Justia U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Florida enacted a law prohibiting public university professors from endorsing or promoting certain ideas related to race, color, sex, and national origin in classroom instruction. The law, known as the Individual Freedom Act, identifies eight specific concepts that professors are barred from espousing, such as claims of moral superiority based on race or sex, inherent racism or oppression, and the idea that virtues like merit or colorblindness are themselves racist or sexist. The law allows professors to discuss these concepts in a neutral way, but not to advocate for them, and imposes severe penalties on both individual professors and universities for violations, including the loss of significant funding and potential termination of employment.Groups of professors and students from several Florida public universities filed lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, arguing that the Act violated their First Amendment rights by restricting viewpoint-based expression and was unconstitutionally vague. The district court granted preliminary injunctions in both cases, enjoining enforcement of the Act’s classroom restrictions against the plaintiffs, finding that at least one plaintiff had standing to challenge each prohibited concept. The court concluded the Act was likely unconstitutional as applied to public university professors.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the Act’s restrictions amount to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment. The court distinguished between permissible curricular control by universities and the broad, legislative ban imposed by the state’s political branches. It concluded that neither public-employee speech doctrine nor government speech doctrine justified the law’s suppression of disfavored ideas in the university classroom, and that the Act impermissibly infringed on academic freedom and open inquiry. The preliminary injunction was affirmed. View "Pernell v. Commissioner of the FL State Board of Education" on Justia Law

The dispute centers on whether the U.S. Department of Education may constitutionally rely on private educational accreditors in disbursing federal education funds. Under the Higher Education Act, colleges and universities must be accredited by a recognized accreditor for their students to be eligible for federal financial aid. Accreditors are private, voluntary organizations funded by the schools they accredit. Florida challenged this arrangement, alleging that it unconstitutionally delegates government power to private accreditors and violates both the Appointments Clause and the Spending Clause, claiming the accreditation requirement is an unascertainable condition for federal funds.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida reviewed the suit after Florida brought four claims: a private nondelegation doctrine challenge, an Appointments Clause challenge, a Spending Clause challenge, and a now-abandoned Administrative Procedure Act challenge. The federal government moved to dismiss, and the district court granted the motion. The district court found no unlawful delegation of government power, noted that Title IV funds are directed to students and not institutions, determined the accreditation requirement is unambiguous, and dismissed the Appointments Clause claim because accreditors do not determine eligibility for federal funds.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The Court held that private accreditors do not exercise government authority that could violate the Vesting Clauses or the Appointments Clause. The Court also determined that the accreditation requirement is an ascertainable condition for federal funds, as it is a well-understood, longstanding practice and does not amount to an ambiguous or novel restriction. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Florida’s suit. View "State of Florida v. Secretary, US Department of Education" on Justia Law

A male freshman football player at a public high school in Alabama was subjected to repeated acts of harassment by older teammates, including physical and verbal abuse with sexual overtones and an attempted sexual assault known as “keying,” where a car key is forced into a player’s anus. The harassment was meant to emasculate him and included slurs and other conduct suggesting hostility toward his perceived failure to conform to masculine stereotypes. The student reported these incidents to school officials, including the head coach, but the school’s response was minimal and did not stop the harassment. The student ultimately transferred to a different school as a result.Afterward, the student, through his representative, sued the school district and the head coach in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. He alleged violations of Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, as well as state tort claims. The district court dismissed the federal claims, concluding that the harassment was motivated by anti-freshman bias rather than sex, that the conduct did not qualify as actionable same-sex sexual harassment under Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause, and that the coach was entitled to qualified immunity. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. It held that the student plausibly alleged sex-based harassment actionable under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause because the alleged conduct targeted him for failing to conform to sex stereotypes and involved inherently sexual acts. The court concluded that the allegations supported a finding of deliberate indifference by the school district and the coach and that the coach was not entitled to qualified immunity. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. View "C. W. v. Smith" on Justia Law

