Education Law

Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendant-state school official’s motion for summary judgment in action by plaintiff-private school seeking transportation benefits for its students, under circumstances, where: (1) Wisconsin law limits those benefits for private school students to only one private school that was affiliated or operated by single sponsoring group within any attendance area; and (2) defendant found that plaintiff-private “Catholic” school was affiliated with same sponsoring group as another Catholic school which was already receiving transportation benefits. Defendant improperly made determination that both schools were sponsored by Catholic church that was based on probe of religious beliefs held by said schools and instead should have made said determination on neutral secular factors. Moreover, fact that both schools used same self-described label of “Catholic”, by itself, did not resolve question as to whether they were affiliated. Accordingly, remand was required for new determination of affiliation.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-University's motion for summary judgment in plaintiff-student's action under Title III of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), where defendant initially suspended plaintiff for semester for cheating on exam, and where defendant subsequently denied plaintiff's requests for readmission and told plaintiff that he would not be permitted to re-apply in future. While defendant had granted plaintiff's requested accommodation to receive extended time on tests and quizzes, record showed that plaintiff was cited for academic misconduct in 2013 for copying another student's homework and was cited again for academic misconduct in 2014 for submitting duplicate work of another student. In 2015, plaintiff was caught taking exam while using typed notes containing prohibited course slides, which formed basis of instant suspension. Incidents occurring in 2013 and 2014 were untimely because they occurred outside applicable two-year limitation period, and while 2015 claim was based on plaintiff's contention that defendant had failed to accommodate his ADHD and learning disabilities, plaintiff failed to explain why exception allowing plaintiff to use typed notes (without course slides) failed to accommodate his disability. Ct. also rejected plaintiff's breach of contract claim, alleging that defendant failed to follow its own procedures for suspending him, where Ct. found that any failure to follow said procedures did not constitute breach of contract, and where any failure to comply with said procedures fell within bounds of defendant's academic judgment.

Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing plaintiff-student's Title IX action, alleging that defendant-school subjected plaintiff to discrimination by failing to intervene when another student subjected plaintiff to severe bullying and harassment on account of her sex, and that defendant discriminated against plaintiff on basis of her sex. While defendant conceded that it had actual knowledge of student's bullying and harassment that was severe and pervasive, plaintiff failed to allege facts indicating that defendant was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff's harassment, where: (1) defendant responded promptly to plaintiff's complaints; (2) defendant suspended harasser for three days; and (3) defendant arranged meetings with plaintiff and her parent for purpose of allowing plaintiff to voice her concerns as victim of bullying and offered to have plaintiff change her classroom seat and to facilitate apology from harasser. Moreover, while plaintiff argued that harasser should have been expelled, Title IX liability does not give student victim license to demand particular remedial action. Also, plaintiff's allegations, that defendant fostered environment that discriminated against female students with respect to its dress code and its expectations for female students, failed to identify what program or benefit plaintiff, who was honor student, was not able to access because of dress code or because of defendant's expectations for female students.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-high school’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff-student’s Title IX claim, alleging that defendant provided inadequate response to her allegations of sexual harassment. Record showed that: (1) plaintiff told her grandmother that she had been raped off campus by classmate, who had previously been accused by another classmate of rape; (2) grandmother told school’s principal that plaintiff was being examined by trained professional, that she did not want plaintiff to be interviewed by school officials, and that she wanted accused rapist to be immediately removed from school; (3) principal told grandmother that investigation needed to occur before any disciplinary decision were made; (4) principal placed accused rapist and plaintiff on no-contact order; and (5) prosecutor eventually decided not to bring charges against accused rapist. Thereafter, principal received reports that plaintiff was being harassed by other female classmates, and principal told said accused harassers to stop the harassment. Plaintiff failed to show that defendant was deliberately indifferent to known acts of sexual harassment, where: (1) principal issued no contact order after learning of rape accusation, and plaintiff did not report that she received any subsequent harassment from accused rapist after issuance of said order; and (2) defendant’s attempts to get information from police investigation and to initiate its own Title IX investigation, as well as to respond to individuals claims of harassment were not unreasonable.