Justia Education Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff was dismissed from the Univeristy of Virginia's doctoral program after receiving poor grades. Plaintiff sued, alleging national origin discrimination and retaliation based on interactions with his immediate supervisor. The district court granted the school's motion to dismiss and Plaintiff appealed.The Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding that although his supervisor made derogatory comments about Plaintiff's national origin, they were not made in close proximity to the school's decision to dismiss Plaintiff. The supervisor made a "handful" of comments over the course of four years, none of which were close in time to the Plaintiff receiving poor grades or being dismissed from the program. View "Andreas Alberti v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia" on Justia Law

The University's adjunct faculty taught individual classes on a semester-by-semester basis. Their appointment letters referred to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, specified a per-course salary, and estimated the number of work hours. Although the letters specified a work appointment from the first day of classes to the end of the semester, adjuncts were required to work outside of these time periods to prepare a syllabus and submit final grades. Adjuncts’ wage statements did not show the number of hours worked or an hourly pay rate.Gola brought claims for unpaid wages and failure to pay compensation at the time of discharge, citing work done outside of the assignment period and after the adjuncts’ “termination,” and alleged that the University failed to issue wage statements in compliance with Labor Code 226(a). Gola asserted a derivative claim under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) seeking civil penalties.The trial court held that two causes of action were preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 141) because they could not be resolved without interpreting the CBA. On the wage statement claim, the court concluded that adjuncts were not exempt employees and that the University was liable for penalties because it knew that facts existed bringing its actions within the provisions of section 226. The court calculated statutory damages and PAGA penalties and awarded Gola attorneys’ fees and costs. The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting arguments that newly-enacted Labor Code 515.7—permitting employers to classify certain adjunct faculty as exempt from specified wage statement requirements—should be applied retroactively. View "Gola v. University of San Francisco" on Justia Law

In March 2020, Bradley University closed its campus and canceled in-person activities because of the COVID-19 pandemic. It canceled one week of classes as it migrated to remote learning. Bradley resumed classes virtually and offered remote activities and resources. The campus remained closed for the rest of the semester. Bradley never rescheduled the week of canceled classes; the Spring 2020 Semester was 14 weeks instead of the planned 15 weeks of classes listed in Bradley’s Catalog, which stated: “This catalog serves as a contract between a student and Bradley.” Full-time, on-campus students had paid $17,100 in tuition and an $85 activity fee. The University provided pro-rata refunds for room and board to students who were forced to leave on-campus housing but did not refund tuition or activity fees.Eddlemon filed a purported class action, alleging that Bradley breached an implied contract to provide 15 weeks of classes and on-campus activities, and, alternatively that the University’s retention of tuition and activity fees constituted unjust enrichment. The district court certified a “Tuition Class” and an “Activity Fee Class.” The Seventh Circuit vacated. The district court did not conduct the rigorous analysis required by Rule 23 for class certification but repeatedly referred to Eddlemon’s allegations without addressing his proffered evidence or examining how he would prove his allegations with common evidence. View "Eddlemon v. Bradley Universityx" on Justia Law

Parents and guardians of students with disabilities brought an enforcement action under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, alleging that the New York City Department of Education must immediately fund their children’s educational placements during the pendency of ongoing state administrative proceedings. Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction, which the district court denied. Plaintiffs appealed from that denial.   The Second Circuit affirmed. As a threshold jurisdictional matter, the court held that although the Plaintiffs are not yet entitled to tuition payments for the portion of the school year that has yet to occur, their claims are nevertheless ripe because they also seek payments for past transportation costs. On the merits, the court held that the IDEA’s stay-put provision does not entitle parties to automatic injunctive relief when the injunctive relief concerns only educational funding, not placement. Applying the traditional preliminary injunction standard, the court concluded that Plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief they seek because they have not shown a likelihood of irreparable injury. View "Mendez v. Banks" on Justia Law

Dr. Bounds was hired for one year beginning in July 2019 as an at-will employee. In February 2020, Dr. Scott stated that Scott would recommend that Bounds's contract be renewed. Scott notified Bounds and others on March 24 that she would email approved contracts and that they had until March 31 to sign and return the contracts. Upon receiving the contract, Bounds noted that her vacation days had been reduced. Scott told Bounds to contact the Board. Later that day, Bounds became ill and was advised to quarantine for 14 days. Bounds testified that she made inquiries to the Board but never received a reply. On April 1, Scott telephoned Bounds, who had not returned the signed contract. Bounds replied that she wanted her attorney to review the agreement. Scott warned that the Board previously had released another administrator who did not sign her contract by the deadline. The following day, Scott advised Bounds that the Board had requested that her position be posted as vacant. On April 14, Bounds was notified that her position had been posted.Bounds filed suit, 42 U.S.C. 1983, contending that the Board had deprived her of procedural due process by rescinding her contract and posting her position without notice or the opportunity to be heard. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Bounds did not have a property interest subject to due process protections. Bounds had no enforceable expectation as to her continued employment. View "Bounds v. Country Club Hills School District 160" on Justia Law

Brownsburg Community School Corporation requires its high school teachers to call all students by the names registered in the school’s official student database. Kluge, a teacher, objected on religious grounds to using the first names of transgender students to the extent that he deemed those names not consistent with their sex recorded at birth. After Brownsburg initially accommodated Kluge’s request to call all students by their last names only, the school withdrew the accommodation when it became apparent that the practice was harming students and negatively impacting the learning environment for transgender students, other students in Kluge’s classes and in the school generally, and the faculty.Kluge brought a Title VII religious discrimination and retaliation suit after he was terminated from his employment. The district court granted the school summary judgment, concluding that the school was unable to accommodate Kluge’s religious beliefs and practices without imposing an undue hardship on the school’s conduct of its business of educating all students and rejected Kluge’s retaliation claim.The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The undisputed evidence demonstrates that Kluge’s accommodation harmed students and disrupted the learning environment. No reasonable jury could conclude that harm to students and disruption to the learning environment are de minimis harms to a school’s conduct of its business. View "Kluge v. Brownsburg Community School Corp." on Justia Law

