Justia Education Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff enrolled her son at a private school after she decided that the individualized education program (IEP) proposed by the DOE for the 2010-2011 school year failed to provide her son with a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. Plaintiff filed suit seeking tuition reimbursement, the IHO granted her relief, but the SRO reversed the decision, and the district court affirmed. The court deferred to the IHO's well-reasoned determination that the son required the services of a 1:1 paraprofessional for longer than the transitional three-month period afforded him by his IEP. Because the DOE failed to offer him a FAPE, the court reversed and remanded to the district court to consider the appropriateness of plaintiff's private placement and the balance of the equities. View "Reyes v. NYC Dept. of Educ." on Justia Law

Two years after Cindy Hill, the Superintendent of Public Instruction for the State, the Wyoming Legislature passed Senate Enrolled Act 0001 (Act), which removed the Superintendent as the administrator and chief executive officer of the Department of Education (Department), created the new position of Director of the Department, and assigned to the Director nearly all the duties that were formerly the responsibility of the Superintendent. On the day the Act was signed into law, Hill and two Wyoming citizens (collectively, Appellants) filed an action seeking a declaratory judgment that the Act was unconstitutional. The district court for the First Judicial District of Wyoming certified questions of law to the Wyoming Supreme Court. The Supreme Court concluded that the Act unconstitutionally deprives the Superintendent of the power of “general supervision of the public schools” entrusted to the Superintendent in Wyo. Const. art. XII, 14 by impermissibly transferring the power to the Director. View "Powers v. State" on Justia Law

The District and UTLA petitioned the court, challenging the trial court's ruling that the District was required to produce unredacted Academic Growth Over Time (AGT) scores, as well as the location codes which identify the school to which each teacher is assigned. The court held that the unredacted AGT scores are exempt from disclosure under the catch-all exemption in section 6255 of the California Public Records Act, Gov. Code, 6250 et seq., because the public interest served by not disclosing the teachers' names clearly outweighs the public interest served by their disclosure. Therefore, the court granted the separate petitions for writ of mandate by the District and UTLA to the extent they challenged the trial court's ruling on this issue. However, the court remanded for further proceedings regarding disclosure of the location codes. View "Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

The Aurora School District fired Green from his position as a teacher. His union refused his requests to pursue a grievance under a collective bargaining agreement and to represent him in a suit under the Illinois Teacher Tenure Act. Green sued, won, and was reinstated, then sued, claiming that his union abandoned him because of his race, violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e–2(c). Green, who is black, claims that the union has represented comparable white employees in grievance proceedings and litigation under the Tenure Act and that the union retaliated against him because he had opposed earlier discrimination. The district judge called Green’s evidence “conclusory;” concluded that the National Labor Relations Act does not apply to employees of state or local government, so the union did not have a duty of fair representation; and stated that Illinois law does not require teachers’ unions to represent teachers by filing grievances under a collective bargaining agreement or suits under the Tenure Act. The Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded, holding that neither 42 U.S.C. 2000e–2(c) nor 2000e–3(a) makes anything turn on the existence of a statutory or contractual duty violated by the act said to be discriminatory. View "Green v. AFT/IFT Local 604" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against UT alleging that UT's race-conscious admissions program violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court vacated the court's affirmance of the district court's grant of summary judgment to UT, holding that this court and the district court reviewed UT's means to the end of a diverse student body with undue deference. The Supreme Court ordered that this court must give a more exacting scrutiny to UT's efforts to achieve diversity. Any UT college applicant not offered admission either through the Top Ten Percent Law or through an exceptionally high Academic Index (AI) score is evaluated through the holistic review process. The court concluded that plaintiff had standing to challenge the injury she alleged, the use of race in UT's admissions program for the entering freshman class of Fall 2008; there is no clear benefit to remanding this case to the district court; on the merits, the holistic review is a necessary complement to the Top Ten Percent Plan, enabling it to operate without reducing itself to a cover for a quota system; and, in doing so, its limited use of race is narrowly tailored to this role - as small a part as possible for the Plan to succeed. The court was satisfied that UT had demonstrated that race-conscious holistic review is necessary to make the Top Ten Percent Plan workable by patching the holes that a mechanical admissions program leaves in its ability to achieve the rich diversity that contributes to its academic mission - as described by California v. Bakke and Grutter v. Bollinger. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment. View "Fisher, et al. v. State of Texas, et al." on Justia Law

