Justia Education Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant school district filed an action on its own behalf and on behalf of its students and taxpayers to enjoin State actions in violation of state law and the Arkansas Constitution, asserting two claims for relief. The circuit court granted Appellant's motion to dismiss its second claim without prejudice. The court then entered an order dismissing Appellant's claims against all Appellees. Appellant appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal without prejudice, holding that the order from which Appellant appealed was not a final, appealable order, as the nonsuit of Appellant's second claim did not operate to make the circuit court's order final because the second claim could be refiled and the requirements of Ark. R. Civ. P. 54(b) had not been met. View "Deer-Mt. Judea Sch. Dist. v. Beebe" on Justia Law

The local board of education of the City of Bridgeport passed a resolution requesting the state board of education to authorize the commissioner of education to reconstitute the local board. The state board voted to authorize the commissioner to reconstitute the local board. In three separate actions, former local board members and residents and electors of the City filed actions against the state board, local board, and others, alleging state statutory and constitutional violations. The trial court reserved the action for the advice of the Supreme Court. At issue was (1) whether the failure of the state board to require the local board to undergo and complete training, as mandated by Conn. Gen. Stat. 10-223e(h), rendered void the state board's authorization; and (2) whether the local board's resolution requesting that the state board authorize reconstitution resulted in a waiver of the state board's obligation to require training. The Supreme Court concluded (1) the state board's failure to require training rendered void its authorization of reconstitution under section 10-223e(h); and (2) the local board's resolution had no effect on the operation of the statute. View "Pereira v. State Bd. of Educ." on Justia Law

An Arkansas jury found in favor of plaintiff on her Title VII claims of race discrimination and constructive discharge against the school district and individual members of the County's Board of Education and awarded her compensatory damages, wage and fringe benefits, and punitive damages. Plaintiff subsequently appealed the district court's judgment. The court held that, under the circumstances, it believed that plaintiff presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude defendant was constructively discharged. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's decision to grant the Rule 50 motion on that claim. The court held that the jury was not instructed to consider whether the individual Board members affirmatively proved ignorance of federal law when discriminating against defendant on the basis of her race. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's Rule 50 motion vacating the punitive damage award, but remanded this issue to the district court. Because the court's resolution of the constructive discharge claim and the punitive damage awards directly affected the degree of success plaintiff obtained in her civil rights action, the court remanded the issue of attorneys' fees. View "Sanders v. Lee County Sch. Dist. No. 1, et al." on Justia Law

Hawkeye Foodservice Distribution filed a petition for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Iowa Educators Corporation (IEC) and ten Area Education Agencies (AEAs) comprising IEC, seeking (1) a declaration that the operation of IEC was in violation of Iowa Code 273 and 28E; (2) equitable relief enjoining the AEAs and IEC from further operation in violation of Iowa law; and (3) injunctive and declaratory relief on the ground that the AEAs and IEC operate in violation of Iowa Code 23A. The district court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss, concluding (1) Hawkeye lacked standing to bring the chapter 273 and 28E claims; and (2) Hawkeye failed to allege sufficient facts demonstrating it was entitled to relief under chapter 23A. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals and reversed the district court, holding that the district court erred in (1) dismissing Hawkeye's chapter 273 and 28E claims for lack of standing, as Hawkeye's petition alleged facts that gave it standing to challenge the actions of the AEAs and IEC; and (2) dismissing the action, as the factual allegations set forth in the petition, if proved, stated statutory claims sufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss. View "Hawkeye Foodservice Distrib., Inc. v. Iowa Educators Corp." on Justia Law

The mother of a kindergarten student, who suffered a serious allergic reaction after consuming peanut butter given to her under her school's free lunch program, brought suit against the State and its agents (collectively, Defendants), alleging that the State's obligations under the National School Lunch Act (NSLA) imposed upon Defendants a statutory duty of care to ensure that children with food allergies are not served lunches containing allergens. The trial court granted the State Defendants' motion to dismiss, concluding that the NSLA simply establishes a subsidized lunch program to benefit children at participating schools and does not impose a specific statutory duty of care towards children with food allergies. The court of special appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the NSLA does not impose a statutory duty on the State Defendants to exercise a greater degree of care for students with food allergies than the general level of care the State Defendants exercise for all students in public schools. Because Petitioner could not maintain a suit in negligence, the complaint was properly dismissed. View "Pace v. State" on Justia Law

