Justia Education Law Opinion Summaries

In this litigation, Appellants (plaintiffs below) brought an action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, challenging the statutory scheme by which the state of Kansas funds its public schools. The district court dismissed their suit for lack of standing. Upon review of the matter and the applicable statutory authority, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the Appellants had standing because their alleged injury, unequal treatment by the state, would be redressed by a favorable decision. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Petrella, et al v. DeBacker, et al" on Justia Law

The school district issued 180-day suspensions to twin brothers, the Wilsons, for disruption caused by a website the Wilsons created. The Wilsons filed suit against the school district alleging, among other things, that the school district violated their rights to free speech. At issue was the order granting the Wilsons' motion for a preliminary injunction. The court did not find that the district court made inadequate factual findings; rather, the court concluded that the district court's findings did not support the relief granted. The court held that the Wilsons were unlikely to succeed on the merits under the relevant caselaw. The court also concluded that the district court's findings did not establish sufficient irreparable harm to the Wilsons to justify a preliminary injunction. View "S.J.W., et al v. Lee's Summit R-7 School Dist., et al" on Justia Law

In 2003, D.K. began kindergarten; he struggled in school and had behavioral issues. In 2007, at the urging of a private therapist, his parents requested a second evaluation. Two months later, the district determined that D.K. was eligible for special education services as a student with “other health impairment,” and he was offered an Individualized Education Program. In 2008, while finalizing D.K.’s IEP, his parents requested a due process hearing under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 1400–1419, and requested an award of compensatory education for September 2004 through March 12, 2008. The district court affirmed the denial, holding that the IDEA’s statute of limitations, passed in 2004, barred relief for conduct prior to January 8, 2006, and that plaintiffs were ineligible for two statutory exceptions to the IDEA statute of limitations. The school district did not violate its obligation to identify students in need of special education and did not fail to provide D.K. a free appropriate public education before November 2007. The Third Circuit affirmed, noting that the district consistently monitored, documented, and responded to D.K.’s individual educational needs, developed behavioral improvement systems with his parents’ cooperation, and offered him special attention and testing accommodations. View "D. K. v. Abington Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

The Department appealed summary judgment to R.E. and M.E. on their claim for tuition reimbursement under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq, and summary judgment to R.K. on her claim for tuition reimbursement under the IDEA. Plaintiff E.Z.-L. also appealed. The court held that courts must evaluate the adequacy of an individualized educational program (IEP) prospectively as of the time of the parents' placement decision and could not consider "retrospective" testimony regarding services not listed in the IEP. However, the court rejected a rigid "four-corners rule" that would prevent a court from considering evidence explicating the written term of the IEP. In R.E., the court found that the Department offered the student a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) and reversed the decision of the district court. In R.K., the court found that the Department failed to offer the student a FAPE and affirmed the decision of the district court. In E.Z.-L., the court found that the Department offered the student a FAPE and affirmed the decision of the district court. View "R.E. v. New York City Dept of Education; R.K. v. New York City Dept of Education; E.Z.-L v. New York City Dept of Education " on Justia Law

D.F. was a five-year-old African-American male kindergartener during the 2008-2009 school year, his first in Collingswood. He had previously been educated in the Camden school system, which had identified him as a special needs student and developed an Individualized Education Plan for him. Collingswood adopted the Camden IEP in substantial part, with the consent of D.F.’s mother, A.C. In January 2009, A.C. filed a due process petition alleging violation of D.F’s rights under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act; later, she filed a second petition expanding the claims. D.F. and A.C. subsequently moved out of state and the New Jersey Administrative Law Judge dismissed the pending petitions as moot. The district court affirmed. The Third Circuit affirmed in part, holding that the move did not render all claims moot. The ALJ did not make any factual findings that related to the claim for compensatory education for violations of the right to a free and appropriate public education beyond the absence of a one-to-one aide during the September 2008-January 2009 period, nor any related to the summer 2009 compensatory education claim. View "D.F. v. Collingswood Borough Bd. of Educ." on Justia Law

