Justia Education Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves the Temecula Valley Educators Association and individual students, teachers, and parents from the Temecula Valley Unified School District (collectively, Plaintiffs) who sued the District and five members of the District’s school board (collectively, Defendants). Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the implementation of “Resolution No. 2022–23/21” (the Resolution), which prohibits the use of Critical Race Theory (CRT) or similar frameworks in teaching topics related to race. The Resolution lists specific elements and doctrines of CRT that are banned. Plaintiffs argued that the Resolution is unconstitutionally vague and sought a preliminary injunction to halt its enforcement.The Superior Court of Riverside County denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the Resolution was sufficiently clear and that Plaintiffs did not show a likelihood of success on the merits. The court also concluded that the balance of harms favored denying the injunction, as enjoining a government action would cause irreparable injury.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The appellate court found that the Resolution is unconstitutionally vague because it employs ambiguous language, lacks definitions, is unclear in scope, and contains no enforcement guidelines. The court noted that the Resolution’s language leaves teachers uncertain about what is prohibited, leading to self-censorship and fear of arbitrary enforcement. The court also found that the trial court abused its discretion by not considering the significant harm Plaintiffs would face without an injunction and by incorrectly concluding that the Resolution did not violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.The appellate court reversed the trial court’s order denying the preliminary injunction as to the Resolution and remanded for the issuance of a preliminary injunction. The court dismissed the appeal related to the Board’s “Policy 5020.01” as moot, given that the relevant portions of the Policy had been rescinded following changes in the law. View "Mae M. v. Komrosky" on Justia Law

The Los Angeles College Faculty Guild, AFT Local 1521, sought to reverse the trial court’s denial of its motion to compel arbitration of three grievances against the Los Angeles Community College District. The grievances involved safety-related construction projects at Los Angeles City College, the termination of a faculty member at Pierce College, and the miscalculation of retirement benefits for a faculty member at Los Angeles Trade-Technical College.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County partially granted the motion to compel arbitration for the grievance related to backpay for the retirement benefits issue but denied the motion for the other grievances. The court found that the grievances were beyond the scope of the collective bargaining agreement and were preempted by the Education Code and other statutory requirements.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, affirmed the trial court’s decision. The appellate court held that the grievances related to construction projects and employment termination were not arbitrable because they were preempted by the Education Code and the Construction Bonds Act. The court also found that the grievance related to retirement benefits was partially arbitrable only concerning the backpay issue, as the Public Employees’ Retirement Law governed the reporting of service credits to CalPERS, and the arbitrator could not order injunctive relief beyond the scope of the collective bargaining agreement.The appellate court concluded that the Guild failed to demonstrate that the grievances were within the scope of representation as enumerated by the Educational Employment Relations Act and affirmed the trial court’s mixed ruling. View "L.A. College Faculty Guild v. L.A. Community College District" on Justia Law

In 2021, the Napa Foundation for Options in Education (Napa Foundation) filed a petition with the Napa Valley Unified School District (School District) to establish the Mayacamas Charter Middle School. The School District Board of Education denied the petition, and the Napa Foundation then submitted the petition to the Napa County Board of Education (County Board), which also denied it. The Napa Foundation appealed to the State Board of Education (State Board), which reversed the denials. The School District and the California School Boards Association’s Educational Legal Alliance (Educational Legal Alliance) filed petitions for writs of mandate to set aside the State Board’s decision.The trial court granted the writ petitions, finding that the State Board abused its discretion. The court concluded that the District Board did not provide a fair and impartial hearing process and that the County Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence, including the fiscal impact of the proposed charter school on the School District.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found that the State Board’s determination that the District Board failed to provide a fair and impartial hearing was not supported by substantial evidence. The court also found that the County Board’s written factual findings, which detailed the negative fiscal impact of the proposed charter school, were supported by substantial evidence. The court concluded that the State Board’s decision to reverse the County Board’s denial was arbitrary, capricious, and entirely lacking in evidentiary support.The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgments, upholding the denials of the charter school petition by the District Board and the County Board. The court emphasized that the State Board failed to properly apply the abuse of discretion standard in its review of the lower boards’ decisions. View "Napa Valley Unified School Dist. v. State Bd. of Education" on Justia Law

