Justia Education Law Opinion Summaries

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

Michigan adopted race-conscious admissions policies for public colleges and universities in the 1960s and 1970s, In 2003, the Supreme Court held that universities cannot establish racial quotas but could continue considering race or ethnicity as a ‘plus’ factor along with other relevant factors, On a 2006 statewide ballot, Proposal 2, to amend the Michigan Constitution “to prohibit all sex- and race-based preferences in public education, public employment, and public contracting” passed by a margin of 58 to 42 percent and eliminated consideration of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in admissions decisions. No other admissions criterion (grades, athletic ability, geographic diversity, or family alumni connections) was eliminated. Opponents filed suit, alleging that provisions affecting public colleges and universities violated the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes. The district court issued postponed application of Proposal 2. In 2008, the district court entered summary judgment, rejecting the suit. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that the “existence of such a comparative structural burden” (making the policy constitutional in nature) undermines the Equal Protection Clause’s guarantee that all citizens ought to have equal access to the tools of political change. View "Coal. to Defend Affirmative Action v. Regents of the Univ. of MI" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a fifth grade student and his mother, commenced this action against the St. Louis Board of Education and two nurses, asserting Fourth Amendment and substantive due process claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state law claims for negligence and negligent supervision. The student was administered an H1-N1 shot by a school nurse despite telling the nurse, and presenting a signed parental form confirming, that his mother did not consent to the vaccination. The court held that the district court correctly noted that a local government entity, such as the Board, could not be sued under section 1983 respondeat superior theory of liability; plaintiffs' failure to train claims against the Board were properly dismissed for either failure to plead a plausible claim or failure to state a claim; and claims against Nurse Clark were dismissed because the nurse was acting within her official capacity and had immunity from suit. View "B.A.B., et al v. The Board of Education, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant, the Superintendent of the Connecticut Technical High School System, renewed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that she was entitled to qualified immunity in this 42 U.S.C. 1983 action in which defendant was alleged to have deprived plaintiff of her right to procedural due process. The district court denied the motion after concluding that there existed a dispute of material fact as to whether plaintiff received sufficient notice before the elimination of her position as a guidance counselor at a Connecticut high school. The court held that defendant's conduct in this case, even when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, did not violate plaintiff's clearly established rights. Therefore, defendant was entitled to qualified immunity. The court reversed and remanded. View "Coollick v. Hughes" on Justia Law