Justia Education Law Opinion Summaries

The North Dakota Attorney General, representing the State Board of Higher Education, petitioned the Supreme Court to exercise its original jurisdiction and enjoin Secretary of State from placing a referendum measure on the June 2012 primary election ballot regarding 2011 N.D. Sess. Laws ch. 580 ("Senate Bill 2370"). The submission of the referendum measure to the Secretary of State reinstated N.D.C.C. 15-10-46, which requires the University of North Dakota (UND) to use the "Fighting Sioux" nickname and logo for its intercollegiate athletic teams. A majority of the Court would have exercised its discretionary original jurisdiction and consider the underlying constitutional issue about the Board's authority over UND; two members of the Court concluded this was not an appropriate case in which to exercise its discretionary original jurisdiction. As a result, there were not enough members willing to decide the constitutional issue. The Court therefore did not address the constitutional issue presented, and declined to enjoin the Secretary of State from placing the referendum measure on the ballot. View "N.D. State Board of Higher Education v. Jaeger" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs alleged that section 31 of article I of the California Constitution violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and caused the unfair exclusion of African American, Latino, and Native American students from higher education. They sought to enjoin the Governor and the President of the University of California, Mark Yudof, from enforcing section 31. Yudof asserted that he was immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment and that he was an improper defendant pursuant to Rule 21. Although the court held that plaintiffs' suit against Yudof was not barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity, the court held that plaintiffs' equal protection challenge to section 31 was precluded by Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson, where the court previously upheld the constitutionality of section 31. Accordingly, the district court correctly dismissed the complaint against the Governor and Yudof for failure to state a claim. View "Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, et al. v. Brown, Jr., et al." on Justia Law

C.A., a minor, sued his public high school guidance counselor and the school district for damages arising out of sexual harassment and abuse by the counselor. At issue was whether the district court could be found vicariously liable for the acts of its employees - not for the acts of the counselor, which were outside the scope of her employment, but for the negligence of supervisory or administrative personnel who allegedly knew, or should have known, of the counselor's propensities and nevertheless hired, retained, and inadequately supervised her. The court concluded that plaintiff's theory of vicarious liability for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision was a legally viable one. Ample case authority established that school personnel owed students under their supervision a protective duty of ordinary care, for breach of which the school district could be held vicariously liable. If a supervisory or administrative employee of the district was proven to have breached that duty by negligently exposing plaintiff to a foreseeable danger of molestation by his guidance counselor, resulting in his injuries, and assuming no immunity provision applied, liability fell on the school district. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment. View "C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School, et al. " on Justia Law

A disabled child, born in 1996, was a student in the Sutton public school system from 1999 until 2005, when his parent were dissatisfied with the individualized education program developed under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 1400-1491, and the services he was receiving. They removed him from the school and enrolled him in a private learning center. The Massachusetts Bureau of Special Education Appeals determined that the 2005 IEP complied with the IDEA. The district court upheld the decision on summary judgment. The First Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the court could not determine compliance without first determining the child's potential for learning and self-sufficiency. The district court properly concluded that the child's potential was unknowable and that the IEP was reasonably calculated to confer educational benefits. The parents did not raise triable claims under the First Amendment, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Titles II and V of the Americans with Disabilities Act, or 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985; plaintiffs “cannot disguise an IDEA claim in other garb.” View "D.B., a minor v. Esposito" on Justia Law

This case arose when the superintendent of the school district preferred eight charges of misconduct and/or incompetence against petitioner, then the business manager for the school district. At issue was whether persons who have testified in a Civil Service 75 disciplinary hearing were required to disqualify themselves from subsequently acting upon any of the charges related to that hearing. The court held that, because the testimony of the testifying witnesses, concerning the charges levied pursuant to section 75, rendered them personally involved in the disciplinary process, disqualification was necessary. View "Matter of Baker v Poughkeepsie City School Dist." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed from the district court's grant of summary judgment, dismissing their complaint, which alleged that an elementary school student's First Amendment rights were violated when he was suspended for six days after expressing a wish for violence to the school and teachers. The litigation arose out of a crayon drawing by B.C., a ten-year-old fifth-grader, in response to an in-class assignment. The drawing depicted an astronaut and expressed a desire to "[b]low up the school with the teachers in it." The court concluded that it was reasonably foreseeable that the astronaut drawing could create a substantial disruption at the school and defendants' resulting decision to suspend B.C. was constitutional. The court also held that there was no merit to plaintiffs' argument that B.C.'s punishment was excessive in light of the court's deference to school authorities. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Cuff v. Valley Central School District" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a licensed Iowa educator, filed suit in Iowa state court against his employer, school officials, and private citizens following his termination. Plaintiff alleged various state-law claims as well as violations of his procedural and substantive due process rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the denial of his motion to remand and the dismissal of his section 1983 claims. The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to remand where, based upon the facts of the case, the unanimity requirement was satisfied. The court also held that the district court did not err in dismissing plaintiff's procedural due process claims as unexhausted where he failed to appeal his termination to an adjudicator under Iowa Code 279.17 and in dismissing plaintiff's substantive due process claim where he failed to plausibly plead a substantive due process claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Christiansen v. West Branch Community School, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from a superior court judge's order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment on her complaint alleging violations of her state civil rights. Plaintiff contended that she had a right, secured by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and by art. 16 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, to attend a lecture that was open to the public, held on the campus of Tufts and that defendants violated the act when they excluded her from the lecture. Tufts, through its office of continuing education, presented a publicly advertised lecture on its campus entitled, "Dangers of Feeding Your Pet a Raw Diet." Plaintiff, who was an advocate of raw food diets for animals, sought to attend the lecture. At the time, she had not paid her bill for services rendered to her horse and defendants informed plaintiff that she was ineligible for continuing education services at Tufts. The court concluded that the circumstances of plaintiff's exclusion from the lecture did not amount to an interference with any claimed free speech right, and thus that the allowance of summary judgment on this claim was proper. The court also concluded that the allowance of summary judgment for defendants' on plaintiff's claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence was correct. View "Roman v. Trustees of Turfts College & others." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued the University of Oregon, alleging that it prevented her from completing a Ph.D. program in retaliation for having complained of gender-based institutional bias in the University's Ph.D. program, and gender discrimination by her faculty dissertation committee chair. The court held that the facts were sufficient to establish a prima facie case of retaliation under Title IX. Because a reasonable jury could conclude from the evidence presented at summary judgment that the faculty chair's resignation was gender-based retaliation, the district court erred in granting summary judgment. The court also reversed the district court's award of costs because the University was no longer the prevailing party under Rule 54(d). View "Emeldi v. University of Oregon" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Maria Rosales filed this wrongful death action against LaPorte Community School Corporation after her son choked to death on food while eating lunch at his elementary school. The jury returned a $5 million verdict for Plaintiff, and judgment was entered in the sum of $500,000, the maximum amount then permitted under the Indiana Tort Claims Act. The School Corporation appealed. The court of appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial, concluding that the trial court erred in giving certain jury instructions. The Supreme Court granted transfer and agreed that the giving of the instruction, which could have reasonably been interpreted and applied by the jury in a way that substantially misstated Plaintiff's burden of proof with respect to establishing negligence on the part of the School Corporation, required reversal, but the error created by the instruction related only to the issue of liability and did not affect the jury's assessment of damages. Remanded for a new trial on the issue of liability only. View " LaPorte Cmty. Sch. Corp. v. Rosales " on Justia Law