This case involves a student named J.M. A psychologist diagnosed J.M. with autism spectrum disorder. Based in part on that diagnosis, J.M.’s mother—Plaintiff—asked the local school district to evaluate J.M. for an IEP. Plaintiff disagreed with the IEP team’s conclusion and asked the school district to pay for additional evaluations in five areas it had considered before (adaptive behavior, educational, speech-language, occupational therapy, and autism). Without waiting for another decision from the IEP team, Plaintiff launched the administrative review process by petitioning for a contested case hearing. Plaintiff’s initial filing alleged seven violations of the IDEA. Plaintiff then filed a complaint in federal district court, seeking seven forms of relief.   The Fourth Circuit denied the school district’s motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. However, the court saw no basis for disturbing the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the school district. The court explained that beyond making a bare allegation that the ALJ issued an incompetent decision, Plaintiff does not explain how any of the alleged procedural defects she identified corrupted any administrative findings. The court also rejected Plaintiff’s claim that the IEP team acted wrongfully in failing to follow the recommendations of private evaluators in determining J.M.’s eligibility for an IEP. The IDEA does not require school districts to defer to the opinions of private evaluations procured by a parent. To the contrary, the IDEA instructs school districts to rely on diverse tools and information sources in making an eligibility assessment. View "Cheri Miller v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota (University) following the elimination of the University’s men’s gymnastics team. He then sought a preliminary injunction to reinstate the team pending the outcome of the litigation. The district court denied the motion for the preliminary injunction, finding that Plaintiff’s delay in filing for the injunction undermined his claim of irreparable harm and that the other preliminary injunction factors favored the University. Plaintiff appealed the order denying the motion for the preliminary injunction. At issue on appeal is whether Plaintiff has suffered irreparable harm, and second, whether he unreasonably delayed in bringing the claim.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that it has found that “delay is only significant if the harm has occurred and the parties cannot be returned to the status quo.” Here, the men’s collegiate gymnastics season begins in December at the earliest and January at the latest. The goal of a preliminary injunction is “to preserve the status quo until the merits are determined.” Given that the injunction motion was not filed until November 2021 and that the majority of the coaching staff and other gymnasts had left the University by this time, it would have been improbable, at best, for the team to have competed in the 2021–2022 season. Because Plaintiff sought an injunction after it would have been possible “to preserve the status quo,” the court held that the delay was unreasonable and that it consequently defeated Plaintiff’s goal of preventing irreparable harm. View "Evan Ng v. Board of Regents of the U of M" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgments of the court of appeals in two ultra vires suits affirming the judgments of the trial courts denying Defendants' jurisdictional pleas as to the pertinent claims and affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals that the due process claims in one case may continue, holding that remand was required.At issue in these two consolidated cases was whether state university officials have the statutory authority to revoke a former student's degree after concluding that the former student engaged in academic misconduct while pursuing that degree. In both cases, the court of appeals concluded that such authority did not exist and thus affirmed the trial courts' denials of the university officials' plea to the jurisdiction on sovereign immunity grounds. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the university officials' statutory authority encompassed the authority to determine that a student did not meet the conditions for the award of degrees; and (2) one student's allegation that the disciplinary proceeding she underwent violated her due-process rights was allowed to proceed. View "Hartzell v. S.O." on Justia Law

During the summer of 2021, Appellants Edmond Public School Board Members and Edmond Public School District Superintendent, Angela Grunewald, (collectively "District") anticipated a complete return to in-person instruction for the 2021-2022 school year. Prior to the start of the school year, the Oklahoma City County Health Department ("OCCHD") expressed to District that quarantines should be recommended rather than required. In response, District prepared a standard letter that alerted parents when their child was exposed to a positive COVID-19 case, which left the responsibility "for carrying out a quarantine or not" up to the parents. School began on Thursday, August 12, 2021. By the fourth day of school, District reported 140 positive cases of COVID-19 which rose to 170 positive cases on the fifth day of the school year. The District thereafter implemented a policy consistent with the OCCHD’s recommendation and informed parents of the policy by email. As a result of the Policy, several unvaccinated students were required to quarantine due to being identified as a close contact. The Appellees, parents of children enrolled in Edmond Public Schools affected by the Policy ("Parents"), individually and on behalf of their children, filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief and an Application for Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") alleging the policy violated state statutory and federal constitutional rights. District objected, and the TRO was denied. The trial court denied relief on all three counts pleaded in the Petition, but granted a Temporary Injunction based on Parents' Equal Protection Clause argument and enjoined District from implementing or enforcing the Policy. The District appealed. The trial court determined Parents were likely to succeed on the merits of their Equal Protection Clause claim against District but were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Policy violated 70 O.S.Supp.2021, § 1210.189(A)(1). The Oklahoma Supreme Court found the trial court improperly interpreted § 1210.189(A)(1) and incorrectly concluded Parents were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Policy violated § 1210.189(A)(1). Because the Supreme Court determined the policy violated 70 O.S.Supp.2021, § 1210.189(A)(1), it did not address the Equal Protection Clause argument. The trial court’s order was vacated and a declaratory judgment was granted in favor of the Parents. View "Shellem v. Gruneweld" on Justia Law