Article excerpt

Review Denied

Decisions without published opinion in lower court

DOCKET NO: 12-869

NAME: Caviezel v. Great Neck Pub. Sch.

DATE CERT. DENIED: 4/22/2013

CITATION: - S. Ct. -, 81 U.S.L.W. 3598

DOCKET NO: 12-934

NAME: Angelloz v. Iberville Parish Sch. Bd.


CITATION: - S. Ct. -, 81 U.S.L.W. 3554

Decisions with published opinion in lower court

DOCKET NO: 12-932

NAME: Bryant v. N. Y. St. Ed. Dept.

DATE CERT. DENIED: 4/29/2013

CITATION: - S. Ct. -, 81 U.S.L.W. 3614

Parents of children in school specializing in behavior problems sued Education Department to block regulation barring aversive interventions from taking effect, claiming regulation violated Rehabilitation Act, Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), due process clause, and equal protection clause. Special needs students in New York were permitted to seek services in other states, at New York's expense, should individual schooling needs not be met within the state. A technique used with special needs students to correct unacceptable behaviors is in New York and also prohibits use on any New York students served outside the state. Parents of New York students in a Massachusetts institution sued the Department. The Department filed a successful motion to dismiss and the parents appealed. During appeal, Massachusetts promulgated a similar regulation banning the technique. The Department argued this rendered the parents' argument moot. Held: For Department. While the Massachusetts regulation did not render the parents' argument moot, the New York regulation did not violate IDEA, the Rehabilitation Act, or deprive students of equal protection or due process rights. Bryant v. N.Y. St. Educ. Dept., 692 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2012), cert, den., - S. Ct. -, 81 U.S.L.W. 3614 (2013).

DOCKETNO: 12-871

NAME: U. of Or. v. Emeldi

DATE CERT. DENIED: 4/22/2013

CITATION: - S. Ct. -, 81 U.S.L.W. 3598

Female Ph.D. student filed Title G? suit against university, alleging retaliation for reporting sexual discrimination. The student reported her dissertation chair's apparent difference in treatment of male and female Ph.D. candidates to university administrators. Following her report, her dissertation chair resigned from that role and no other professor would accept that position. As a result, the student was unable to complete her Ph.D. program and left the university. The student filed suit in state court but the university had it successfully removed to federal court where summary judgment was granted in the university's favor. The student appealed. Held: Reversed and remanded. Reporting sex discrimination is a protected activity under Title LX. …


An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.