In September 2016, a high school student, almost 16 years old, was involved in a fistfight during an art class. The teacher, who weighed 375 pounds and had a back condition, intervened to stop the fight. While pulling one of the boys away, the teacher lost his balance and fell onto the plaintiff, breaking the plaintiff’s leg. The plaintiff sued the teacher and the school district for negligence, arguing that the teacher should not have intervened due to his physical condition and that the school district failed to train its teachers on safely handling physical altercations.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County held a 15-day trial, during which the jury viewed a video of the incident multiple times. The jury concluded that neither the teacher nor the school district was negligent and found that the plaintiff and the other boy were each 50 percent responsible for the harm. The plaintiff’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and a new trial was denied.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found substantial evidence supporting the jury’s verdict that neither the teacher nor the school district was negligent. The court also upheld the trial court’s exclusion of the plaintiff’s expert witness on the grounds that the expert was not qualified to opine on classroom management and discipline. Additionally, the court found no error in the trial court’s refusal to give the plaintiff’s requested special jury instructions, as the standard instructions on negligence were deemed sufficient. The judgment and the order denying the plaintiff’s motion for JNOV and a new trial were affirmed. View "I.C. v. Compton Unified School Dist." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Junhai Bai and Xiaofei Li, filed a lawsuit against the San Francisco Unified School District and teacher Stephanie Yip, alleging that their minor daughter, L.B., was physically abused by Yip. The complaint detailed incidents of abuse, including insufficient food and water, physical assault, and resulting injuries such as a concussion and chest contusion. The plaintiffs sought monetary damages for mental harm, impairment of working ability, future illness risk compensation, and family care.The San Francisco City & County Superior Court sustained the defendants' unopposed demurrer and granted their unopposed motion to strike portions of the complaint, allowing leave to amend but without specifying a deadline. Plaintiffs filed a revised version of their complaint several weeks after the time to amend had expired. The trial court did not consider this filing as an amended complaint. Defendants then moved to dismiss the action under section 581, subdivisions (f)(2) and (f)(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which the court granted.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court held that under the decision in Gitmed v. General Motors Corp., the filing of an amended complaint, even if untimely, precludes dismissal under section 581, subdivision (f)(2), unless and until the amended complaint is stricken. The court found that the plaintiffs' revised pleading should have been treated as an amended complaint, which should have precluded the dismissal of the action. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the judgment and the order granting the motion to dismiss, remanding the case for further proceedings. View "Bai v. Yip" on Justia Law

A.H., a student at Tamalpais High School, was sexually abused by his tennis coach, Normandie Burgos. A.H. sued the Tamalpais Union High School District (the District) for negligent supervision, arguing that the District's employees failed to properly investigate a prior complaint against Burgos and did not adequately supervise him, which enabled the abuse. A jury found the District negligent and awarded A.H. $10 million in damages.The District appealed, claiming the trial court improperly instructed the jury and allowed inadmissible evidence regarding Burgos's conduct with other students. The District argued that the jury instructions failed to clarify that the District could not be held vicariously liable for Burgos's actions and that the District could only be liable for the conduct of its supervisory employees. The District also contended that evidence of Burgos's misconduct with other students and his 2019 criminal conviction was irrelevant and prejudicial.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court found no instructional error, noting that the jury was properly instructed on the District's liability for negligent supervision and that the instructions adequately covered the relevant legal principles. The court also held that the evidence of Burgos's prior misconduct and the 2005 complaint were relevant to show what the District should have known about Burgos's propensity for abuse. Additionally, the court ruled that evidence of Burgos's 2019 criminal conviction was relevant to the issue of damages, as it demonstrated the ongoing psychological impact on A.H.The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the $10 million damages award to A.H. View "A.H. v. Tamalpais Union High School Dist." on Justia Law

J.M., an 11-year-old student, filed a class action lawsuit through his guardian ad litem against Illuminate Education, Inc., an education consulting business. J.M. alleged that Illuminate obtained his personal and medical information from his school to assist in evaluating his educational progress. Illuminate promised to keep this information confidential but negligently maintained its database, leading to a data breach where a hacker accessed the information. Illuminate delayed notifying J.M. and other victims about the breach for five months, during which J.M. began receiving unsolicited mail and phone calls.The trial court sustained Illuminate's demurrer, concluding that Illuminate did not fall within the scope of the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA) or the Customer Records Act (CRA) and that J.M. failed to state a cause of action. J.M. filed a proposed second amended complaint with additional facts and a motion for reconsideration. The trial court reviewed the amended pleadings but maintained that J.M. had not stated a cause of action and could not amend to do so, thus sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend and entering judgment for Illuminate.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case and concluded that Illuminate falls within the scope of the CMIA and CRA. The court found that J.M. stated sufficient facts to support causes of action under both statutes. The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend. The judgment of dismissal was reversed, and the case was remanded to the trial court, allowing J.M. to file an amended complaint with additional facts. View "J.M. v. Illuminate Education, Inc." on Justia Law

