Justia Education Law Opinion Summaries

John Doe 2, a student athlete at North Carolina State University, alleged that he was sexually abused by Robert Murphy, the university’s Director of Sports Medicine, under the guise of medical treatment. Doe claimed that the university was deliberately indifferent to prior complaints of Murphy’s sexual misconduct. The district court dismissed Doe’s complaint, finding that he failed to plead facts supporting an inference that the university had actual notice of Murphy’s sexual harassment.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina dismissed the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court concluded that a report of “sexual grooming” could not provide actual notice to the university of sexual harassment. The district court assumed without deciding that the report was made to an official with the requisite authority for Title IX purposes but found that the report did not describe an incident of sexual harassment and thus could not support a plausible inference of actual notice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and vacated the district court’s judgment. The Fourth Circuit held that a report of “sexual grooming” can objectively be construed as alleging sexual harassment, thus providing actual notice to the university. The court found that the district court erred in its conclusion and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether the report was made to an appropriate official with the authority to address complaints of sexual harassment and to institute corrective measures on behalf of the university. View "John Doe 2 v. North Carolina State University" on Justia Law

Davina Ricketts, a sophomore at a high school in North Carolina, decided to run for student council to address its lack of diversity. She faced racial harassment and cyberbullying from peers, and the school district allegedly failed to intervene. Ricketts filed a lawsuit claiming the school district was deliberately indifferent to her harassment. The district court dismissed her complaint and denied her motion to amend, stating her proposed amended complaint also failed to state a claim. Ricketts appealed the denial of her motion for leave to amend.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina initially dismissed Ricketts' complaint and denied her motion to amend on futility grounds. The court reasoned that her proposed amended complaint did not sufficiently state claims for deliberate indifference, retaliation, or equal protection violations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that Ricketts sufficiently alleged deliberate indifference, retaliation, and equal protection claims. The court held that Ricketts' allegations of racial harassment, the school administrators' authority and actual knowledge of the harassment, and their deliberate indifference were sufficient to state a Title VI claim. The court also found that Ricketts sufficiently alleged retaliation by showing she engaged in protected activity, faced materially adverse actions, and established a causal connection between the two. Additionally, the court held that Ricketts sufficiently alleged an equal protection claim against individual defendants and the Board of Education by showing discriminatory intent and a municipal custom or policy of indifference.The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment, directed the district court to allow Ricketts to amend her complaint, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Ricketts v. Wake County Public School System" on Justia Law

The Austin American-Statesman requested the University of Texas at Austin to disclose the final results of disciplinary hearings involving sex offenses. The University refused to provide the information without seeking a decision from the Office of the Attorney General (OAG). The Statesman sued the University, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the disclosure of the records.The trial court granted the Statesman’s motion for summary judgment, ordering the University to produce the requested information. The court found that the University was required to seek an OAG decision and that its failure to do so raised the presumption that the information was subject to disclosure. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that the University did not establish a compelling reason for withholding the information and that Section 552.114(b) of the Texas Public Information Act (PIA) did not give the University discretion to withhold the records. The court of appeals also reversed the trial court’s denial of attorney fees to the Statesman.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and held that Section 552.026 of the PIA grants educational institutions discretion to disclose information in education records if the disclosure is authorized by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). The Court concluded that the PIA does not require the release of such information. Additionally, the Court held that the University was not required to seek an OAG decision before withholding the information, as Section 552.114(d) allows educational institutions to redact information without requesting an OAG decision. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals’ judgment and rendered judgment for the University. View "THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN v. GATEHOUSE MEDIA TEXAS HOLDINGS II, INC." on Justia Law

Howard University’s Board of Trustees amended the institution’s bylaws to remove trustee positions that had been filled by alumni, students, and faculty for several decades. A group of alumni sued the University and the Board in D.C. Superior Court, seeking a declaration that the Board’s amendment was ultra vires because it violated the governing bylaws. Howard removed the case to federal court, arguing that the governance dispute hinged on the University’s federal charter. The alumni moved to remand the case back to state court.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied the alumni’s motion to remand, holding that the suit implicated a significant federal issue under Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing. The District Court then granted Howard’s motion to dismiss the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and held that the District Court erred in exercising jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals determined that the case did not arise under federal law nor present a significant, disputed federal issue under Grable. Consequently, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s decision and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss it without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Jenkins v. Howard University" on Justia Law

In 2022, the Kentucky General Assembly enacted Senate Bill 1 (S.B. 1), which restructured the relationship between the Jefferson County Board of Education and its superintendent. The bill required the Board to delegate day-to-day operations to the superintendent, limited the Board's meeting frequency, and granted the superintendent additional administrative powers. The Jefferson County Board of Education filed a declaratory judgment action, claiming S.B. 1 violated Sections 59 and 60 of the Kentucky Constitution, which prohibit local or special legislation.The Jefferson Circuit Court ruled in favor of the Board, declaring S.B. 1 unconstitutional. The court found that the bill effectively applied only to Jefferson County, thus constituting impermissible local legislation. The court also ruled, sua sponte, that S.B. 1 violated the equal protection rights of Jefferson County residents. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision on the grounds of Section 59 but did not address the equal protection ruling.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals' decision. The Supreme Court held that S.B. 1 did not violate Sections 59 and 60 of the Kentucky Constitution. The Court reasoned that the bill's language created an open classification applicable to any county with a consolidated local government, not just Jefferson County. The Court also found that the Board had standing to challenge the bill and that the superintendent was not a necessary party to the action. The Court declined to address the equal protection issue, as it was not properly raised or developed in the lower courts. View "COLEMAN V. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION" 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