Before the 2013-2014 school year, the Dickinson Education Association and the Dickinson Public School District conducted negotiations and developed and agreed upon a series of negotiated master agreements that contained the terms and conditions of employment between the certified staff and the District. Between December 2012 and May 2013, the Association and the Dickinson Board of Education held collaborative bargaining team meetings for purposes of formulating a negotiated agreement. The Association and the District's negotiations covered various provisions for both the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 school years, but the parties were ultimately unable to come to a resolution on all issues. In May 2013, after declaring an impasse, the parties sought the involvement of an education fact-finding commission. The Commission's report recommended: (1) a two-year contract; (2) that all items previously agreed to remain in the agreement; (3) the Board's final offer on salary in year one and year two of the two-year contract; and (4) the addition of one professional development day in year two of the contract. In late-July 2013, with the parties still unable to reach an agreement, the District unilaterally issued contracts based on the Commission's recommendations, containing provisions for the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 school years. In August 2013, the Association petitioned the district court for a writ of mandamus and also filed an application for temporary restraining order and other supporting documents. The district court granted an alternate writ of mandamus, suspending the continuing contract offers made by the Board for the 2013-2014 school year, prohibiting the District from requiring the contract offers be returned until further court order, and ordering the District to execute a negotiated agreement for only the 2013-2014 school year. Later, district court issued an order quashing the alternate writ of mandamus and ordering that individual teaching contracts for the 2013-2014 school year based on the Board's final offer were due September 13, 2013. The Association's petition for writ of mandamus remained pending, and the parties agreed the issue before the court was whether the District could unilaterally issue contracts for the 2014-2015 school year based on the negotiation process. In October 2013, the district court granted the petition, concluding the unilateral offer of a two-year negotiated agreement was not lawful in North Dakota and the Association was entitled to an order of mandamus requiring the District to offer the Association a one-year negotiated agreement for the 2013-2014 school year. The District appealed. Finding no abuse of discretion or reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Dickinson Education Association v. Dickinson Public School District" on Justia Law

The Batchelors sued the Rose Tree Media School District and six individual employees under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400-1482, the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 794(a) (Section 504), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101-12213, based on the treatment of their son, a high school student was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. They claimed that the district failed to honor a settlement of prior claims and retaliation against their son. The district court dismissed for intentional failure to exhaust the administrative remedies under the IDEA. The Third Circuit affirmed, finding that the claims fell within the ambit of the IDEA and required exhaustion and that no exception to the IDEA’s exhaustion requirement applies under the facts presented. View "Batchelor v. Rose Tree Media Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

UT filed suit against the United States, seeking refund of the Social Security component of FICA taxes it paid with respect to the service of medical residents in 2005. The court affirmed the district court's denial of UT's motion for summary judgment and grant of the United States' motion for summary judgment, concluding that UT's residents are not "students" within the meaning of the student exclusion in Texas's 42 U.S.C. 418 agreement. Section 418 allows states to voluntarily opt-in to the Social Security system by entering into an agreement with the Commissioner of Social Security. View "University of Texas System, et al. v. United States" on Justia Law

For about forty years, 100 and 200 children residing in the Mitford Community of Fairfield County have been attending Chester County School District (CCSD) schools in the Great Falls area of Chester County. The CCSD schools are closer to the Mitford Community than are any Fairfield County School District (FCSD) schools. The Mitford students have been attending CCSD schools at no cost to the students or their families. Mitford students' attendance at CCSD schools began as a result of a Federal 1970 desegregation order, which required the all African-American Mitford Elementary School be closed, and its students be given the choice of attending CCSD's Great Falls schools. The General Assembly passed Act No. 1236, consolidating the Mitford Community into CCSD. This Act was repealed the following year based on an agreement between FCSD and CCSD respecting the Mitford Community's students' enrollment in CCSD's schools. Under this agreement, FCSD paid CCSD $25,000 per year for educational expenses. This agreement ended in the 2009-10 school year when no agreement was reached for that year or thereafter. In light of the school districts' failure to reach an agreement for payment to CCSD for the cost of educating Mitford Community's students in CCSD's schools and FCSD's refusal to continue negotiations, the General Assembly passed Act No. 294 of 2010 in order to provide for a uniform arrangement between FCSD and CCSD. Pursuant to section 59-63-485(C), CCSD has invoiced the Fairfield County Treasurer for the expenses of educating the Mitford children for the past three school years. FCSD filed suit against the Respondents seeking a declaratory judgment that Act No. 294 was unconstitutional. CCSD, the State, and FCSD filed cross motions for summary judgment as to the constitutionality of Act No. 294. The circuit court issued an order denying FCSD's motion and granting CCSD and the State's motions for summary judgment, holding that Act No. 294 was constitutional special legislation, and FCSD appealed. In a direct appeal to the Supreme Court, the Board of Trustees for the FCSD appealed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the State, CCSD, the Fairfield County Treasurer, and the State Department of Education. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Board of Trustees for the Fairfield County School District v. South Carolina" on Justia Law

Jeffrey S. Decker, a former student of the University of Wisconsin (UW), was suspended from campus. Decker subsequently trespassed on UW property four documented times to attend UW meetings. The UW Board of Regents (Board) petitioned the circuit court for a temporary restraining order against Decker. The circuit court granted a harassment injunction against Decker based on the Board’s petition. The court of appeals reversed, determining that Decker had a legitimate purpose for his actions, which was to protest university student fees. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Wis. Stat. 813.125 can extend injunctive protection to institutions as well as natural persons; (2) sufficient evidence existed for the circuit court to find that Decker’s conduct constituted harassment and lacked a legitimate purpose; but (3) the injunction in this case was overbroad. Remanded to the circuit court to refine the harassment injunction and clarify its terms. View "Univ. of Wis. Bd. of Regents v. Decker" on Justia Law