Justia Education Law Opinion Summaries

Appellants, a child with a learning disability and his parents, sued the Special School District No. 1 ("School District") in Minneapolis, Minnesota alleging that the School District violated his rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. 1400, by denying him a free appropriate public education. At issue was whether the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the School District when it determined that the parents were not entitled to reimbursement from the School District for one year of private tuition when they transferred the child to a private education institution ("institution"). The court reversed the district court's decision and held that appellants were not precluded from reimbursement for tuition for the 2008-2009 academic year where the institution was a proper placement for the child and where the institution did not need to satisfy the least-restrictive environment requirement to be "proper" under the IDEA.

The Board of Education laid off about 1,300 teachers in 2010. When additional funds became available, the Board recalled 715 teachers, but did not have any policy on recalls. The union obtained an injunction rescinding the discharges and requiring the board to work with the union to establish procedures by which those teachers can attempt to show that they are qualified for new vacancies as they arise. The Seventh Circuit ordered that the injunction be modified to delete the requirement of cooperation with the union, which is not required by the Illinois School Code provisions concerning recall, 105 ILCS 5/34-18. Illinois law gives tenured teachers a property interest in continued employment and, while pre-termination due process is not required for good-faith economic layoffs, there is a legitimate expectation that laid-off teachers will be considered for vacancies for a reasonable amount of time. To comply with due process requirements, the Board must develop procedures by which teachers can prove their qualifications for those vacancies.

Plaintiff, through his guardian, sued defendant, Garden Grove Unified School District ("District"), for reimbursement of the full costs of sending plaintiff to a non-public program when the District failed to provide a free appropriate public education to plaintiff. At issue was whether plaintiff was entitled to full reimbursement under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act ("Act")where the non-public program did not meet all of plaintiff's educational needs. The court held that plaintiff was properly awarded full reimbursement where the Act did not require that a private school placement provide all services that a disabled student needs in order to permit full reimbursement.