Back-to-School Civil Rights Issues

As the 2024-25 school year gets underway, there are 5 hot-off-the-press cases about civil rights in K-12 schools that you should know about, from Palestine to Title Nine:

DISABILITY

Summer Move-In IEPs

During the summer, a student moved from Pennsylvania to Minnesota. He had a 105-page IEP (what the…?!).

The family enrolled the student a week before the school year started in September. The school and family met to discuss providing “comparable services” to the Pennsylvania IEP, but they had a disagreement about the appropriate placement and services. The family acquiesced to sending the child to school in late September, but problems continued.

By December, the school district had evaluated the student and developed a Minnesota IEP. The parents filed a complaint, arguing the school should have had an IEP in place on the first day of school. The school disagreed, arguing that the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA) provision about first-day IEPs (34 C.F.R. § 300.323(a)) doesn’t apply to late-summer transfers from out of state and they did provide services comparable to those in the student's Pennsylvania IEP until they developed a new one.

The state court agreed with the parent:

If the student enrolls during the school year, the court observed, the district must provide services comparable to those in the student's previous IEP until it adopts that IEP or develops a new one. For summer enrollees, the district must have an IEP in place on the first day of school.

Read more here: Special Education Complaint 23-157C on behalf of A. M. A. from Rochester 0535-01 (July 2024)

SEX & GENDER

Title IX Injunctions: A Nation Split

The U.S. Supreme Court weighed in (or more appropriately, refused to weigh in) on the messy roll-out of the 2024 Title IX regulations.

In most of the lawsuits by conservative states and groups, the plaintiffs asked the courts to block the provisions of the 2024 Title IX regulations that provided protections for students on basis of gender identity. The courts granted preliminary injunctions (“pause buttons”) on the entire application of the 2024 rules, not just the challenged gender-identity provisions.

The U.S. Department of Education asked the U.S. Supreme Court to narrow the lower courts’ rulings so they could still enforce the parts of the 2024 regulations that were not challenged (i.e., “let us enforce the parts nobody had a problem with!”)

In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to let the lower courts’ rulings stand. This is not a ruling on the substance of the 2024 Title IX regulations, but the process.

The 2020 Title IX regulations will continue to be applied in 26 states and these individual schools as these cases work their way through courts and federal elections occur. Twenty-four other states will use the 2024 Title IX regulations. OCR has also confirmed this approach.

Read more here: U.S. Department of Education v. Louisiana (August 2024)

Great resource here: ATIXA Injunction Tracker

ETHNICITY & RELIGION

Israel-Palestine Speech

Since June 2024, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has resolved 5 cases regarding student speech on the issue of the Israel-Palestine Conflict or Gaza Genocide.

In all 5 cases, OCR determined the schools woefully under-responded to complaints of discrimination based on national origin, including shared Jewish, Israeli, Palestinian, Arab, Muslim, and/or South Asian ancestry.

OCR has re-emphasized schools’ obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act in two recent Dear Colleague Letters: November 2023 and May 2024.

OCR writes: “The offensiveness of a particular expression as perceived by some students, standing alone, is not a legally sufficient basis to establish a hostile environment under Title VI. OCR evaluates the conduct from the perspective of the student who is allegedly being harassed and from the perspective of a reasonable person in that student’s position, considering all the circumstances.” Pro-Palestine speech is not automatically Antisemitic speech, and pro-Israel speech is not automatically anti-Muslim speech. A thorough analysis of hostile environment and disruption to the school environment is necessary under the law.

Read more here: Resolution Agreement, Brown University, OCR Complaint No. 01-24-2116 (July 2024).

FIRST AMENDMENT VS. DISCRIMINATION:

“There Are Only Two Genders” Shirt

A twelve-year-old student with a penchant for wearing shirts with messages like Don’t Tread on Me and Let’s Go Brandon wore a shirt to school reading “THERE ARE ONLY TWO GENDERS.”

After receiving student and staff complaints about the “two gender” shirt, Massachusetts middle school administrators determined the “two gender” message would “demean the identity of transgender and gender non-conforming” students, who had faced bullying, harassment, and suicidal ideations. The administrators told the student to take off the shirt or leave school. His dad picked him up and he missed half a day of school.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the school district’s decision. In determining the school’s competing obligations under the First Amendment and anti-discrimination laws, the court held that school administrators were in a better position than judges to determine what might be disruptive to the school environment. The school demonstrated an atmosphere of anti-LGBTQIA+ sentiment that had led to student suicidal ideations and bullying influenced their decision.

Read more here: L.M. v. Town of Middleborough, 1st Cir., No. 23-1535 (June 2024).

RELIGION & GENDER:

Religious Opt-Out from LGBTQIA-Themed Curriculum

A Maryland school district added 22+ books with LGBTQIA+ themes to its language arts curriculum for teachers to use in the classroom if they so choose. Some parents requested that the school district provide notice to families before these LGBTQIA+ themed books were used in the classroom, and an opt-out option.

When the school district did not allow parents to opt-out of lessons, some parents sued, arguing that the mandatory attendance policy violated their rights to direct their children’s religious upbringing, free speech, and due process rights.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the school district did not have to allow parents to excuse their kids from classroom lessons involving LGBTQIA-themed books. The court wrote: “mere exposure to views contrary to one's own religious beliefs [does not] necessarily constitute a cognizable burden" on the free exercise of religion.

Read more here: Mahmoud v. McKnight (May 2024).

Imprint Legal Group advises schools and businesses on legally compliant and culturally inclusive cultures. To discuss any questions about your particular situation or training opportunities, contact: hello@imprintlegalgroup.com.

All posts of Imprint Legal Group and its authors are intended as information, not legal advice. This information is valid as of August 2024.