Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Matt Onnen was terminated from the position of registrar at Southeast Technical Institute (STI), an entity of the Sioux Falls School District, after STI officials found several degrees or diplomas had been approved and awarded by Onnen to students who had not earned them, and several students entitled to a degree or diploma had not received one. The Sioux Falls School Board affirmed the decision. Onnen appealed the District's and Board's decision to circuit court, which affirmed the District. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in concluding that the District's decision was not arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion; (2) because Onnen was not a teacher at STI, he was not entitled to sixty days' notice before termination, and therefore Onnen was not denied procedural due process when he was terminated; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Onnen's motion for a new trial.

Appellant alleged that he was disabled as a result of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Parkinson's disease, Attention Deficit Disorder, and peripheral neuropathy and that these mental and physical limitations he had as a result of these conditions, combined with his advanced age and limited job skills, rendered him unable to perform any work available in the national economy. Appellant challenged the district court's affirmance of the Social Security Administration's (SSA) denial of his claim for disability benefits. The court affirmed the judgment and held that the ALJ's findings were supported by substantial evidence.

Plaintiff, an eleven-year-old special education student, lived in the Minnesota Independent School District No. 15 (district). An ALJ for the Minnesota Department of Education determined that the district had denied plaintiff a free appropriate public education (FAPE) within the meaning of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400-1482. After plaintiff filed an action in federal court seeking attorney fees and costs, both parties filed cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record. The district court reversed the ALJ's decision and denied plaintiff's motion for fees and costs and plaintiff appealed. The court affirmed the district court's judgment and held that plaintiff was not denied a FAPE where the district court did not fail to give "due weight" to the results of the administrative hearing; where the district court did not commit procedural violations of the IDEA; and where the district court did not violate the IDEA's substantive requirements.

Plaintiffs, a Christian sorority and fraternity, as well as several of their officers at San Diego State University, brought suit in federal district court challenging the university's nondiscrimination policy under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiffs subsequently appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment on all counts in favor of defendants. At issue was whether the Supreme Court's holdings in Christian Legal Society Chapter of the University of California, Hastings College of the Law v. Martinez extended to a narrow nondiscrimination policy that, instead of prohibiting all membership restrictions, prohibited membership restrictions only on certain specified bases. The court held that the narrower policy was constitutional. The court held, however, that plaintiffs have raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the narrower policy was selectively enforced in this particular case, thereby violating plaintiffs' rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part, and remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

At issue in this case is the scope of an employer's vicarious liability for quid pro quo sexual harassment. Specifically, the Supreme Court considered whether Wayne County and its sheriff's department could be held vicariously liable for a civil rights claim under state law based on the criminal act of a deputy sheriff committed during working hours but plainly beyond the scope of his employment. In 2001, Plaintiff Tara Hamed was arrested for unpaid child support. Because she had outstanding warrants for probation violations in Wayne County, she was transferred to the Wayne County jail. When she arrived, the deputy sheriff subjected her to sexually charged comments and offers for better treatment in exchange for sexual favors. Plaintiff resisted these advances, but she was transferred into an area of the jail not subject to surveillance cameras where she was sexually assaulted. The circuit court dismissed Plaintiff's harassment claim on the basis that Defendants were not vicariously liable for the criminal acts of sheriff's department employees. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Plaintiff had established a viable quid pro quo harassment claim. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that Defendants could not be held vicariously liable under the traditional principles of respondeat superior because Defendants had no prior knowledge of the deputy's sexually harassing conduct. The Court reversed the appellate court.

Plaintiff sued defendants, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Alaska Department of Transportation (Alaska), and the Alyeska Pipeline Service Company (Alyeska), in federal court, alleging causes of action for inverse condemnation, injunctive relief, nuisance, breach of fiduciary duties, and civil rights violations. At issue was whether the district court properly dismissed the action against the BLM and Alaska on the basis of sovereign immunity. The court held that federal sovereign immunity barred plaintiff's inverse condemnation, injunctive relief, and civil rights violations claims against the United States, but that the Federal Tort Claims Act, 25 U.S.C. 345, could provide a waiver of the government sovereign immunity for plaintiff's nuisance and breach of fiduciary duties claims. Additionally, the court held that the Eleventh Amendment barred plaintiff's action against Alaska in its entirety. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded.

Plaintiffs filed suit against the county, alleging that the December 17 prayer at the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners (Board) meeting represented one instance of the Board's broader practice of sponsoring sectarian opening prayers at its meetings. After conducting a thorough review of the factual record, the district court concluded that the Board's legislative prayer policy violated the Establishment Clause by advancing and endorsing Christianity to the exclusion of other faiths. The court held that the district court's ruling accorded with both Supreme Court precedent and the court's own precedent where those cases established that in order to survive constitutional scrutiny, an invocation must consist of the type of nonsectarian prayers that solemnize the legislative task and seek to unit rather than divide. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.

The court agreed to rehear this case en banc to clarify under what circumstances the exhaustion requirement of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1415(l), barred non-IDEA federal or state law claims. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and her son, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants where the district court dismissed her claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiff did not initially seek relief in a due process hearing and therefore, failed to comply with one of the exhaustion-of-remedies requirement of the IDEA. The court held that the IDEA's exhaustion requirement was not jurisdictional and that plaintiff's non-IDEA federal and state-law claims were not subject to the IDEA's exhaustion requirement. Therefore, the court reversed the judgment.

Plaintiff, the mother of Jerry Amaro, filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim against defendants for the use of excessive force, which resulted in injuries that caused Amaro's death. At issue was whether the doctrine of equitable estoppel should apply where a plaintiff believed she had a section 1983 claim but was dissuaded from bringing the claim by affirmative misrepresentations and stonewalling by the police. The court held that equitable estoppel did apply to the circumstances and affirmed the district court's judgment on that issue.

This case stemmed from a so-called bubble ordinance enacted by the Oakland City Council, which made it an offense to knowingly and willfully approach within eight feet of an individual seeking entry to a reproductive health clinic if one's purpose in approaching that person was to engage in conversation, protest, counseling, or various other forms of speech. Plaintiff, a minister who regularly stood outside clinics seeking to engage women in what he called a "friendly conversation" to dissuade them from having an abortion, was convicted on two separate violations of the ordinance and subsequently challenged the ordinance in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action, contending that the ordinance infringed upon the freedom of speech and violated the federal constitution's Due Process Clause, as well as state and federal guarantees of equal protection of the laws. The court held that the ordinance was facially constitutional. The court also held that Oakland's enforcement policy was a constitutionally invalid, content-based regulation of speech and remanded to the district court in order for that court to craft a remedy that ensured that Oakland would adopt and henceforth apply a policy that enforced the ordinance as written, in an evenhanded, constitutional manner. The court further held that the success of plaintiff's challenge to whether Oakland could apply the ordinance to situations in which doing so would prevent plaintiff from communicating his message depended on Oakland's future enforcement policy and the particular circumstances in which that policy could be applied. Therefore, the court did not reach that challenge but also did not preclude plaintiff from bringing such a challenge in the future. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part, remanding with instructions to grant plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in part and to grant him relief consistent with the opinion.