U.S. Supreme Court Appears to Scale Back Requirement to Exhaust Administrative Remedies Before Filing Suit in Special Education Cases

By Geneva Englebrecht, Associate
and Adam Newman, Partner
Cerritos Office

On February 21, 2012, the United State Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from the Peninsula School District (“District”) in the state of Washington. The District sought review of a Ninth Circuit decision from July 2011. The case stems from a 2005 civil suit filed against the District by a student indentified as D.P., seeking relief under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act alleging violations of the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, as well as violations of the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (“IDEA”). In response to the civil filing, the District argued that D.P. had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by not going through the due process hearing and appeals procedures connected to the due process hearing. The lower federal court agreed with the District and dismissed the lawsuit. In a somewhat surprising move, the Ninth Circuit reversed.

Generally, the IDEA requires that before filing a civil action seeking relief that is also available under the IDEA, a student must exhaust administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit. However, the Ninth Circuit held that the lower courts should look at the relief sought rather than the injury alleged. This position is in stark contrast to the Ninth Circuit’s previous rulings which placed the focus on the injury alleged, i.e. usually a denial of a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) in the least restrictive environment (“LRE”). The Ninth Circuit specifically noted that exhaustion is required when the parent seeks: 1) an IDEA remedy, such as tuition reimbursement; 2) a change in the student’s program or placement; or 3) the enforcement of rights arising from a denial of FAPE. However, depending on the type of relief sought, some relief may fall outside the exhaustion rule, thereby allowing pursuit of a lawsuit side by side or in lieu of a due process hearing. Not all Courts of Appeal across the country accept the Ninth Circuit’s latest turnabout, which makes all the more puzzling the Supreme Court’s actions, since one purpose of Supreme Court review is to reconcile different interpretations of federal law by different Circuit Courts in the United States, as is the case here.

Power Purchase Agreement Projects are Now Covered by the California Prevailing Wage Law

By Bryce Chastain, Senior Associate
Pleasanton Office
and Hugh Lee, Partner
Cerritos Office

Effective January 1, 2012, the legislature expanded the definition of "public project" subject to the California prevailing wage law with criteria meant to cover Power Purchase Agreement ("PPA") projects built on public property, supplying at least half the generated power to the public property owner.

In a typical PPA the local educational agency ("LEA") agrees to lease LEA land, or rooftops, to a private company that will design, build and then own and operate a renewable energy facility. The LEA usually also agrees buy all of the electrical energy generated from the facility for a very long period - typically twenty or more years. The LEA benefits because it is projected to spend less on its electricity over that period than if it just kept buying from the local utility, but it does not have to the building of a solar (or other renewable energy) plant itself.  There are also several key economic components on the private owner's side that make PPAs an attractive business, and make it possible for them to offer low rates for the energy produced from PPA facilities. An argument some PPA providers have pushed is that they can build the plant at lower cost because it would be exempt from the California prevailing wage law, but the law was not clear.

Being Prepared For Student Protests And Walk-Outs

By Sal Holguin, Partner
and Geneva Englebrecht, Associate
Cerritos Office

Media Coverage of the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations is widespread. The protest has spanned the country and has included demonstrations in California cities such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, Ventura, Anaheim, and Temecula. At the same time the campaigns for local, state and national elections are starting to build momentum. Whether these protests and campaigns will infiltrate the school setting is unclear, however, school districts must be prepared to meet their legal obligation to provide a safe and supportive learning environment by mitigating any detrimental effect that protest, picketing, or student walk-outs may have on the school setting.

While school districts must be sensitive to their students’ broad legal right to free expression, they must also bear in mind their legal obligation to prevent the disruption of school activities, the shared responsibilities between schools and parents in ensuring the compulsory attendance, and the safety of their student. School district’s must also be mindful of the types of discipline that can be imposed on demonstrating students. With this in mind, we offer the following advice regarding notices to parents and addressing potential adult involvement in the student activism.

The Potential Pitfalls of Cloud Computing

By Peter Sturges, Associate
Pleasanton Office

The trend toward “cloud computing” is increasingly visible as technology firms and service providers vie with each other to provide users with web-based data and software application services. From Apple’s iCloud to Amazon’s cloud-based user libraries to your local cable provider’s data storage plans, everyone wants to provide users with fee-based cloud services.

Cloud computing offers a number of advantages, such as providing online applications (also known as Software-as-a-Service, or “SaaS”), data storage, messaging, email, and web sites that the users themselves do not have to maintain. Cloud-based service providers claim to save users money in the long run by providing these services, notwithstanding that users are charged for them.

Nonreelections and Year-End Performance Evaluations: Now is the Time to Think Ahead

By Sharon Ormond, Senior Associate

Aaron O’Donnell, Partner

Cerritos Office

and Lexe Davidson, Associate

Irvine Office

As we reach the approximate midpoint of the academic year, we believe it is important for employers to look ahead to nonreelections and year-end performance evaluations of permanent employees.  We therefore remind our readers of important procedural considerations in the evaluation process, and also offer some substantive tips in preparing evaluation documents.

All education employers should be making sure now that they are developing adequate information on which to base evaluations and decisions about continued employment, that this information has been adequately documented in the personnel file and the employee given a chance to respond, and also that any requirements for the evaluation process established by statute, policy, or collective bargaining agreements are being observed.  Don’t wait until the end of the year to address these issues!  By then, it may be too late.