Because the dispute did not involve the parties before the court, the Supreme Court of Georgia vacated the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the petition. View "PILATO v. STATE OF GEORGIA" on Justia Law

Two elementary school students with intellectual disabilities, through their legal guardians, and a disability advocacy organization challenged the educational placement practices of a public school district. The plaintiffs alleged that the district automatically assigned students with intellectual disabilities to self-contained special education classes in a limited number of designated schools, based solely on IQ-based categories, without conducting individualized assessments to determine whether a general education classroom with supplementary services might be more appropriate for each student. The plaintiffs claimed this practice violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (RA).After the students’ parents pursued administrative due process hearings under the IDEA, hearing officers dismissed their ADA claims for lack of jurisdiction and, in one case, denied a hearing on the IDEA claim due to lack of parental consent for services. The other student’s hearing officer found that the district had made an appropriate individualized placement. The plaintiffs, joined by the advocacy organization, then filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and similarly situated students. The district court dismissed all claims, construing the complaint as seeking only placement in neighborhood schools—a form of relief previously held unavailable under Tenth Circuit precedent—and dismissed the RA claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed. The court held that the plaintiffs’ allegations that the district failed to make individualized educational placement determinations stated plausible claims under the IDEA, ADA, and Section 504. The court also found that exhaustion of administrative remedies for the RA claim would have been futile. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Jacobs v. Salt Lake City School District" on Justia Law

A sixth-grade student with behavioral disabilities, X.M., attended Mount Pleasant Public Schools under an Individualized Education Plan that allowed him to use a breakroom to manage stress. In the fall of 2021, after a student reported that X.M. had brought a gun to school, school officials, including special-education teacher Jason Russell, searched X.M.’s locker and questioned him, but found nothing. The next day, after X.M. made a comment about not having his gun at school, officials again searched his belongings. According to X.M., Russell then ordered him to pull down his trousers and lift his shirt in a search for a gun. Days later, after X.M. was suspended for violence, he claimed Russell locked him in the breakroom for over 20 minutes.Cheyenne Johnson, X.M.’s mother, sued Russell, the school district, and other officials, alleging violations of X.M.’s constitutional rights. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment to all defendants except Russell, denying him qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment claims. The district court found that disputed facts—specifically, whether Russell conducted a strip search and locked X.M. in the breakroom—required a jury’s determination.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case on interlocutory appeal. The court held that, even accepting X.M.’s version of events, Russell did not violate clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. The court found that Russell’s search was justified at its inception and not clearly excessive in scope given the suspicion of a gun. It also concluded that it was not clearly established that locking a student in a breakroom for 20 minutes under these circumstances constituted an unreasonable seizure. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity and remanded with instructions to dismiss the Fourth Amendment claims against Russell. View "Johnson v. Mount Pleasant Public Schools" on Justia Law

A tenured English professor at a public university in Ohio, who identifies as transgender, became involved in discussions about leading the university’s Center for the Study of Gender and Sexuality during a period of departmental restructuring. Although the professor expressed interest in directing the Center and was considered a strong candidate, the position was not open as the Center had gone dormant. The professor was offered a partial teaching load reallocation to help develop a new gender-studies major, but after a series of profanity-laden and disparaging social media posts targeting colleagues and administrators, the offer was rescinded. The professor also sought a tenure transfer to the main campus, which was denied by faculty committees after considering collegiality and departmental needs, with no discussion of gender identity.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted summary judgment for the university and individual defendants on all claims. The court found no genuine dispute of material fact and concluded that the university’s actions were based on legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons, including the professor’s unprofessional conduct and the department’s academic requirements. The professor appealed, challenging the district court’s rulings on claims of sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, First Amendment retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and perceived-disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment. The court held that there was no direct or circumstantial evidence of discrimination or retaliation, that the professor’s social media posts did not constitute protected speech on matters of public concern under the First Amendment, and that there was insufficient evidence to support a perceived-disability claim. The court clarified that adverse employment actions under Title VII need only cause some harm, but found the university’s reasons for its decisions were not pretextual. View "GPat Patterson v. Kent State University" on Justia Law

Parents and guardians of students enrolled in independent study programs at two California charter schools requested that the schools purchase and allow the use of sectarian curricular materials for instruction. The schools denied these requests, citing California laws that prohibit the teaching of sectarian or denominational doctrine in public schools, including charter schools. The plaintiffs argued that the independent study programs were essentially homeschooling and that the denial of their requests violated their rights under the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court found that charter schools are part of California’s public school system and are permitted to provide strictly secular education. It concluded that the plaintiffs were not being excluded from a generally available public benefit because of their religious exercise, as the case involved state-funded public schools rather than private schools. The court also held that a public school’s curriculum constitutes government speech, which is not subject to scrutiny under the Free Speech Clause.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that, even assuming the funding and materials provided in independent study programs are a generally available public benefit, the programs are sufficiently public to allow California to require the use of secular curricula. The court further held that the curriculum decisions of public schools are government speech and thus not subject to the Free Speech Clause. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "WOOLARD V. THURMOND" on Justia Law