Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The case involves Pablo Abreu, a student who was expelled from Howard University College of Medicine. Abreu appealed his expulsion, arguing that the university violated his rights under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1972 by refusing to grant him additional opportunities to retake a required examination, in light of his diagnosed test-taking-anxiety disability. The district court dismissed his complaint, applying a one-year statute of limitations and ruling that his claims were time-barred.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit disagreed with the lower court's application of a one-year statute of limitations to Abreu’s ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims. The court pointed to its decision in another case, Stafford v. George Washington University, in which it concluded that a three-year statute of limitations should apply to civil rights claims under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Since Abreu's ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims were also civil rights claims alleging discrimination, the court ruled that the three-year statute of limitations should apply. This made Abreu’s claims timely since he filed the suit less than three years after his expulsion.The court then remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings on the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims. However, it affirmed the dismissal of Abreu's contractual claims, agreeing with the district court that Abreu failed to state a claim for breach of contract. View "Abreu v. Howard University" on Justia Law

In the case at hand, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of claims brought by a group of students and Children’s Health Defense, Inc. against Rutgers University. The plaintiffs challenged the university's COVID-19 vaccination policy, which required in-person students to be vaccinated or else enroll in online programs or seek exemptions for medical or religious reasons. The court found that the university's policy did not violate the plaintiffs' constitutional or statutory rights.The court held that there is no fundamental right to refuse vaccination. It applied the rational basis review and concluded that Rutgers University had a rational basis for its policy given the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' claim that the policy was ultra vires under New Jersey law, determining that Rutgers was authorized to require COVID-19 vaccinations under state law. Furthermore, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' equal protection claim, concluding that Rutgers had a rational basis for its differential treatment of students and staff, as well as vaccinated and unvaccinated students. View "Children's Health Defense Inc. v. Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey" on Justia Law

This case is about a dispute between Richard Roe and St. John’s University (SJU) and Jane Doe. Roe, a male student at SJU, was accused of sexually assaulting two female students, Doe and Mary Smith, on separate occasions. SJU's disciplinary board found Roe guilty of non-consensual sexual contact with both Doe and Smith and imposed sanctions, including a suspension and eventual expulsion. Roe then sued SJU, alleging that his rights under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and state contract law had been violated. He also sued Doe for allegedly defaming him in an anonymous tweet accusing him of sexual assault. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed Roe's Title IX and state law claims, and declined to exercise jurisdiction over his defamation claim. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Roe's complaint failed to state a plausible claim of sex discrimination under Title IX. The court found that, while Roe had identified some procedural irregularities in SJU's disciplinary proceedings, these were not sufficient to support a minimal plausible inference of sex discrimination. Furthermore, the court ruled that Roe's hostile environment claim was fatally deficient, as the single anonymous tweet at the center of his claim was not, standing alone, sufficiently severe to support a claim of a hostile educational environment under Title IX. View "Roe v. St. John's University" on Justia Law

In this case, Alyssa Reid, a former faculty member at James Madison University (JMU) in Virginia, was accused of violating JMU’s Title IX policy against non-consensual relationships based on her past relationship with a graduate student. JMU and its officials investigated the accusation and held a hearing, leading to a decision that Reid violated the policy. Reid appealed the decision to JMU’s provost, who denied her appeal. Subsequently, Reid sued JMU and several officials, raising three due process claims under both 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Virginia Constitution, as well as a sex discrimination claim under Title IX.The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia held that Reid’s claims accrued when the dean made his decision, and thus they were barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations. Reid appealed this decision, arguing that her claims accrued not when the dean issued his decision, but when the provost denied her appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed with Reid. The court found that Reid did not have a complete and present cause of action until JMU reached a final decision in her Title IX proceedings. The court determined that JMU did not make clear that the dean’s decision was its official position. Rather, JMU’s official position was made clear to Reid when the provost denied her appeal with a “final,” non-appealable decision. Therefore, Reid’s due process and Title IX claims were not barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations, and the court reversed the district court's dismissal of Reid’s claims and remanded for further proceedings. View "Reid v. James Madison University" on Justia Law

In a case involving an attorney father, Scott D. Pitta, and the Bridgewater-Raynham Regional School District, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Pitta's claim that he had a First Amendment right to video record a private meeting discussing his child's Individualized Educational Program (IEP). The court found that an IEP Team Meeting does not occur in a public space, is closed to the public, and involves discussion of highly sensitive information about a student. Furthermore, the court stated that public school teachers and administrators carrying out their IEP obligations are not akin to the "public officials" in previous cases that established a First Amendment right to record. The court also noted that Pitta's claimed right to record was not linked to the public's right to receive information. Finally, the court reasoned that even if there were a First Amendment right to record such meetings, the school district's prohibition of video recording served a significant governmental interest and was narrowly tailored to promoting candid conversations and protecting sensitive information during IEP discussions. View "Pitta v. Medeiros" on Justia Law

