Justia Education Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves Charles and Lisa Kass, parents of Brody Kass, who sued the Western Dubuque Community School District (the District) alleging that the District violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and other statutes when it developed Brody’s individualized education program (IEP) for the 2020–21 school year. Brody has epilepsy, autism, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, severe vision impairment, and intellectual disabilities. Despite Brody having enough credits to graduate, his IEP Team determined he had unmet transitional needs and should remain in school. The District proposed that Brody would not enroll in general education courses in the traditional classroom setting. Instead, Brody would spend a half-day focusing on developing his reading and math skills through individualized and practical training. The Kasses objected to the proposed IEP and filed a complaint with the Iowa Department of Education.The administrative law judge (ALJ) ruled in favor of the District on all claims, concluding the District did not violate Brody’s right to a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the 2018–19 or 2019–20 school years. The ALJ also determined neither the draft IEP nor its development violated any procedural or substantive provisions of the IDEA. The Kasses brought this action in federal district court, alleging violations of the IDEA, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Rehabilitation Act. The district court affirmed the ALJ’s decision on the IDEA claims and dismissed the other claims as subsumed under the IDEA claims.The United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that compensatory education may be available beyond a student’s twenty-first birthday. The court also concluded that the District complied with the IDEA’s procedural requirements in drafting the May 2020 IEP. The court found that the May 2020 IEP’s specific and measurable goals were reasonably calculated to enable Brody to progress in light of his circumstances, and thus met the IDEA’s requirements. View "Kass v. Western Dubuque Community School District" on Justia Law

Jason Doherty, a former student at Purchase College, State University of New York, who has Asperger Syndrome, sued several administrators of the college under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for declaratory and injunctive relief and emotional distress damages. The lawsuit was initiated after the college issued no-contact orders against Doherty at the request of three other students during his freshman orientation in August 2017.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed Doherty's claims, ruling that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his claims for declaratory and injunctive relief since they were moot, and that Doherty failed to state a claim for damages because emotional distress damages are not available under Title II of the ADA. The district court based its decision on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C., which held that emotional distress damages are not available under the Rehabilitation Act, a law that Title II of the ADA explicitly tracks.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that Doherty's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were moot given that the no-contact orders were not disciplinary actions, were not part of his permanent record, and expired upon his graduation. The court also agreed that emotional distress damages are not available under Title II of the ADA, which explicitly tracks the remedies, procedures, and rights available under the Rehabilitation Act. Finally, the court ruled that Doherty had forfeited any claims for other damages. View "Doherty v. Bice" on Justia Law

The case involves a group of employees and students at the University of Colorado Anschutz Campus who challenged the university's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The plaintiffs, identified as Jane Does 1-11 and John Does 1, 3-7, argued that the university's policies regarding religious exemptions from the vaccine mandate violated their First Amendment rights.The university initially allowed individuals to attest to their exemption based on religious beliefs using a simple form. However, in August 2021, the university implemented a new policy that required individuals seeking a religious exemption to provide additional information about their religious beliefs and to demonstrate that their religion opposes all immunizations. The university denied all of the plaintiffs' requests for religious exemptions under this policy and enforced the vaccine mandate against them.The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking a preliminary injunction against the university's policies. The district court denied their motion, ruling that the plaintiffs had failed to show that they were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court found that the university's policies were not neutral or generally applicable and were likely motivated by religious animus. The court held that the policies violated the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment and were subject to strict scrutiny, which they did not survive. The court concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims and that they were entitled to a preliminary injunction against the university's policies. View "Doe v. Board of Regents of the University of Colorado" on Justia Law

John Doe sued the University of Denver (DU) after he was expelled for allegedly engaging in nonconsensual sexual contact with another student, Jane Roe. Doe claimed that DU breached its contract with him by failing to conduct a "thorough, impartial and fair" investigation into Roe's accusation, as promised in DU's Office of Equal Opportunity Procedures (OEO Procedures). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of DU, and Doe appealed. The court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part.The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court agreed with the lower courts that the promise in DU's OEO Procedures of a "thorough, impartial and fair" investigation, when considered with the specific investigation requirements listed in those procedures, is enforceable under contract law. The court also agreed that the record does not permit the entry of summary judgment for DU on Doe’s general contract claim or on Doe’s contract claim premised on the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. However, the court disagreed with the lower courts on Doe’s tort claim, holding that DU does not owe its students an extra-contractual duty to exercise reasonable care in adopting and implementing fair procedures related to the investigation and adjudication of sexual-misconduct claims. Therefore, DU is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Doe’s tort claim. View "University of Denver v. Doe" on Justia Law

The case involves John Doe, a student who was expelled from Loyola University Chicago after the university concluded that he had engaged in non-consensual sexual activity with Jane Roe, another student. Doe sued the university under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 and Illinois contract law, alleging that the university discriminates against men.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of Loyola. Doe appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The appellate court, however, raised questions about the use of pseudonyms by the parties and the mootness of the case, given that Doe had already graduated from another university and the usual remedy of readmission was not applicable.The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the district court to address these issues. The court questioned whether compensatory damages were an option for Doe, and if not, the case may not be justiciable. The court also questioned the use of pseudonyms, stating that while anonymity may be common in Title IX suits, it must be justified in each case. The court noted that the public has a right to know who is using their courts and that a desire to keep embarrassing information secret does not justify anonymity. The court also raised concerns about whether revealing Doe's identity would indirectly reveal Roe's identity. The court concluded that these issues should be addressed by the district court. View "Doe v. Loyola University Chicago" on Justia Law

