Justia Education Law Opinion Summaries

In this case, Olivia Boone, on behalf of her autistic son K.A., challenged the Rankin County Public School District's decision to move K.A. to a new program at a different school without her consent. Boone filed a complaint with the Mississippi Department of Education, alleging that the school district violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by unilaterally making the placement decision. A hearing officer found that the school district violated the IDEA and ordered relief but denied Boone's request for compensatory educational services. Boone then filed a suit seeking compensatory educational services and attorneys' fees.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi affirmed the hearing officer's decision, holding that Boone was entitled to attorneys' fees but not compensatory educational services. Boone appealed the denial of compensatory educational services, and the school district cross-appealed the finding that it violated the IDEA and the award of attorneys' fees.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The court held that the school district denied K.A. a free appropriate public education by failing to individualize his education plan to address his elopement tendencies and by predetermining his placement without Boone's input. However, the court found that Boone did not prove that Brandon Middle School was not K.A.'s least restrictive environment. The court also held that Boone was not entitled to compensatory educational services, as the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting relief to address Boone's primary concerns. Finally, the court affirmed that Boone was a prevailing party entitled to attorneys' fees, as the relief awarded altered the legal relationship between K.A. and the school district and fostered the purposes of the IDEA. View "Boone v. Rankin County" on Justia Law

A group of nonpublic schools and organizations representing them challenged regulations issued by the New York State Commissioner of Education. These regulations required nonpublic schools to provide an education substantially equivalent to that of public schools. If a nonpublic school failed to meet this standard, it would no longer be considered a school providing compulsory education under New York law.The Supreme Court of New York upheld most of the regulations but invalidated the specific provisions that deemed noncompliant nonpublic schools as not fulfilling compulsory education requirements. The court found that these provisions exceeded the Commissioner’s authority. The respondents, including the Commissioner, appealed this decision.The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court’s decision, ruling that the Commissioner had the authority to promulgate the challenged regulations. The court held that the regulations were within the Commissioner’s statutory authority and did not compel parents to unenroll their children from noncompliant schools or authorize school closures. One Justice dissented, arguing that the regulations exceeded the Commissioner’s authority.The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision. The court concluded that the Commissioner lawfully promulgated the regulations, which simply enforced the statutory mandate that nonpublic schools provide substantially equivalent education. The court found that the regulations did not require parents to unenroll their children or authorize school closures but merely stated that noncompliant schools did not meet the statutory requirements for compulsory education. The court also addressed mootness issues related to recent legislative amendments but found that the challenge to the specific regulatory provisions remained a live controversy. View "Matter of Parents for Educ. & Religious Liberty in Schs. v Young" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to Oklahoma's H.B. 1775, which prohibits mandatory gender or sexual diversity training and restricts the teaching of certain concepts related to race and sex in public schools and higher education institutions. Plaintiffs, including the Black Emergency Response Team and other organizations, argue that the law is unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, claiming it is vague, overbroad, and imposes viewpoint-based restrictions.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma reviewed the case and certified several questions of state law to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The district court granted in part and denied in part motions from both plaintiffs and defendants, enjoining certain provisions of the law as unconstitutionally vague. Specifically, the court enjoined the enforcement of the second sentence of § 24-157(A)(1) and parts of § 24-157(B)(1).The Oklahoma Supreme Court addressed the certified questions, determining that the term "requirement" in § 24-157(A)(1) pertains only to orientation requirements and does not apply to classes, courses, or curricular speech. The court declined to answer the remaining certified questions related to § 24-157(B)(1), stating that the terms and phrases in question could be interpreted using their common, ordinary meanings and that the federal court could undertake this task. The court also noted that answering these questions would not avoid or alter the constitutional challenge to the statute and could result in an advisory opinion. View "BLACK EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM v. DRUMMOND" on Justia Law

