Special Education Legislation Updates

COPAA Is Among the Plaintiffs in a Federal Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Clark County School District and the Nevada Department of Education

COPAA is among the plaintiffs in a federal class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. Last month, COPAA and nine families of children with disabilities who attend public schools within the Clark County School District filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief on behalf of the named plaintiffs and all others similarly situated. Among the defendants in the case are the Clark County School District (“CCSD”) and the Nevada Department of Education (“NDE”).

The amended complaint is available here.

COPAA and its fellow plaintiffs filed the class action lawsuit due to CCSD’s alleged district-wide policies that systematically deny students with disabilities their right to a free appropriate public education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) and that discriminate against them in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

The lawsuit alleges that NDE has egregiously failed to ensure that CCSD complies with these federal laws protecting the rights of the more than 40,000 children with disabilities in the district. The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief including the appointment of a federal monitor to restructure CCSD’s educational system and requiring NDE to provide support and oversight to ensure that the school district meets the needs of disabled students as required by the IDEA, the ADA, and Section 504.

Lori C. Rogich, Jeffrey I. Wasserman, Greg Little, Hillary D. Freeman, Catherine Merino Reisman and Judith A. Gran are the attorneys for Plaintiffs.

U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case To Determine Whether Students with Disabilities Must Meet a Uniquely High Standard in Order To Prevail on Disability Discrimination Claims.

On Friday, January 17, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the family’s petition for a writ of certiorari in the case A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, agreeing to hear the case. The family in this case, which arose out of Minnesota, prevailed on its Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) claim in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, but lost on their claims of disability discrimination under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

At issue before the U.S. Supreme Court will be the Eighth Circuit standard requiring children with disabilities who claim disability discrimination “based on educational services” to prove that their public school officials acted with “bad faith or gross misjudgment.” This standard originated in the Eighth Circuit in 1982, and in the years since a circuit split has emerged among several courts of appeals. The “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard is not required by the actual statutory texts of the ADA or Section 504, and neither the Eighth Circuit nor other circuit courts of appeals require such a showing for disability discrimination cases that arise in non-school settings. The standard is very high, making it difficult for students with disabilities to prevail on disability discrimination claims.

COPAA member Amy J. Goetz of the School Law Center, LLC, represents the family in this case; she is joined by Nicholas Rosellini of Latham & Watkins LLP and Counsel of Record Roman Martinez, who will argue the family’s case before the U.S. Supreme Court this term.

COPAA submitted an amicus brief in October 2024 urging the Supreme Court to hear this case and was joined by fellow amici National Center for Youth Law, National Disability Rights Network, Learning Rights Law Center, and Education Law Center. The Amicus brief was written by COPAA board member Ellen Saideman and COPAA Legal Director Selene Almazan.

You can read the family’s petition for certiorari here and COPAA’s amicus brief here.

COPAA files amicus brief in administrative proceeding: Office for Civil Rights v. Michigan Department of Education

COPAA filed an amicus brief in an administrative proceeding, Office for Civil Rights v. Michigan Department of Education, on December 23, 2024. COPAA’s petition to file (pursuant to 34 C.F.R. §101.22) and participate as amicus curiae was originally filed in July 2024 and granted in November 2024.

The Office for Civil Rights filed a Compliance proceeding against Michigan Department of Education, pursuant to Section 504, alleging that Michigan Department of Education:

failed to ensure that Michigan students with disabilities were receiving a free appropriate public education (F APE) as required by Section 504 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, MDE exacerbated and contributed to the harm to students with disabilities caused by the F APE denials by giving school districts, which it supervised and to which it provided Federal financial assistance, information about the remedies required for

F APE denials that was inconsistent with Section 504’s requirements.

Michigan denies the allegations and filed a Motion to Dismissed based on its position that OCR lacks jurisdiction because the Michigan students have IEPs and are therefore covered under IDEA and OCR does not have enforcement authority. Furthermore, Michigan states that the Michigan DOE does not have supervisory authority over the local school districts’ compliance with Section 504.

COPAA’s amicus brief states that the regulations contain a specific requirement that any applicant for federal financial assistance submit an “assurance” that the program for which federal funding is sought “will be operated in compliance” with Section 504. 29 U.S.C. 794, 45 C.F.R. § 84.5(a). If this “assurance” is broken, the recipient is responsible; and the recipient can then be directed to take remedial action. 45 C.F.R. § 84.6(a). There is no doubt that OCR has the authority and responsibility to investigate and enforce Section 504 implementations and violations in Michigan. This obligation is not negated because students with disabilities have an IEP. Furthermore, Michigan offers no support for their assertion that OCR cannot investigate Michigan for violations of Section 504 if the student also has an IEP. Students with disabilities, and an IEP, do not leave their civil rights at the schoolhouse door. “Other federal statutes also protect the interests of children with disabilities, including Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and §504 of the Rehabilitation Act.” Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Sch., 580 U.S. 154, 154, 137 S. Ct. 743, 746 (2017). Rather, they continue to have Section 504 rights even though they have an IEP.

COPAA’s legal director, Selene Almazan, wrote the brief with assistance from Ellen Saideman. The amicus brief can be found here.

Ed department report reveals sharp inequities for students with IEPs, 504 Plans | Disability Scoop

New data from thousands of school districts across the nation is highlighting stark differences in the experiences of students with disabilities compared to their typically developing peers. Children with disabilities are far more likely to be subject to restraint or seclusion, suspended, expelled, referred to law enforcement or arrested at school, according to the U.S. Department of Education’s most recent civil rights data collection. The findings, released this month, are based on responses from 17,704 school districts.

Supreme Court agrees to hear disabled Minnesota student’s case

The Supreme Court on Friday said it will decide whether a teenager with severe epilepsy can sue her Minnesota school after a lengthy fight over special accommodations. At the heart of the issue: can the student, identified only by her first name – Ava – sue for discrimination. She cannot attend school before noon, and her school is now under court order to extend her school day until 6 p.m. Ava has had a rare form of epilepsy called Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome since she was an infant. As a result of her condition, she has significantly diminished intellectual capacities and has seizures throughout the day. But the seizures are most severe in the morning.