Dr. Lana Foster, a lifelong resident of Echols County, Georgia, was among the first Black students and later one of the first Black educators in the county’s school district. Over the years, she experienced various forms of racial discrimination, including being reassigned to a less desirable teaching position and being stripped of leadership duties, which led her to sue the school district. That lawsuit was settled in 2011, with the district agreeing to reinstate her role and pay damages. However, Foster alleged continued racial hostility, culminating in her termination in 2018. Subsequent investigations found no probable cause for her firing based on the cited ethical violations. Foster then filed complaints with state and federal agencies, resulting in another settlement in 2020 that required the district to revise its hiring practices and take additional steps to remedy discrimination.Foster later discovered, through an open records request, that the school district had not complied with the settlement's terms. She filed suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia against the district, the school board, and several school officials, alleging violations of her rights under federal and state law, including claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and § 1983 for denial of her right to make and enforce contracts based on her race. The district court dismissed some claims but allowed others to proceed, including her § 1981 claim against the individual officials, and denied their motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the denial of qualified immunity. It held that the law was clearly established that government officials may not interfere with contractual rights because of race. The court concluded that uncertainty about possible personal liability under § 1981 does not entitle officials to qualified immunity. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision denying qualified immunity. View "Foster v. King" on Justia Law

A student with Down syndrome, C.B., attends school in the Henry County School District in Georgia. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the school district was required to develop an individualized education program (IEP) for C.B. After reviewing C.B.’s progress in fourth grade, the school district’s IEP team decided to move C.B. from an interrelated resource (IRR) class to a mild intellectual disability (MID) class for language arts and math. C.B.’s parents disagreed with this new placement, believing the IRR class was less restrictive and more appropriate. They also objected to the school district’s decision to place C.B. on an alternative assessment track, rather than the regular statewide assessment.Following the school district’s decision, C.B.’s parents requested a due process hearing before the Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings. The administrative law judge conducted a five-day hearing and found that the school district had complied with IDEA in making the placement decision and that the Georgia Alternate Assessment was appropriate for C.B. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia affirmed the administrative law judge’s findings regarding the placement, concluding that the least restrictive environment requirement under IDEA did not apply to the choice between different types of special education classes. The district court also found C.B.’s claim regarding the alternative assessment moot, since C.B. was no longer required to take the alternative assessment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision regarding the placement in the MID class, holding that the least restrictive environment requirement under IDEA does not apply to placement decisions among special education classes. However, the court reversed the district court’s mootness determination on the assessment claim and remanded the case for further proceedings on that issue. View "C.B. v. Henry County School District" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, January and Jeffrey Littlejohn, allege that the Leon County School Board and its officials violated their parental due-process rights. The dispute arose when school officials met with the Littlejohns' thirteen-year-old child to discuss the child's gender identity and developed a "Student Support Plan" without involving the parents, contrary to their wishes. The school officials acted in compliance with the Board's guidelines, which did not require parental notification if the child did not request it.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida dismissed the Littlejohns' claims. The court found that the release of a new guide in 2022 mooted the claims for injunctive relief based on the superseded 2018 guide. It also determined that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the damages claims. The court concluded that the school officials' actions did not "shock the conscience" and thus did not violate the Littlejohns' substantive due-process rights. Consequently, the court dismissed the federal claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state constitutional claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the actions of the school officials were executive, not legislative, in nature. Therefore, the appropriate standard was whether the officials' conduct "shocked the conscience." The court concluded that the school officials' actions did not meet this standard as a matter of law. The court emphasized that the officials did not act with intent to injure and sought to help the child, even if their actions were contrary to the parents' wishes. Thus, the dismissal of the Littlejohns' claims was affirmed. View "Littlejohn v. School Board of Leon County" on Justia Law

