Justia U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A disabled child, born in 1996, was a student in the Sutton public school system from 1999 until 2005, when his parent were dissatisfied with the individualized education program developed under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 1400-1491, and the services he was receiving. They removed him from the school and enrolled him in a private learning center. The Massachusetts Bureau of Special Education Appeals determined that the 2005 IEP complied with the IDEA. The district court upheld the decision on summary judgment. The First Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the court could not determine compliance without first determining the child's potential for learning and self-sufficiency. The district court properly concluded that the child's potential was unknowable and that the IEP was reasonably calculated to confer educational benefits. The parents did not raise triable claims under the First Amendment, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Titles II and V of the Americans with Disabilities Act, or 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985; plaintiffs “cannot disguise an IDEA claim in other garb.” View "D.B., a minor v. Esposito" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a tenured professor at the University-defendant, was arrested by campus police and charged with stalking and disorderly conduct after unleashing an expletive-filled tirade against a colleague whom he suspected of causing him to receive a parking ticket. Plaintiff was temporarily banned from campus, removed as department head, and required to attend an anger-management class. Although the charges were later dismissed, Collins sued for false arrest, defamation, and violation of his due process rights. The district court granted judgment for the defendants. The First Circuit affirmed, first rejecting an argument that the arrest was illegal because the "violation" was civil in nature. The warrant was supported by probable cause. Suspension with pay for two months was a minimal deprivation that did not entitle plaintiff to pre-deprivation process. Plaintiff was allowed to visit campus several times during the ban and was given adequate process for the minimal deprivation of liberty. An email indicating that plaintiff's presence on campus should be reported was not defamatory.

A six-year-old boy, with profound hearing impairment, was furnished with transportation to and from school as part of his individualized education program. The school district contracts with a private company for bus service. The boy alleged sexual abuse by a bus driver. The family sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681-1688. The district court ruled in favor of the defendants. The First Circuit affirmed. The Section 1983 claim was properly rejected because transportation to and from school is not an exclusive state function; defendants did not act under color of state law. The Title IX claim failed because it is not clear that the "appropriate person," with the authority to take disciplinary action against the bus driver, actually knew about the alleged harassment and exhibited deliberate indifference toward it.

The family owned property and lived in Newburyport, but enrolled their son in school in Stamford, Connecticut during the 2008-2009 school year. His mother rented an apartment in Connecticut and on weekends returned to a Newburyport. The family gave up the Newburyport residence and moved to Connecticut in fall, 2009. The First Circuit vacated rulings in favor of the school district under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 1400-1482, which requires an education authority to provide an Individualized Education Plan for the benefit of any child with a disability. The district court misread the claims as moot. The claims are fairly read as saying that a procedural inadequacy, untimeliness, compromised plaintiffs' son's right to a guaranteed education. Newburyport had no obligation to draft a 2009 IEP for a nonresident, but the parents sought tuition reimbursement for the 2008-09 school year.

A Ph.D., in his late 40s, twice applied for an assistant professorship at University of Puerto Rico. A 30-year-old was ultimately hired. The district court dismissed an age discrimination action (29 U.S.C. 623(a),(d)) on the ground that the University is an arm of the state entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court. Th First Circuit affirmed, based on structural factors and the potential financial impact on state finances