Justia Education Law Opinion Summaries

McKendree University, like other Illinois colleges, closed its campus and switched to remote instruction in March 2020 due to the risks of COVID-19. McKendree already ran an online degree program in addition to its on-campus degree program. McKendree did not refund its in-person students for any portion of their tuition or fees. The plaintiffs. enrolled in McKendree’s on-campus program at the time of the shutdown, sued for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.The Seventh Circuit reversed the dismissal of the suit, noting its recent precedent holding that certain evidence—including a university’s course catalogs, class registration system, and pre-pandemic practices—can suffice under Illinois law to allege the existence of an implied contract between a university and its students for in-person instruction and extracurricular activities. The complaint in this case is “enough—if barely—to state a claim at the pleading stage.” Under Illinois law, the relationship between students and universities is contractual and the parties’ obligations under the contract are “inferred from the facts and conduct of the parties, rather than from an oral or written agreement.” View "Delisle v. McKendree University" on Justia Law

Texas allows illegal aliens who satisfy residency requirements to pay that in-state, lower tuition. A Texas university student group of out-of-state students, the Young Conservatives of Texas Foundation (YCT), sued officials at the University of North Texas, arguing that Texas’ tuition scheme violated federal law. The district court agreed and barred the university from charging out-of-state tuition.   The Fifth Circuit reversed the judgment and vacated the injunction. The court reasoned that Section 1623(a), the statute expressly preempts state rules that grant illegal aliens benefits when U.S. citizens haven’t received the same. No matter what a state says, if a state did not make U.S. citizens eligible, illegal aliens cannot be eligible. Section 54.051(d)—the one and only section challenged here—does not grant those benefits. It does nothing more than set the tuition price for nonresident students, citizens or not. It takes no stance on whether illegal aliens are eligible for a cheaper price. Section 1623(a) has nothing to say about a rule like that. Therefore, Section 54.051(d) is not expressly preempted by Section 1623(a). The court ultimately held that because the district court awarded a permanent injunction by relying on its erroneous preemption analysis, it abused its discretion. View "Young Conservatives v. Smatresk" on Justia Law

Hess, a 17-year-old student, was required to participate in a ride-along with Hammond Officer Garcia. Her complaint describes a day-long sequence of inappropriate comments and questions punctuated by unwelcome physical sexual contact. Garcia allegedly rubbed his arm against her breast, repeatedly placed his hand on Hess’s thigh, put his hand on her buttocks, stated that Hess wanted to become a prostitute, and, while in a secluded location, asked another officer if he wanted to have sex with Hess. After Hess’s ride along, another female classmate participated in the course-required ride with Garcia. When the classmate told Hess that Garcia had acted inappropriately, the girls reported their experiences.Hess sued Garcia and Chief Doughty in their individual capacities under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the claim against Doughty for lack of allegations of the requisite level of involvement in the alleged violations. The court reversed the dismissal of the claim against Garcia. It is well established that sexual assault by a government official acting under the color of law can violate the Equal Protection Clause as sex discrimination, the Fourth Amendment right “of the people to be secure in their persons,” and the right to bodily integrity protected by the Due Process Clause. The court rejected arguments that the alleged conduct was simply “boorish” and not serious enough to implicate the Constitution. Sexual assault is an intentional act that never serves a legitimate governmental purpose. View "Hess v. Garcia" on Justia Law