A medical student at Florida International University (FIU) failed nine courses, including six while on academic probation, and was required to repeat a year. He was also reported for unprofessional behavior by three professors. Despite receiving accommodations for his diagnosed ADHD and anxiety disorder, he continued to perform poorly, failing multiple exams and receiving low scores on others.The student was placed on academic probation and later took a voluntary medical leave. Upon returning, he failed additional courses and was given another chance to repeat the second year. In his third year, he failed five final exams and scored poorly on others, leading to a third hearing by the promotion committee, which recommended his dismissal. The student appealed, citing various personal issues but did not initially claim inadequate disability accommodations.The district court granted summary judgment in favor of FIU, concluding that the student was not a "qualified individual" under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) because he could not meet the university's academic standards even with reasonable accommodations. The student appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the student was not a qualified individual under the ADA, as he failed to meet the essential eligibility requirements of the medical program despite receiving accommodations. The court emphasized the deference given to academic institutions in making judgments about students' academic performance and found that FIU had provided ample opportunities for the student to improve, which he failed to do. View "Nehme v. Florida International University Board of Trustees" on Justia Law

The case involves several special education students who alleged that their teacher physically and emotionally abused them. The students, who have various disabilities affecting their communication abilities, were assigned to the same classroom at Elm Street Elementary School in Coweta County, Georgia. The teacher, Catherine Sprague, was hired by the principal, Dr. Christi Hildebrand, despite lacking special education certification. Throughout the fall of 2019, the students exhibited signs of distress, and their parents noticed behavioral changes and physical signs of mistreatment. A paraprofessional, Nicole Marshall, reported multiple instances of abuse by Sprague to Hildebrand, who delayed reporting these allegations to law enforcement and the students' parents.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia dismissed the students' complaint. The court ruled that emotional distress damages are not recoverable under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) following the Supreme Court's decision in Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C. The court also found that the students failed to state a constitutional violation against Hildebrand and the school district, and that Hildebrand was entitled to qualified immunity. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law negligence claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed that emotional distress damages are not recoverable under Title II of the ADA, as Title II incorporates the remedies of the Rehabilitation Act, which the Supreme Court in Cummings ruled does not allow for emotional distress damages. However, the appellate court found that the district court erred by not considering whether the students might be entitled to other forms of relief under Title II, such as damages for physical harm or nominal damages. The appellate court also affirmed the dismissal of the section 1983 claims, ruling that the alleged abuse did not meet the "shock-the-conscience" standard required for a substantive due process violation. The case was remanded for further proceedings to consider other potential relief under Title II. View "A.W. v. Coweta County School District" on Justia Law

The case involves Dr. Robert H. Wainberg, a tenured biology professor at Piedmont University, who filed a lawsuit against several officers and trustees of the university. He alleged that they conspired to retaliate against him for filing a prior lawsuit and to deter witnesses from participating in that lawsuit, and negligently refused to prevent that conspiracy. The district court dismissed Wainberg’s claims as time-barred, concluding that the statute of limitations ran from the first overt act Wainberg alleged as part of the conspiracy.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that under its precedent, each overt act triggers its own statute of limitations. Therefore, Wainberg’s claims arising out of some overt acts were timely. The court vacated the district court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. The court also held that the continuing-violation doctrine, which allows a plaintiff to sue on an otherwise time-barred claim when additional violations of the law occur within the statutory period, did not apply in this case because the alleged violations were not ongoing but were discrete acts, each triggering its own statute of limitations. View "Wainberg v. Mellichamp" on Justia Law

A nine-year-old girl took her own life after a classmate repeatedly delivered racist insults to her. The girl's mother and grandmother sought to hold the school system and several school officials accountable for her death. The family filed a lawsuit asserting claims arising under federal and state law against the school system and the school officials. The district court granted summary judgment to the school system and its officials, concluding that the family failed to satisfy various elements of their federal statutory claims and that qualified immunity barred at least one of the claims. The court concluded that the state law claims failed on immunity grounds. The family appealed.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. Although the response of the school system and its officials was "truly discouraging," the standard for relief in cases of student-on-student harassment was not met. The court explained that a reasonable jury could not find that DCS acted with deliberate indifference, that it intentionally discriminated against the girl, or that Defendants' actions were arbitrary or conscience-shocking. Thus, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to the defendants on the family's Title IX, Title VI, equal protection, and substantive due process claims. View "Jasmine Adams, et al v. Demopolis City Schools, et al" on Justia Law