R.A. filed a lawsuit against her son G.A.'s special education teacher, Robin Johnson, and several school officials, alleging that Johnson mistreated G.A. during the first and second grades. The complaint claimed that Johnson subjected G.A. to physical and emotional abuse and that the school officials negligently failed to intervene despite knowing about the abuse. The school officials moved to dismiss the negligence claims, arguing they were protected by public official immunity. The district court denied the motion, and the school officials filed an interlocutory appeal.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina initially denied the school officials' motion to dismiss the state law claims, leading to an appeal. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled that the school officials were entitled to public official immunity and that the state law claims against them should be dismissed. Despite this, the district court allowed R.A. to file an amended complaint with additional details from new evidence, which the school officials again moved to dismiss. The district court denied this motion, interpreting the appellate mandate as allowing dismissal without prejudice.The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the case again and held that the district court violated the mandate rule by not dismissing the claims with prejudice as instructed. The appellate court emphasized that its prior decision required dismissal with prejudice and that the district court's interpretation was incorrect. The court reiterated that the mandate rule requires lower courts to follow the appellate court's instructions precisely and that no exceptions to the mandate rule applied in this case. Consequently, the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's decision, reaffirming that the state law claims against the school officials must be dismissed with prejudice. View "R.A. v. McClenahan" on Justia Law

A medical student at Florida International University (FIU) failed nine courses, including six while on academic probation, and was required to repeat a year. He was also reported for unprofessional behavior by three professors. Despite receiving accommodations for his diagnosed ADHD and anxiety disorder, he continued to perform poorly, failing multiple exams and receiving low scores on others.The student was placed on academic probation and later took a voluntary medical leave. Upon returning, he failed additional courses and was given another chance to repeat the second year. In his third year, he failed five final exams and scored poorly on others, leading to a third hearing by the promotion committee, which recommended his dismissal. The student appealed, citing various personal issues but did not initially claim inadequate disability accommodations.The district court granted summary judgment in favor of FIU, concluding that the student was not a "qualified individual" under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) because he could not meet the university's academic standards even with reasonable accommodations. The student appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the student was not a qualified individual under the ADA, as he failed to meet the essential eligibility requirements of the medical program despite receiving accommodations. The court emphasized the deference given to academic institutions in making judgments about students' academic performance and found that FIU had provided ample opportunities for the student to improve, which he failed to do. View "Nehme v. Florida International University Board of Trustees" on Justia Law

Grace Smith, a high school junior, was repeatedly suspended from Laramie High School for refusing to comply with a COVID-19 indoor-mask mandate imposed by the Albany County School District No. 1 Board of Trustees. After her suspensions, she was arrested for trespassing on school grounds. Grace and her parents, Andy and Erin Smith, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming against the Board members, the superintendent, and the principal, alleging violations of Grace’s constitutional rights and state law claims.The district court dismissed the federal claims for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that Grace did not suffer an injury in fact necessary for standing. The court reasoned that her injuries were hypothetical because the mask mandate had expired and she was no longer a student at LHS, and that her injuries were self-inflicted. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and reversed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that Grace had standing to bring her claims because she suffered concrete and particularized injuries from the enforcement of the mask mandate, including suspensions and arrest. The court found that her injuries were directly inflicted by the defendants’ actions and were not self-inflicted. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court’s opinion. View "Smith v. Albany County School District No. 1" on Justia Law

The case involves the Hawai‘i Disability Rights Center (HDRC), which represents individuals with developmental disabilities, including children with autism. HDRC alleges that the Hawai‘i Departments of Education (DOE) and Human Services (DHS) unlawfully deny students with autism access to Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) therapy during school hours, even when medically necessary. DOE provides ABA services only if deemed educationally relevant, and DHS does not provide ABA services during school hours, even if medically necessary and covered by Medicaid or private insurance.The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii granted summary judgment in favor of DOE and DHS, holding that HDRC's failure to exhaust administrative procedures under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was fatal to all its claims, including those under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Medicaid Act. The court concluded that HDRC, as a protection and advocacy organization, must ensure that parents of its constituents exhaust the IDEA’s administrative process.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that HDRC, as Hawai‘i’s designated protection and advocacy system, can pursue administrative remedies under the IDEA and is therefore bound by the IDEA’s administrative exhaustion requirement for its own claim. However, HDRC need not ensure that parents of individual children with autism exhaust their individual IDEA claims. The court found that HDRC did not exhaust its administrative remedies, and no exceptions to IDEA exhaustion applied.The Ninth Circuit also held that HDRC was not required to exhaust the IDEA’s administrative procedures before bringing its claims under the ADA, Section 504, and the Medicaid Act. The court concluded that HDRC’s non-IDEA claims do not allege the denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) and therefore do not require exhaustion under the IDEA. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case. View "HAWAI'I DISABILITY RIGHTS CRT. V. KISHIMOTO" on Justia Law