The Regents of the University of California (Regents) approved the construction of a new hospital at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) Parnassus Heights campus. The Parnassus Neighborhood Coalition (the Coalition), a group of local property owners, sued to halt the construction, arguing it would violate local building height and bulk restrictions. The Regents countered that as a state entity, they were immune from local building and zoning regulations when engaging in governmental activities, such as constructing university buildings. The trial court disagreed, ruling that the question of whether the construction constituted a governmental or proprietary activity could not be resolved at this stage.The trial court concluded that the Regents' immunity depended on whether the proposed construction was a governmental or proprietary activity, a question of fact that could not be resolved on a demurrer. The court further concluded that the exemption only applies when a project is solely for educational purposes. The Regents petitioned for a writ of mandate to vacate the trial court’s order.The Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District Division Three reviewed the case. The court held that the proposed hospital would facilitate the provision of clinical services, thereby advancing UCSF’s academic mission and the Regents’ educational purpose, which is a governmental activity. Therefore, the project falls within the Regents’ broad public purpose, and the Regents are exempt from the local regulations at issue. The court concluded that the demurrer should have been sustained and issued the writ of mandate. The court also ordered modifications to the published opinion filed on June 13, 2024, but there was no change in the judgment. View "Regents of the University of Calif. v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

The case involves Susan George, a teacher who had worked for the Susanville Elementary School District for several years before resigning to teach at another school district. She later returned to the District. Upon her return, the District did not credit her for the years of experience she gained at the other school district following her resignation. George filed a petition for writ of mandate arguing the District violated the uniformity requirement of Education Code section 45028 and the restoration requirement of section 44931 when placing her on the salary schedule without accounting for the years of experience she gained while outside the District after her resignation.The trial court found that the District complied with the Education Code. It ruled that the collective bargaining agreement prevented George from acquiring credit for the two years she worked for another school district. The trial court further found the uniformity requirement did not afford George relief and the District complied with the restoration requirement by restoring George to her prior position. Consequently, the trial court denied George’s petition for writ of mandate.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Third Appellate District reversed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that the District violated the uniformity requirement by failing to place George at step 15 of the District’s salary schedule. The court disagreed with the District's argument that the uniformity requirement is inapplicable to George’s placement on the salary schedule because the restoration requirement controls the placement of teachers rehired within 39 months. The court found that the District must credit George with up to 12 years of out-of-district experience. The court remanded the case with directions to issue a writ compelling the District to place George on its salary schedule in compliance with Education Code section 45028 as construed herein, with appropriate back pay and benefits. The District was ordered to pay costs on appeal. View "George v. Susanville Elementary School District" on Justia Law

A 13-year-old student, K.M., was found in possession of a folding knife on school grounds. The incident occurred when a campus supervisor took K.M. to the principal's office after a report of him vaping in the school bathroom. K.M. consented to a search of his backpack, which revealed two vape pens and a folding knife with two rusted blades. Later, the principal received a report that K.M. had threatened another student with the knife earlier in the day. Consequently, a police officer issued K.M. a citation for brandishing a knife and for possession of a knife on school grounds.The prosecution filed a wardship petition alleging that K.M. brought a weapon onto school property and brandished the knife. The juvenile court held a contested jurisdictional hearing, where the principal and the police officer testified. The court found K.M. guilty of the first count, designating the offense a felony, and dismissed the second count due to insufficient evidence. The court did not check the box indicating that it had found clear proof that K.M. knew his action was wrong. At a subsequent dispositional hearing, K.M.'s counsel argued that K.M. did not know he was breaking any rules when he had the knife at school because his father told him the knife was legal. The court declared K.M. a ward of the court and placed him on probation for six months.In the Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District Division Three, K.M. argued that the prosecution did not prove, and the evidence does not support an implied finding, that he appreciated the wrongfulness of his conduct at the time of the incident. The court agreed with K.M., stating that there was no clear and convincing evidence that K.M. understood the wrongfulness of possessing a knife on school grounds. The court found insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's implied finding that K.M. understood the wrongfulness of bringing a knife onto school property at the time of the incident. Therefore, the judgment was reversed and the matter was remanded for further proceedings. View "In re K.M." on Justia Law