Justia U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A panel of the Ninth Circuit filed an amended opinion in this dispute regarding attorney’s fees. In the amended opinion, the panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s award of attorney’s fees and costs to Capristrano Unified School District as the prevailing defendant in an action brought by the mother of a special education student alleging violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. 1983. The panel (1) agreed with the district court that the ADA and section 1983 claims were frivolous and affirmed the award of attorney’s fees and costs for representation relating to those claims; and (2) disagreed with the district court that the IDEA and Rehabilitation Act claims were frivolous and/or brought for an improper purpose and reversed the district court to the extent that it awarded attorney’s fees and costs related to the litigation of those claims. The cause was remanded. The panel also filed an order amending the opinion, denying a petition for rehearing and a suggestion for rehearing en banc, and directing the mandate to issue forthwith. View "C.W. v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs in these consolidated appeals were two local educational agencies in California, a school district and a county office of education. In separate actions, Plaintiff sued the California Department of Education in federal court alleging that, in resolving disputes between parents and the school districts, the Department routinely violated certain procedural requirements imposed by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and its implementing regulations. The district court dismissed the actions, concluding that Plaintiffs lacked a statutory right of action to seek declaratory and injunctive relief regarding alleged violations of procedural requirements imposed by the IDEA. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that school districts lack a right of action to challenge a State’s non-compliance with the IDEA’s procedural protections in the context of complaint resolution proceedings. View "Fairfield-Suisun Unified Sch. Dist. v. Cal. Dep’t of Educ." on Justia Law

C.W. was eligible for special education services and was in a special day class within the Capistrano Unified School District. K.S. consented to an occupational therapy assessment for C.W. K.S. then requested an independent assessment at public expense based on her disagreement with the occupational therapy report. The District denied the request and then initiated a due process hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ concluded that the District’s assessment was appropriate. K.S. appealed, claiming violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 1983, and Rehabilitation Act. The federal district court affirmed the ALJ’s decision and awarded the District attorney’s fees and costs. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the ADA and section 1983 claims were frivolous, and therefore, the district court correctly awarded attorney’s fees and costs for representation relating to those claims; but (2) the IDEA and Rehabilitation Act claims were not frivolous and/or brought for an improper purpose, and therefore, the district court erred in awarding attorney’s fees and costs related to the litigation of those claims. View "C.W. v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a class action against Sweetwater, alleging unlawful sex discrimination under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), 20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. Plaintiffs alleged that Sweetwater intentionally discriminated against female student athletes when they failed to provide equal treatment and benefits as compared to male athletes. On appeal, Sweetwater challenged the district court's grant of declaratory and injunctive relief to plaintiffs on their Title IX claims. The court concluded that Sweetwater has not fully and effectively accommodated the interests and abilities of its female athletes; the district court did not err in its award of summary judgment to plaintiffs on their Title IX unequal participation claim; and the court affirmed the grant of injunctive relief to plaintiffs on that issue. The court rejected Sweetwater's claims of evidentiary errors; the district court's ruling that plaintiffs have Article III standing and its decision to deny Sweetwater's motion to strike that claim were not error; plaintiffs stated a prima facie case of Title IX retaliation; the district court correctly could find that a coach was fired in retaliation for plaintiffs' Title IX complaints, not for any of the pretextual, non-retaliatory reasons that Sweetwater has offered; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting permanent injunctive relief to plaintiffs on their claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment and rejected Sweetwater's attempt to relitigate the merits of its case.View "Ollier v. Sweetwater Union High Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

In these consolidated appeals, C.M's parents challenged the district court's decision affirming the OAH judge's conclusion that the District did not violate the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400-1487. The parents argued that the District violated the procedural requirements of the IDEA because it failed to properly incorporate C.M's Response-to-Intervention (RTI) data into C.M.'s initial evaluation and it failed to provide them with C.M.'s RTI data. The court concluded that the District did not fail to incorporate the RTI data into the evaluation, but that it violated the IDEA's procedural requirements by failing to provide the parents with the RTI data; the District's procedural violations prevented the parents from meaningfully participating in the individualized education program (IEP) process; and the court remanded for reconsideration of whether the parents were entitled to reimbursement for the cost of private instruction because C.M. was denied a free appropriate public education, and for attorneys' fees. The parents also contested three of the district court's rulings related to the first two OAH proceedings. The court concluded that the district court properly concluded that the parents' claim for reimbursement of the cost of Dr. Guterman's evaluation was moot; properly concluded that the parents' due process rights were not violated by a change in the wording of the issue presented; and correctly determined that two of the three claims raised in the second OAH proceeding were time-barred. Finally, the court remanded for consideration of the parents' reevaluation retaliation claim and affirmed as to the remaining claims.View "M.M. v. Lafayette Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