McCormick was pursuing a graduate degree in psychology at Miami University in Ohio when she was diagnosed with several illnesses that slowed her progress in her graduate studies. After the faculty voted against promoting McCormick to doctoral status, she filed suit, alleging discrimination on the basis of race and disability in violation of state and federal laws. To circumvent the expired two-year statute of limitations for a 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim, which provides an express cause of action against state actors, McCormick asserted federal claims for racial discrimination and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. 1981. The district court dismissed, concluding that McCormick’s discrimination claim under section 1981 was barred because section 1983 provided the exclusive means to bring a damages suit against state actors in either their official or individual capacities for violations of section 1981. The court also dismissed Rehabilitation Act and Americans with Disabilities Act claims as time-barred. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. View "McCormick v. Miami Univ." on Justia Law

A suit on behalf of a 14-year-old, eighth grade boy alleged that the failure of the public school district to prevent sexual abuse by a female teacher violated the student’s rights under Title IX of the federal Education Amendments Act of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681, and constituted negligent infliction of emotional distress under Wisconsin law. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the school district; claims against the teacher remain pending. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. In a private suit under Title IX, a school district cannot be held liable on the ground of respondeat superior for an employee’s violation absent proof of actual notice and deliberate indifference. That other teachers suspected improper conduct and administrators investigated and accepted the teacher’s denials does not establish knowledge or deliberate indifference. . View "N. R. Doe v. St. Francis Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

Defendants appealed from the district court's denial of their motion for judgment as a matter of law and their motion for a new trial following a jury verdict partially in favor of plaintiff on his claims regarding the misuse of a research training grant brought on behalf of the government pursuant to the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq., and awarding principally $855,714 in treble actual damages. The court concluded that: (1) where the government had provided funds for a specified good or service only to have defendant substitute a non-conforming good or service, a court could, upon a proper finding of False Claims Act liability, calculate damages to be the full amount of the grant payments made by the government after the material false statements were made; (2) there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could determine that the false statements at issue were material to the government's funding decision; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of inaction on the part of the NIH in response to plaintiff's complaint regarding the fellowship program in which he had been enrolled. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States ex rel. Daniel Feldman v. Van Gorp" on Justia Law

Hoppe is a tenured professor of Philosophy at Lewis University. She lost the privilege of teaching aviation ethics after the new chair of the Aviation Department, Brogan, deemed her unqualified because she had no formal training in aviation, had never worked in the industry, and had not obtained any degrees or certifications relevant to the field. During the two years before her removal from the course, Hoppe filed a series of charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, requesting an accommodation for her clinically diagnosed “adjustment disorder” and accusing the university of discrimination and retaliation. She sued for discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and 42 U.S.C. 1981. The district court awarded the university summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. While there was no evidence of Hoppe’s job functions or her inability to perform them, the undisputed evidence shows that the university offered Hoppe three different accommodations, which she rejected, and no rational trier of fact could find that the university’s efforts were unreasonable. Hoppe has no evidence of a causal link between her protected activity and Brogan’s decision and failed to make a prima facie showing of retaliation. View "Hoppe v. Lewis Univ." on Justia Law

Plaintiff taught sixth-grade at a public school and met with a student’s parents about a threat the student had made against another student. He met the parents again after seeing the student beating another student. The father threatened a lawsuit and told plaintiff that an older son, who had assaulted the assistant principal, should have assaulted plaintiff. During a subsequent class, the student used an assignment to write a song with lyrics about stabbing plaintiff. The police liaison encouraged plaintiff to file criminal charges; under Illinois law declaring a knowing threat of violence against a person at a school is disorderly conduct, 720 ILCS 5/26-1(a)(13). School administrators feared a suit and were not supportive. After plaintiff filed charges, his evaluations went from satisfactory to unsatisfactory and administrators advised him that they would recommend that he not be rehired. Plaintiff resigned and filed suit, claiming retaliation for exercise of First Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on the ground that the complaint was not protected by the First Amendment because it did not involve a matter of public concern. The Seventh Circuit reversed. Principles underlying the suit are well settled, which defeats claims of qualified immunity. View "Gschwind v. Heiden" on Justia Law