After sustaining a knee injury during a mandatory eighth-grade physical education class’s touch football unit, Plaintiff sued, among others, defendants Burbank Unified School District (the District) and his physical education teacher. A jury returned verdicts in Plaintiff’s favor against Defendants, finding that the District breached a mandatory duty under the Education Code, the teacher was negligent, and Plaintiff suffered resulting harm. Defendants appealed from the judgment, contending: there was insufficient evidence that the District’s breach of a mandatory duty proximately caused Plaintiff’s injury; the special verdict form was fatally defective because it failed to specify whether the District’s breach of a mandatory duty or the teacher’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s injuries; the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the primary assumption of risk doctrine; and the court erred by not allowing the jury to apportion fault to the student who ran into Plaintiff (the Student), thus precluding Defendants from reducing liability for noneconomic damages.   The Second Appellate District reversed and remanded for the trial court to enter judgment in favor of the District and to hold a new trial limited to the issue of apportionment of fault between the teacher and student. The court explained that the Student’s act of intentionally running into Plaintiff was a substantial causative factor in Plaintiff’s injury and the teacher, therefore, should have been entitled to seek allocation of fault pursuant to Civil Code section 1431.2.11 Because the trial court failed to instruct the jury on comparative fault principles, the court remanded for retrial on the apportionment of fault. View "Nigel B. v. Burbank Unified Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

In consolidated appeals, Plaintiff challenged the district court’s award of summary judgment to defendant Liberty University, Inc. (“Liberty”) on Palmer’s claim of age discrimination, pursued under provisions of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (the “ADEA”)  (the “Statutory Ruling”). On the other hand, Liberty, by cross-appeal, challenged an earlier award of summary judgment that was made to Plaintiff, in which the court ruled that Plaintiff was not a “minister” for purposes of the First Amendment’s so-called “ministerial exception” (the “Constitutional Ruling”).   The Fourth Circuit affirmed the Statutory Ruling, dismissed Liberty’s cross-appeal, and vacated the Constitutional Ruling. The court explained that it agreed with the district court that Plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence of age-based discrimination to overcome Liberty’s summary judgment motion on that issue. Accordingly, the court was satisfied to affirm the Statutory Ruling in favor of Liberty. Moreover, in light of that disposition — and pursuant to the constitutional avoidance doctrine — the court refrained from resolving whether Plaintiff was a minister for purposes of the First Amendment’s ministerial exception. As a result, the court wrote it was obliged to dismiss Liberty’s cross-appeal and vacate the Constitutional Ruling. View "Eva Palmer v. Liberty University, Incorporated" on Justia Law

The Higher Education Act governs federal financial aid, 20 U.S.C. 1070(a), and authorizes the Secretary of Education to cancel or reduce loans held by some public servants and borrowers who have died, become permanently and totally disabled, are bankrupt, or whose schools falsely certify them, close down, or fail to pay lenders. Under the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act (HEROES Act), the Secretary “may waive or modify" any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to the loan programs as the Secretary deems "necessary in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency.” As the COVID–19 pandemic was ending, the Secretary invoked the HEROES Act to issue “waivers and modifications” reducing or eliminating most borrowers' federal student debt. States challenged the plan. The Eighth Circuit issued a nationwide preliminary injunction.The Supreme Court found that the plan exceeded the Secretary’s authority, first holding that at least Missouri had standing. The plan would cost the state's nonprofit government corporation about $44 million a year in fees.The HEROES Act allows the Secretary to “waive or modify” existing statutory or regulatory provisions but does not allow the Secretary to rewrite the Education Act to the extent of canceling $430 billion of student loan principal. The Secretary may make modest adjustments to existing provisions, not transform them. The Act includes narrowly-delineated situations that qualify a borrower for loan discharge; the Secretary has extended such discharge to nearly every borrower. The plan constitutes “effectively" a "whole new regime.” The question is not whether something should be done; it is who has the authority to do it. The basic and consequential tradeoffs inherent in mass debt cancellation are ones that Congress would likely have intended for itself. View "Biden v. Nebraska" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the decision of the trial court appeals denying the Texas Tech University School of Medicine's combined plea to the jurisdiction and summary judgment motion in the underlying unlawful discrimination action, holding that morbid obesity does not qualify as an impairment under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) without evidence that it is caused by an underlying physiological disorder or condition.After Plaintiff was dismissed from Texas Tech's medical residency program she brought this complaint alleging that the University dismissed her because of her morbid obesity, which she argued constituted unlawful discrimination under the TCHRA. The University filed a combined plea to the jurisdiction and summary judgment motion, arguing that it was protected under sovereign immunity. The trial court denied the plea and motion, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) morbid obesity qualifies as an impairment under the Labor Code only when caused by a physiological disorder or condition; and (2) Plaintiff could not establish that the University regarded her as having an impairment, and Plaintiff failed to show a disability as defined in the Labor Code. View "Tex. Tech University Health Sciences Center - El Paso v. Niehay" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals that all of the documents underlying an external investigation into allegations of undue influence in a public university's admissions process were protected by the attorney-client privilege and were thus exempt from disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act, holding that the university's attorney-client privilege as to specific documents was waived.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the investigator acted as a lawyer's representative in conducting the investigation; (2) the subject documents fell within the attorney-client privilege; (3) the university did not waive the privilege by disclosing to the investigator some of the documents; and (4) the publication of the investigator's final report waived the university's attorney-client privilege as to documents that the final report directly quoted from or otherwise disclosed a significant part of. View "University of Tex. System v. Franklin Center for Gov't & Public Integrity" on Justia Law

