Education Law

Dist. Ct. erred in dismissing portion of plaintiff-university employee’s claim alleging that defendant-university violated his rights under Due Process Clause when it terminated him for alleged security breach involving university’s email system without conducting sufficient pre-termination hearing. Instant breach concerned plaintiff’s possession of certain emails that plaintiff had used in unrelated state court action against another university employee, and although defendant met with plaintiff on one occasion before his termination to discuss charges against him, plaintiff sufficiently alleged due process violation where he claimed that his termination came before he had opportunity to explain his possession of said emails, where state court had entered order at time of said pre-termination meeting directing defendant and others not to discuss subject matter of emails.

Dist. Ct. erred in granting judgment on stipulated facts to defendant-school district in action seeking relief under Title IX and equal protection clause, where plaintiff-boy high school basketball player challenged defendant’s policy that required boy basketball players to cut their hair to certain length, while said policy contained no such requirement for girl basketball players. While Dist. Ct. properly rejected plaintiff’s substantive due process claim that alleged that plaintiff had fundamental right to wear his hair at any length and style of his choosing where Ct. found that any such right was subject to rational basis review, instant policy violated equal protection clause and Title IX since policy discriminated against plaintiff on basis of his sex. Moreover, while defendant could have different grooming policies for boys and girls, defendant failed to present evidence of what grooming standards applied to girls so as to demonstrate that girls were expected to conform to comparable, though not identical, grooming standards. Fact that hair-length policy applied to only two out of several boys sports did not require different result. (Dissent filed.)

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-school district’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff-student’s action under 504 of Rehabilitation Act, alleging that defendant’s failure to follow requirements in plaintiff’s section 504 plan regarding treatment for plaintiff’s diabetic condition while in school constituted disability discrimination. Section 504’s education requirement is less exacting than requirements under IDEA, and while defendant did not fully comply with all terms of 504 plan requiring specific number of staff being adequately trained to deal with plaintiff’s condition, said failure was minor and did not otherwise constitute failure to accommodate plaintiff’s disability, where record showed that plaintiff regularly attended school, performed well and suffered no adverse health consequences during his time in school. Also, plaintiff’s dispute with defendant regarding plaintiff’s ability to adjust his insulin was non-actionable where plaintiff essentially wanted to alter provisions of his own doctor’s orders.