Justia Education Law Opinion Summaries

The school district hired Connelly as a teacher. Connelly had nine years of teaching experience, all in Maryland. Because Connelly acquired his teaching experience outside Pennsylvania, the district credited him with only one year. Other new teachers with like experience acquired within Pennsylvania (but not in the district) received at least partial credit for each year they had taught. Connelly’s initial annual salary was $38,023, which was substantially less than the $49,476 Connelly alleged he would have received with full credit for his experience. Connelly‘s initial salary determination continued to adversely affect his pay. In 2011 Connelly filed suit, asserting Fourteenth Amendment claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983: that failure to fully credit his out-of-state teaching experience violated his right to interstate travel under the Privileges and Immunities Clause and denied him equal protection of the law. The district court dismissed, holding that the classification alleged is based on location of teaching experience, not residency. The Third Circuit affirmed, applying rational basis review. A school district may rationally place a premium on teachers who have more experience working within the Pennsylvania school system in order to achieve the legitimate goal of an efficient and effective public education system. View "Connelly v. Steel Valley Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

In 2011, the Wisconsin Legislature passed Act 10, a budget repair bill proposed by recently-elected Governor Walker. Act 10 significantly altered state public employee labor laws, creating two classes of public employees: “public safety employees” and all others, “general employees.” The Act prohibited general employees from collectively bargaining on issues other than “base wages,” imposed rigorous recertification requirements on them, and prohibited their employers from deducting union dues from paychecks. The Act did not subject public safety employees or their unions to the same requirements. The enactment was controversial and received nationwide publicity. Unions filed suit, challenging the limitations on collective bargaining, the recertification requirements, and a prohibition on payroll deduction of dues, under the Equal Protection Clause. They also challenged the payroll deduction provision under the First Amendment. The district court invalidated Act 10’s recertification and payroll deduction provisions, but upheld the limitation on collective bargaining. The Seventh Circuit held that the Act is valid in its entirety. Act 10 is viewpoint-neutral and, while “publicly administered payroll deductions for political purposes can enhance the unions’ exercise of First Amendment rights, [states are] under no obligation to aid the unions in their political activities.” The classifications and recertification requirement survive rational basis review. View "WI Educ. Ass'n v. Walker" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, D.L. and his parents, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the BCBSC and Baltimore City Public Schools, contending that Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794, compelled BCBSC to provide D.L. education services related to certain disorders even though D.L. was enrolled exclusively in a private religious school. Because plaintiffs retained full discretion over school enrollment and because BCBSC has taken reasonable measures to fulfill its mission, the court found that BCBSC's policies placed no undue burden on plaintiffs' constitutional rights. Because the court did not read Section 504 to apply an affirmative obligation on school districts to provide services to private school students and because plaintiffs retained full educational discretion, the court affirmed the district court's ruling. View "D. L. v. Baltimore City Bd. of Sch. Comm." on Justia Law

Because Creighton University failed to provide what plaintiff, who had a serious hearing impairment, considered necessary and reasonable accommodations, he brought this action under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12182, and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 794. The court concluded that the district court erred by disregarding plaintiff's affidavit, the "independent documentary evidence" offered in its support, and all respects of the record before it; the evidence produced in this case created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Creighton University denied plaintiff an equal opportunity to gain the same benefit from medical school as his non disabled peers by refusing to provide his requested accommodations; and therefore, the district court's grant of summary judgment to Creighton University should be reversed and the case remanded. The court need not consider Creighton University's argument on cross appeal that the district court erred by denying its request for costs without providing a rationale for doing so. View " Argenyi v. Creighton University" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellee Elizabeth E. was a student in the Jefferson County, Colorado school system with substantial behavioral and emotional issues for which she required special education under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act ("IDEA"). In November 2008, Elizabeth's parents, Roxanne B. and David E. enrolled her at Innercept, LLC, a residential treatment center in Idaho, and sought reimbursement from Plaintiff-Appellant Jefferson County School District R-1 (the "District"). An Impartial Hearing Officer (IHO) concluded Parents were entitled to reimbursement for the placement under the Act. That decision was affirmed by a state Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), whose decision was, in turn, affirmed by the Colorado federal district court. The District appealed, arguing Innercept was not a reimbursable placement under the IDEA and that Parents' conduct precluded reimbursement. Finding that Innercept was indeed a reimbursable placement, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's order. View "Jefferson County School v. Elizabeth E." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs alleged that their autistic son was not provided a free appropriate public education (FAPE) by the school district as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. The court affirmed the district court's holding that the school district had provided a FAPE for the child and allowed his parents meaningful participation in the development of his behavior and educational plans. View "M.M., et al v. Dist 0001 Lancaster Co. School" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the school district, alleging that she was denied a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. The court held that plaintiff satisfied the court's liberal notice of appeal requirements and therefore considered the appeal on the merits. The court found that the district court complied with the IDEA's procedural requirements and, moreover, if any defects existed, they did not rise to the level of denying plaintiff a lost educational opportunity. In regards to plaintiff's substantive claim, the court analyzed the Michael F. factors and concluded that plaintiff received a FAPE. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "R. P. v. Alamo Heights Indep Sch Dist" on Justia Law

Plaintiff commenced this lawsuit after he was terminated from his employment at Arkansas State University, asserting procedural due process claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the Vice-Chancellor and Director-of-Instruction in their official and individual capacities. Plaintiff alleged that the officials provided constitutionally inadequate pretermination process and sought damages and injunctive relief. The court concluded that reasonable school officials would not have known that the officials' conduct violated plaintiff's clearly established due-process rights and therefore reversed the district court's denial of qualified immunity. View "Sutton v. Bailey, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued the District, contending that it was deliberately indifferent to his harassment when he attended Stissing Mountain High School. A jury found the District liable for violating Title VI and awarded plaintiff $1.25 million in damages. The district court denied the District's motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50(b), but granted remittitur of the jury award to $1 million. The District appealed. The court held that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the jury's finding that the District's responses to student harassment of plaintiff amounted to deliberate indifference to discrimination and therefore, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion for judgment as a matter of law. Given the ongoing and objective offensiveness of the student-on-student harassment here, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the record could support an award of $1 million. View "Zeno v. Pine Plains Central School Dist." on Justia Law

The Board challenged the district court's determination affirming the validity of a Department of Education regulation that required state and local agencies to reimburse parents and guardians for an independent educational evaluation (IEE) of their children with disabilities. The court held that the Secretary of Education did not exceed its authority in promulgating 34 C.F.R. 300.502, providing parents the right to a publicly financed IEE and therefore, the district court did not err in requiring the Board to reimburse plaintiffs for the IEE that they obtained for their child. View "Phillip C., et al v. Jefferson County Board of Education" on Justia Law