Rashdan, an Egyptian dentist, enrolled in a program to credential her for practice in the U.S. Three months before graduation, Rashdan followed her clinical supervisor’s instructions to seat a crown, but the procedure was unsuccessful. The head of the restorative dentistry program, Geissberger, heard about the failed procedure, and told Rashdan, within earshot of others, that her “clinical work ... was ‘Third World Dentistry.’” Later, another supervisor greeted Rashdan saying, “What’s up, TW?” then stated: “Don’t you get it? ... Third World?” Days before graduation, Rashdan was informed that despite adequate academic work, she was not recommended for graduation and that she would have to remediate in restorative dentistry and removable prosthodontics. Rashdan entered an additional quarter of clinical work at no extra cost; her performance did not improve. Evaluators stated that she was actively harming patients. Faculty members exchanged emails about her poor performance, and recommended that Rashdan pursue an additional quarter of remedial work on models, after which she could return to work on patients. Rather than appeal the plan or begin remediation, Rashdan took a leave of absence and filed suit, claiming national origin discrimination in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000d. The district court rejected the claim on summary judgment. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the McDonnell Douglas framework for disparate treatment claims under Title VII applied to the Title VI claim. Rashdan did not establish a prima facie case of national origin discrimination.View "Rashdan v. Geissberger" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, who is disabled and uses a wheelchair for mobility, filed suit against the District, contending that he could not fully enjoy football games because of the unavailability of wheelchair accessible seating. The court concluded that Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12131-12165, does not a require a public entity to structurally alter public seating at a high school football field, where the seating was constructed prior to the ADA's enactment, and the school district provides program access to individuals who use wheelchairs. In this case, the District provided plaintiff with program access to the football games and plaintiff failed to establish that the District excluded him from a public program. Accordingly, plaintiff's claim failed under Title II of the ADA and the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the District. View "Daubert v. Lindsay USD" on Justia Law

E.M., who has an auditory processing disorder or a central auditory processing disorder, through his parents, filed suit against the district alleging that E.M. had been denied a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. The court concluded that plaintiffs failed to show that the district acted unreasonably in determining in 2005 that E.M. did not qualify for special education services under the "specific learning disability" category; the Department of Education's position that a central auditory processing disorder is eligible for consideration for benefits under the "other health impairment" category merits deference; but plaintiffs failed to show that the district acted unreasonably in not considering E.M. for benefits under the "other health impairment" category in 2005. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of relief to plaintiffs. View "E.M. v. Pajaro Valley U.S.D." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a minor, challenged the district court's orders upholding the OAH's partial denial of reimbursement for educational costs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in No. 12-55715 and granting in part and denying in part a related motion for attorney's fees in No. 12-56796. The district court affirmed the OAH's finding that the school districts denied the student a free appropriate public education for the 2007/2008 school year when they failed to comply with a previous settlement agreement's assessment requirements. The court concluded that the private placement was appropriate. As such, the child should be reimbursed for the cost of tuition. Because the court found that the private placement was an appropriate placement, the child was also entitled to transportation reimbursement; and the district court did not err in partially rejecting reimbursement for the cost of the private aides. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part No. 12-55715. The court dismissed No. 12-56796 for lack of jurisdiction to hear the untimely appeal of the district court's order on fees. View "S. L. v. Upland Unified Sch. Dist., et al." on Justia Law

Students brought a civil rights suit against the school district and two school officials after the school asked a group of students to remove clothing bearing images of the American flag when school officials learned of threats of race-related violence during a school-sanctioned celebration of Cinco de Mayo. The court concluded that school officials did not violate the students' rights to freedom of expression, due process, or equal protection where the school officials anticipated violence or substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities and their response was tailored to the circumstances. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's holding that the policy was not unconstitutionally vague and did not violate the students' rights to due process. View "Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified Sch. Dist., et al." on Justia Law