In March 2020, O’Brien was censured and suspended for one year from his employment as a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, for violating the Faculty Code of Conduct while attending an overseas conference in 2012 by directing unwanted sexualized conduct at a junior colleague attending the conference, a graduate student at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Although another student referred to the incident in a 2014 discussion with the administration, it was not until 2017 that the alleged victim made a report.O’Brien challenged the disciplinary decision, raising procedural, substantive, and due process objections. The trial court and court of appeal rejected O’Brien’s petition. The University’s rule requiring it to initiate disciplinary action within three years of receiving a report of misconduct does not bar discipline here. The earlier complaint by a different student only briefly touching on the alleged incident between O’Brien and an unidentified female MIT student was not a report of the wrongdoing for which he was disciplined. Substantial evidence supports a finding by the University and the trial court that the MIT student was a “colleague” of O’Brien’s, as the Faculty Code of Conduct uses that term. The disciplinary proceeding was fair and the committee’s findings supported the ultimate result. View "O'Brien v. The Regents of the University of California" on Justia Law

In the Harvard College admissions process, “race is a determinative tip for” a significant percentage “of all admitted African American and Hispanic applicants.” University of North Carolina (UNC) also considers the applicant’s race. SFFA challenged both systems.The Supreme Court held that both programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court first held that SFFA complies with the standing requirements for organizational plaintiffs as a voluntary membership organization with identifiable members who support its mission and whom SFFA represents in good faith.Tracing the history of Fourteenth Amendment precedent, the Court acknowledged its "role in that ignoble history,” and subsequent efforts to eliminate racial discrimination. The core purpose of the Equal Protection Clause is to eliminate all governmentally-imposed discrimination based on race. Any exceptions must survive strict scrutiny. which asks whether the racial classification is used to advance compelling governmental interests and whether the use of race is narrowly tailored--necessary to achieve that interest. Previous holdings permitted race-based college admissions only in compliance with strict scrutiny and acknowledged that, eventually, they must end.The admissions programs at issue are not sufficiently measurable to permit strict scrutiny. The identified "compelling" interests include training future leaders, acquiring new knowledge based on diverse outlooks, promoting a robust marketplace of ideas, and preparing engaged and productive citizens. The question of whether a particular mix of minority students produces those results is standardless. The systems fail to articulate a meaningful connection between the means they employ and those goals; they use racial categories that are overbroad, arbitrary or undefined, or underinclusive.The systems also use race as a “negative” and employ stereotypes. College admissions are zero-sum. A benefit provided to some applicants is necessarily at the expense of others. The systems employ “the offensive and demeaning assumption" that students of a particular race think alike. The systems lack a “logical endpoint. View "Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College" on Justia Law