In the case involving a high school student, Jacob Bradley, and his parents, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit concluded that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) does not require states to provide special education services to students participating in dual-credit or dual-enrollment programs offered at postsecondary institutions.Jacob Bradley, a gifted student with several physical and cognitive conditions, was enrolled in the Craft Academy for Excellence in Science and Mathematics, a state-run dual-credit program located at Morehead State University. His parents sought reimbursement for special education support accommodations provided at Craft under IDEA. However, the district court ruled that IDEA, which offers federal funds to states to provide free appropriate public education to students with disabilities, does not apply to Craft because its dual-credit classes provide postsecondary rather than secondary school education.The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, holding that the IDEA’s obligation to provide a "free appropriate public education" applies to "secondary," not postsecondary, education. The court also noted that, under Kentucky law, Craft is considered a postsecondary school because it delivers a college-level course of study on a college campus.The court also concluded that the state and federal agencies' interpretation of the IDEA and the state law, which excluded dual-credit courses at postsecondary institutions from IDEA’s mandate, was correct. The court emphasized that the IDEA is a spending clause legislation that operates as a contract between the federal government and states, and states need to comply only with clearly written terms in the Act, not uncertain or ambiguous ones.Additionally, the court affirmed the dismissal of the Bradleys' claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, as they failed to demonstrate how the Commonwealth separately violated the provisions of these distinct Acts.In conclusion, the court held that the IDEA does not obligate Kentucky school districts to provide special education services to a student participating in dual-credit classes offered at a postsecondary institution. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the Bradleys' claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. View "Bradley v. Jefferson Cnty. Public Schs." on Justia Law

This case concerns John HR Doe and other Doe plaintiffs, who alleged that William Babcock, a counselor at an elementary school in the Marysville Joint Unified School District, committed sexual misconduct causing them injury and damages. The Doe plaintiffs filed three separate lawsuits against the School District. The first two, filed in state court, were voluntarily dismissed. The third, filed in federal court, also alleged violations of federal law. The School District moved to dismiss the federal court action, claiming immunity under the Eleventh Amendment for most of the claims. The Doe Plaintiffs then voluntarily dismissed their federal court action and filed a third state court action.The School District demurred to the third state court complaint, arguing res judicata based on the plaintiffs' voluntary dismissal of the second action in federal court. The trial court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the complaint, ruling that the dismissal of the federal court action constituted res judicata. On appeal, the Doe plaintiffs contended that the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims on the merits because the School District argued Eleventh Amendment immunity. They also argued that California state law controls, under which a second voluntary dismissal does not constitute res judicata.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District, affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellate court found that the federal court did have subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims because it had jurisdiction over the federal law claims, with supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. Moreover, the court held that res judicata applied because federal law determines the claim-preclusive effect of a federal court judgment in a federal question case, and under federal law, a second voluntary dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits. The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that California law should control, stating that states must accord federal court judgments the effect that federal law prescribes. As such, the Doe plaintiffs' third state court action was barred by res judicata due to their second voluntary dismissal in federal court. View "Doe v. Marysville Joint Unified Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

In the Matter of Antavis Chavis, the Supreme Court of Maryland ruled that a bar applicant diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) had met his burden to prove that he had a "disability" under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and that the testing accommodation he requested—50% additional time to take the Uniform Bar Examination (UBE)—was warranted. The court adopted a two-step test to determine whether a bar examination test accommodation request should be granted. First, the court must determine if the applicant meets the ADA definition of "disability." Second, the court must determine if the test accommodation requested by the applicant is "reasonable, consistent with the nature and purpose of the examination and necessitated by the applicant’s disability." The court observed that under the ADA and related federal regulations, the definition of disability should be broadly construed and that evidence of past test accommodations must be given considerable weight. The court sustained the applicant’s exceptions to the denial of his test accommodation request by the State Board of Law Examiners (SBLE), reversed the denial, and remanded the matter to the SBLE with instruction to grant the applicant’s test accommodation request. View "In the Matter of Antavis Chavis" on Justia Law

This case involves the Boston Parent Coalition for Academic Excellence Corp., which challenged the temporary admissions plan for three selective public schools in Boston. The admissions plan was based on students' grade point averages (GPAs), zip codes, and family income, rather than on standardized test scores. The Coalition claimed that the plan had a disparate impact on White and Asian students and violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Massachusetts law.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit found that the Coalition's claim lacked merit. It held that the Coalition failed to show any relevant disparate impact on White and Asian students, who were over-represented among successful applicants compared to their percentages of the city's school-age population. The court also found that the Coalition failed to demonstrate that the plan was motivated by invidious discriminatory intent. It pointed out that the Plan's selection criteria, which included residence, family income, and GPA, could hardly be deemed unreasonable.The court noted that any distinction between adopting a criterion (like family income) notwithstanding its tendency to increase diversity, and adopting the criterion because it likely increases diversity, would, in practice, be largely in the eye of the labeler. It emphasized that the entire point of the Equal Protection Clause is that treating someone differently because of their skin color is not like treating them differently because they are from a city or from a suburb.The court also rejected the Coalition's appeal of the district court's denial of its motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which sought relief from the judgment based on newly discovered evidence that some members of the School Committee harbored racial animus. The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion, as the Coalition had failed to show that the newly discovered evidence was of such a nature that it would probably change the result were a new trial to be granted.The court therefore affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Boston Parent Coalition for Acad. Excellence Corp. v. The School Committee of the City of Boston" on Justia Law

In 2015, a group of parents brought a class action lawsuit on behalf of their children, who were enrolled in Minneapolis and Saint Paul public schools. The parents claimed that the state of Minnesota violated their children's right to an adequate education under the Education Clause of the Minnesota Constitution due to the racial and socioeconomic segregation present in the schools. The case went through several years of litigation, and the district court certified a question for immediate appeal: whether racial imbalances in Minneapolis and Saint Paul public schools are sufficient, standing alone, to establish a violation of the Education Clause. The Minnesota Supreme Court reformulated the certified question and held that racial imbalances in Minneapolis and Saint Paul public schools, standing alone, are not sufficient to establish a violation of the Education Clause. The court ruled that while the parents do not have to establish that state action caused the racial imbalances, they must show that the racial imbalances are a substantial factor in causing their children to receive an inadequate education. The case was remanded back to the district court for further proceedings. View "Cruz-Guzman, as guardian and next friend of his minor children vs. State of Minnesota" on Justia Law