A student, E.I., attended El Segundo Middle School during the 2017-2018 school year and experienced bullying from classmates, particularly Skylar. Despite E.I. and her parents repeatedly reporting the bullying to school officials, including the principal and counselor, the school failed to take effective action. The bullying included verbal harassment, social media abuse, and physical aggression, which led E.I. to self-harm and develop PTSD and depression. The school’s anti-bullying policies were not adequately followed by the staff.The case was initially reviewed by the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, where a jury found the El Segundo Unified School District negligent and awarded E.I. $1 million in damages. The District moved for a new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, both of which were denied by the court.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The District argued several points on appeal, including errors in allowing reliance on certain Education Code provisions, claims of immunity under Government Code section 820.2, insufficient evidence of causation, improper consideration of a negligent training and supervision theory, admission of expert testimony, and attorney misconduct during closing arguments. The appellate court found that many of the District’s arguments were either waived or lacked merit. The court held that the District was not immune from liability under Government Code section 820.2, as the actions in question were operational rather than policy decisions. The court also found substantial evidence supporting the jury’s causation finding and determined that any potential errors were not prejudicial. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the judgment in favor of E.I. View "E.I. v. El Segundo Unified School Dist." on Justia Law

A transgender girl, D.P., and her mother challenged a new policy by the Mukwonago Area School District that required D.P. to use the boys’ bathroom or a gender-neutral alternative. They argued that the policy violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. They filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to prevent the policy's enforcement during litigation, citing the precedent set by Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified School District No. 1 Board of Education.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted the temporary restraining order and, shortly after, converted it to a preliminary injunction without holding a hearing. The judge found that the case was controlled by the Whitaker precedent and concluded that D.P. was likely to succeed on the merits of her claims. The school district appealed, arguing that the judge erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing and urging the court to overrule Whitaker and a related case, A.C. v. Metropolitan School District of Martinsville.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that an evidentiary hearing is not always required before issuing a preliminary injunction, especially when the opponent does not request one or identify material factual disputes. The court also declined to revisit or overrule Whitaker and Martinsville, reaffirming that the district judge did not abuse his discretion in granting the preliminary injunction based on binding circuit precedent. The court concluded that the slight differences in D.P.'s case did not warrant a different outcome. View "Doe v Mukwonago Area School District" on Justia Law

A.J.T., a teenage girl with a rare form of epilepsy, moved to Minnesota in 2015. Her new school district, Osseo Area Public Schools, denied her parents' requests to include evening instruction in her Individualized Educational Program (IEP), despite her inability to attend school before noon due to frequent morning seizures. Consequently, A.J.T. received only 4.25 hours of instruction daily, compared to the typical 6.5-hour school day for nondisabled students. After further cuts to her school day were proposed, her parents filed an IDEA complaint, alleging that the refusal to provide afterhours instruction denied A.J.T. a free appropriate public education.An Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of A.J.T., finding that the school district violated the IDEA and ordered compensatory education and evening instruction. The Federal District Court and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. However, when A.J.T. and her parents sued under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, the District Court granted summary judgment for the school, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed, stating that a plaintiff must prove bad faith or gross misjudgment by school officials to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that schoolchildren bringing ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims related to their education are not required to make a heightened showing of bad faith or gross misjudgment. Instead, they are subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts. The Court vacated the Eighth Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "A. J. T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School Dist. No. 279" on Justia Law

Ashley Hushen and Alexandra Weary, along with their mothers, reported allegations of sexual harassment by a classmate, Benjamin Gonzales, to their high school administrators. The school conducted a Title IX investigation, resulting in Benjamin's three-day suspension and subsequent juvenile charges for unlawful sexual contact. Benjamin was acquitted of all charges, and the school reopened the investigation, ultimately concluding that Benjamin had not violated school policies. The students involved felt traumatized by the process, and by the time the proceedings concluded, they had graduated.Benjamin later sued Ashley, Alexandra, and their mothers for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress based on statements made during the Title IX investigations. The defendants filed a special motion to dismiss under Colorado's anti-SLAPP statute, arguing that their statements were absolutely privileged as they were made during a quasi-judicial proceeding. Both the trial court and the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that the Title IX proceedings were not quasi-judicial due to procedural shortcomings, allowing Benjamin's lawsuit to proceed.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case and clarified that the determination of whether a proceeding is quasi-judicial is separate from whether it offers sufficient due process. The court held that a proceeding is quasi-judicial if it involves determining the interests, rights, or duties of specific individuals and applying current law or policy to past or present facts. The court concluded that the Title IX investigation met these criteria and was therefore quasi-judicial. Consequently, the statements made during the investigation were protected by absolute privilege, and the lawsuit against Ashley, Alexandra, and their mothers could not proceed. The court reversed the decision of the court of appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Hushen v. Gonzales" on Justia Law