The case revolves around two Senate Bills—2780 and 3064—passed by the Mississippi Legislature in 2022. Senate Bill 2780 established the Independent Schools Infrastructure Grant Program (ISIGP), which allowed independent schools to apply for reimbursable grants for infrastructure projects funded by the Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Funds under the federal American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). Senate Bill 3064 allocated $10 million from the Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Fund to ISIGP. Parents for Public Schools (PPS), a nonprofit organization advocating for public schools, filed a complaint alleging that ISIGP violated the Mississippi Constitution by appropriating public funds to private schools. PPS sought injunctive and declaratory relief, asserting associational standing on behalf of its members.The Chancery Court of Hinds County found that PPS had established associational standing. It also found that Senate Bills 2780 and 3064 violated the Mississippi Constitution by appropriating public funds to private schools. The court denied a motion to intervene by the Midsouth Association of Independent Schools (MAIS), which sought to challenge the constitutionality of the relevant section of the Mississippi Constitution under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.The Supreme Court of Mississippi, however, found that PPS lacked standing to bring the lawsuit. The court determined that PPS failed to demonstrate an adverse impact different from that of the general public. The court noted that the funds at issue were federal, not state, funds earmarked for specific infrastructure needs, and were not commingled with state funds. The court also found that PPS's challenge to general government spending was too attenuated to bestow standing. As a result, the court vacated the judgment of the Hinds County Chancery Court and rendered judgment dismissing PPS's complaint. View "Midsouth Association of Independent Schools v. Parents for Public Schools" on Justia Law

Paul Montemuro was elected as the President of the Jim Thorpe Area School Board. However, a week later, the Board elected someone else without giving Montemuro any prior notice. Montemuro sued the Board members who voted against him and the Jim Thorpe Area School District, alleging that they had deprived him of his property without due process, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment. The defendants claimed qualified immunity.The District Court held that Montemuro had a clearly established property right in his employment and had been deprived of that right without due process. The defendants appealed this decision, arguing that they were entitled to qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision. The Court found that Pennsylvania law clearly established that Montemuro had a property interest in his job as the Board President. The Court also accepted Montemuro's allegation that he was removed from office without notice. Therefore, the Court concluded that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because they had violated Montemuro's clearly established right to due process. View "Montemuro v. Jim Thorpe Area School District" on Justia Law

The case involves Dr. Gopal Balakrishnan, a former tenured professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC), who was dismissed and denied emeritus status for sexually abusing a fellow academic at an off-campus academic conference and a UCSC student whom he volunteered to walk home from an off-campus graduation party. Balakrishnan appealed the decision, arguing that the university lacked jurisdiction to discipline him because the victims were not university students, the university misinterpreted and misapplied its own regulations and policies, he did not receive notice of all charges, and the sanctions were excessive.In the lower courts, Balakrishnan filed a petition for a writ of administrative mandate to set aside the findings and decision of the Regents of the University of California to terminate his employment and deny him emeritus status. The trial court denied his petition, upholding the university's decision.In the Court of Appeal of the State of California, the court rejected Balakrishnan's contentions and affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The court found that the university had the authority to discipline Balakrishnan for his off-campus behavior based on its internal policies, rules, and regulations. The court also found that Balakrishnan had received notice of the charges and that the sanctions were not excessive given the severity of his conduct. View "Balakrishnan v. Regents of the University of California" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a law student, Douglas Pell, who was studying at an unaccredited law school and was required to pass the First Year Law Students Exam (FYLSX) as a prerequisite to bar admission. Due to personal circumstances, Pell was unable to take the exam until his sixth opportunity. Despite passing on his first attempt, he was denied credit for 39 hours of courses he had completed after his first year of law school because he did not pass the FYLSX within the first three opportunities. Pell petitioned the State Bar of California for a hearing to excuse his delay and waive the forfeiture of his credits, but his petition was denied without explanation. Instead of petitioning the California Supreme Court to review the State Bar's decision, Pell filed a complaint in federal court.The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed Pell's case, agreeing with the State Bar that Pell had not suffered a cognizable deprivation under federal law. The court held that the California Supreme Court has exclusive original jurisdiction over matters of admission, and challenges regarding the FYLSX or its authorizing statute must be brought by original petition to the California Supreme Court. The State Bar's denial of Pell's petition for a hearing and a waiver of his credit forfeiture was taken in the Bar's advisory role and did not result in a cognizable deprivation of a protected right or property interest.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that Pell's federal claims must be dismissed for failure to state a claim, as the State Bar's actions did not cause Pell to suffer a cognizable deprivation under federal law. However, the court held that the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court also reversed the dismissal of Pell's state law claim under California's Unruh Act and remanded the case to the district court to exercise its discretion over whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction or dismiss the claim without prejudice so that it may be pursued in state court. View "Pell v. Nunez" on Justia Law

The case involves Brandon Pryor, an advocate for quality educational opportunities in Far Northeast Denver, who was stripped of his volunteer position and restricted from accessing Denver School District No. 1 facilities after he criticized the district and its officials. The district claimed that Pryor's conduct was abusive, bullying, threatening, and intimidating. Pryor sued the district, Superintendent Alex Marrero, and Deputy Superintendent Anthony Smith, alleging First Amendment retaliation.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted a preliminary injunction in part, enjoining the defendants from enforcing the restrictions and from taking any other retaliatory action against Pryor, his family, or the school he co-founded, the Robert W. Smith STEAM Academy. The defendants appealed the preliminary injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that Pryor was substantially likely to succeed on the merits of his First Amendment retaliation claim. The court also found that Pryor would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction was denied, that the harm to Pryor without the injunction outweighed the harm to the defendants with the injunction, and that the injunction was not adverse to the public interest. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction. View "Pryor v. School District No. 1" on Justia Law