Justia Public Benefits Opinion Summaries

A.S., a California minor, filed a request for a special education due process hearing where he was eligible for special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq., as an emotionally disturbed child. At issue was which California agency was responsible for funding a special education student's placement in an out-of-state residential treatment facility. The court requested the California Supreme Court exercise its discretion and decide the following certified question, "Whether under California law the school district responsible for the costs of a special education student's education while the student is placed at an out-of-state residential treatment facility is the district in which the student's de facto parent, who is authorized to make educational decisions on behalf of the student, resides."

Plaintiffs, 54 residents of Ryderwood residential community, filed an action against the Ryderwood Improvement and Service Association ("RISA") alleging that the age restrictions imposed by RISA violated the Fair Housing Act ("FHA"), 42 U.S.C. 3604(a)-(e), 3605, 3606, 3617, and that RISA had never satisfied the requirements of the Housing for Old Persons Act exemption ("HOPA"), Pub. L. No. 104-76, section 2, 109 Stat. 787. At issue was whether RISA was exempt from the FHA's prohibitions on familial status discrimination under one of the housing for older persons exemptions set out in section 3607(b). The court vacated in part and remanded for further proceedings holding that a residential community that had continuously operated as a retirement community for persons age 55 or older could qualify for the housing for older persons exemption from the FHA's prohibition on familial status discrimination by establishing that it currently satisfied the exemptions' three statutory and regulatory criteria at the time of the alleged violation, even if the community enforced age restrictions when it first achieved compliance with the exemption's age verification requirement.

Appellant, a former student in the Forest Grove School District ("Forest Grove"), appealed the district court's determination that he was not entitled to an award of reimbursement for his private school tuition under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. 1415(i)(2)(C). At issue was whether the district court abused its discretion in holding that equitable considerations did not support any award of private-school tuition at Mount Bachelor Academy as a result of Forest Grove's failure to provide appellant with a Free and Appropriate Education ("FAPE") under the IDEA. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the district court's factual determination where appellant's parents enrolled him at Mount Bachelor solely because of his drug abuse and behavioral problems.

Plaintiff, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH") and plaintiff-intervenor appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant, Lucent Technologies, Inc. ("Lucent"), plaintiff-intervenor's former employer, on claims that he was terminated in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, ("FEHA"), Cal.Gov't Code 12920.5. DFEH also challenged the district court's finding of diversity jurisdiction and plaintiff-intervenor challenged the district court's denial of his motion to intervene. The court held that the district court correctly determined that it possessed jurisdiction where the statutory scheme did not support a finding that DFEH was a real party in the controversy for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction. The court also held that the district court's denial of plaintiff-intervenor's motion to intervene as a right was not in error where he failed to demonstrate that he was not adequately represented by California and that the court did not abuse its discretion in placing various limitations on him as a permissive intervenor. The court further held that summary judgment was proper where there was no genuine issue of material fact as to DFEH's claims and where DFEH failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to pretext. The court finally held that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to plaintiff-intervenor's wrongful termination claim where DFEH could not prevail on any of its claims under the FEHA.