E.R., the appellant, filed a complaint against the Beaufort County School District, alleging that the district failed to respond appropriately to her reports of sexual abuse and harassment while she was a student. E.R. claimed she was sexually assaulted by three male students and subsequently bullied and harassed by other students. Despite reporting these incidents to school officials, she alleged that no appropriate action was taken.The case was initially filed in South Carolina state court, asserting claims under Title IX and state law for negligence and gross negligence. The school district removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss it, arguing that the claims were untimely under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act (SCTCA), which has a two-year statute of limitations. The district court agreed, applying the SCTCA's statute of limitations to both the Title IX and state law claims, and dismissed the case as it was filed more than two years after E.R. turned 18.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the appropriate statute of limitations for Title IX claims is the state's general personal injury statute of limitations, not the SCTCA's two-year period. The court reasoned that Title IX claims should borrow the statute of limitations from the most analogous state law cause of action, which in this case is the general personal injury statute. Since South Carolina's general personal injury statute of limitations is three years, E.R.'s claims were timely.The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of E.R.'s complaint and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "E.R. v. Beaufort County School District" on Justia Law

R.M.A., a transgender student who transitioned from female to male, attended public school in the Blue Springs R-IV School District. R.M.A. requested to use male-designated restrooms and locker rooms during the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 school years, but the School District denied the request. R.M.A. filed a charge of discrimination with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights, alleging public accommodation discrimination based on sex. After receiving a notice of right to sue, R.M.A. filed a petition against the School District, claiming sex discrimination under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA).The Circuit Court of Jackson County dismissed R.M.A.'s petition, stating that the public accommodation protection in section 213.065 does not cover claims based on gender identity. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed this decision in R.M.A. I, finding that R.M.A. had pleaded sufficient facts to establish a claim of sex discrimination and remanded the case for further proceedings. On remand, R.M.A. proceeded to trial, and the jury found the School District liable for sex discrimination, awarding R.M.A. compensatory and punitive damages.The School District filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or, alternatively, a motion for a new trial, arguing that R.M.A. failed to make a submissible case for sex discrimination. The circuit court sustained the JNOV motion, finding that the evidence showed R.M.A. was excluded from male facilities due to female genitalia, not male sex. R.M.A. appealed.The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that R.M.A. did not present sufficient evidence that the School District's denial was based on R.M.A.'s male sex. The court concluded that the term "sex" in section 213.065 refers to biological sex, and the evidence indicated the School District's decision was based on R.M.A.'s female genitalia. Consequently, the court upheld the JNOV and denied R.M.A.'s motion for attorney fees. View "R.M.A. vs. Blue Springs R-IV School District" on Justia Law

The case involves Jovan Vavic, a former head coach of the men's and women's water polo teams at the University of Southern California (USC), who was implicated in the "Varsity Blues" college admissions scandal. Vavic was accused of facilitating the admission of students as fake athletic recruits in exchange for payments from Rick Singer, a college consultant orchestrating the scheme. The payments were allegedly made to benefit Vavic's water polo program and his sons' private school tuition.In the lower court, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts presided over the case. A jury convicted Vavic on three counts: conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and honest services mail and wire fraud, conspiracy to commit federal programs bribery, and wire fraud and honest services wire fraud. However, the district court granted Vavic a new trial, concluding that certain statements made by the government during its rebuttal closing amounted to prosecutorial misconduct. The court found that the government's statements misrepresented the law and facts, particularly regarding the payments to USC and the alleged $100,000 bribe for Agustina Huneeus's recruitment.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's order for a new trial on the honest services fraud charge (Count Sixteen) due to a Yates error, as it was impossible to determine if the jury's verdict rested on an invalid legal theory following the decision in United States v. Abdelaziz. However, the appellate court reversed the new trial order for the federal programs bribery conspiracy charge (Count Three), concluding that the government's statements did not constitute plain error and that there was no prejudicial variance or Napue error. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. View "US v. Vavic" on Justia Law