John Doe filed a lawsuit arising from the termination of his enrollment as a medical student at the University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC) against the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska and several faculty members (Defendants). During the pendency of the case, all causes of action except the claim for breach of contract were dismissed. The district court determined that Doe's dismissal was not in violation of a contract between Doe and UNMC regarding the conditions of Doe's continued enrollment. The court then sustained Defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing Doe's cause of action for breach of contract and thereby dismissing the case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that UNMC did not breach its contract with Doe when it terminated his enrollment, and although the Court's reasoning differed from that of the district court, the court did not err when it sustained Defendants' motion for summary judgment. View "Doe v. Bd. of Regents" on Justia Law

In summer 2010, due to budget deficits, the board laid off 1,289 teachers. Laid-off teachers were not given preference for positions available in the district, nor were all vacancies posted on the website. In August, 2010, there was an increase in funding. Approximately 715 tenured teachers were recalled, but many positions were filled with new hires, rather than laid-off tenured teachers. There was no official recall policy. The Seventh Circuit certified, to the Supreme Court of Illinois, the question of whether the School Code (105 ILCS 5/34-18(31)), provides that Chicago tenured teachers have a right to be rehired after an economic layoff and whether they have a right to certain procedures during rehiring. The court responded that Chicago public schools are treated differently under the School Code. In all the other districts, laid-off tenured teachers have a right of recall and, subject to certification and seniority, have a right to be rehired into new vacancies in their districts for a specific period. Under 1995 amendments Chicago teachers were not given those rights. The supreme court declined to read into School Code language something which the legislature did not put there. View "Chicago Teachers Union v. Bd. of Educ., City of Chicago" on Justia Law

These cases called upon the court to decide whether petitioners were required to exhaust an available internal appeal procedure before challenging the termination of their probationary employment at the City of New York's Department of Education (DOE). The DOE was obligated by its collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the United Federation of Teachers and its own bylaws to afford probationary employees the opportunity for reconsideration of a decision to discontinue their employment. The court held that the DOE's decisions were "final and binding" within the meaning of CPLR 217(1) as of the dates when petitioners' probationary services ended. Petitioners awaited the outcome of the internal reviews provided for under the CBA and the DOE's bylaws before commencing suit. But these reviews "stem[] solely from the [CBA]" and constituted "an optional procedure under which a teacher may ask [DOE] to reconsider and reverse [its] initial decision, ... which was final and which, when made, in all respects terminated the employment of a probationer under Education Law 2573(1)(a);" they were not administrative remedies that petitioners were required to exhaust before litigating the termination of their probationary employment. As a result, petitioners' lawsuits brought more than four months after the dates when their probationary service ended, were time-barred. View "Kahn v New York City Dept. of Educ.; In the Matter of Doreen Nash v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. etc." on Justia Law

This case arose when petitioner, a tenured assistance principal in the City's public school system, approached a principal at a middle school in the district to request favorable treatment for petitioner's son, a teacher at the middle school. Petitioner subsequently commenced a CPLR 78 proceeding, seeking to prohibit the Board and the City's Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) from proceeding with petitioner's scheduled administrative trial. The court held that the Board was authorized to enforce the Conflicts of Interest Law, NY City Charter 2600-2607, against a public servant who was subject to discipline under section 3020 and 3020-a of the Education Law. As a result, the lower courts improperly prohibited the Board and OATH from proceeding with the administrative trial against petitioner. View "Matter of Rosenblum v New York City Conflicts of Interest Bd." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued the President of Valdosta State University, claiming that under the Due Process Clause, he was due notice of the charges, and a hearing to answer them, prior to his removal from campus. Plaintiff, a student, was removed on the ground that he presented a "clear and present danger" to the campus. Plaintiff joined the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia as a defendant, claiming against the Board a state-law breach of contract claim for damages. Plaintiff claimed that the student handbook and contracts for student housing established binding agreements between the Board and the university students and the Board breached these agreements by failing to afford plaintiff the due process prior to his removal from campus. The court held that the district court properly denied the President's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity where plaintiff had a constitutional right to process before he was removed from the university and plaintiff's constitutional rights were clearly established. The court held, however, that the district court erred in failing to dismiss plaintiff's breach of contract claim against the Board as barred by the Eleventh Amendment where Georgia had not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity for breach of contract actions. View "Barnes v. Zaccari, et al." on Justia Law