2020
Annual
Report
Annual
Report
Dear Member:
Since 1992, CSBA’s Education Legal Alliance (ELA) has been the preeminent legal advocate for California’s public schools, initiating litigation and providing amicus support on issues of statewide importance. The ELA has protected billions of dollars in mandate payments and general fund revenue owed to schools, and consistently defended the governance role of boards.
This past year, the ELA has continued to effectively protect and promote the interests of its member school districts and county offices of education before the courts. The ELA filed numerous amicus briefs in support of school district and county board of education governance teams. These cases have included Crawford v. Commission on Professional Competence of the Jurupa Unified School District (protecting local education agencies’ (LEAs) ability to make appropriate school staffing decisions when staff display immoral conduct); CP V Walnut v. Fremont Unified School District (ensuring LEAs can assess appropriate developer fees to build and modernize school facilities); Gordon v. Los Angeles Unified School District (fighting unreasonable attorney’s fees in special education litigation against LEAs); Brennon B. v. West Contra Costa Unified School District (protecting LEAs against treble damages under the misapplication of the Unruh Act); and State of California, et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al. (ensuring that LEAs are not overburdened with additional need for health, nutrition and other services).
In addition, CSBA’s Legal Department continued its ongoing support and guidance to members on a wide range of legal matters, including the complex issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic, providing special education services to students during school closures, and board authority over school reopening plans. The ELA is ready to support the interests of public schools and governance teams and engage on any legal matter that may impair your ability to provide a high-quality education to students or inhibit your ability to provide effective leadership locally.
Thank you for your continued support for the ELA and its ongoing role as the legal defender of California’s public schools.
If you have any question about the ELA or its benefits, please contact ELA staff at (800) 266-3382 or legal@csba.org.
Sincerely,
Vernon M. Billy
CEO & Executive Director,
California School Boards Association
CEO & Executive Director,
California School Boards Association
Contents
Current Activities
Disability-based discrimination — Claims under Unruh Act 9
- Special education — A.W. v. Tehachapi USD 10
- Special education — D.O. v. Escondido Union School District 11
- Special education — Gordon v. Los Angeles Unified School District 12
- Immigration and K-12 education — Revised public charge rule 13
- Developer fees 14
- Public comment at board meetings 15
- California Public Records Act 16
- First Amendment 17
- School staff dismissal 18
- Mandate redetermination and offsetting revenues 19
- California unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (CUIAB) 21
- Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) 23
- State Board of Education charter appeal process 24
- Fair Political Practices Commissiovn 25
- Discrimination Under Americans with Disabilities Act 26
Members with whom the ELA worked with in 2020
We fight better when we stand together
What is the Education Legal Alliance?
CSBA’s Education Legal Alliance is a consortium of school districts, county offices of education, and Regional Occupational Centers/Programs that voluntarily joined together in 1992 to create a powerful force to pursue and defend a broad spectrum of statewide public education interests before state and federal courts, state agencies, and the Legislature. The ELA initiates and supports legal activities in areas of statewide significance to all California schools. Working with school attorneys, the efforts of the ELA have proven highly effective in protecting the interests of schools and the students they serve. Potential matters are reviewed and approved by a broad-based steering committee of board members, superintendents, and education leaders. There is also a legal advisory committee of noted school law attorneys to help provide legal analysis and recommendations to the steering committee.
The ELA is funded exclusively by contributions from its members, who are also members of CSBA.
“CSBA’s Education Legal Alliance provides an essential voice in the judicial branch of government, where decisions that often fly beneath the public’s radar can have a tremendous impact on the services schools can provide to students and families. While different stakeholder groups have associations advocating for their specific interests, the ELA is the only entity representing school districts as a whole and advocating on those cases that have the most significance for education agencies across California.”
— Xilonin Cruz-Gonzalez,
CSBA 2020 President and trustee, Azusa USD
CSBA 2020 President and trustee, Azusa USD
CSBA’s Education Legal Alliance is a consortium of school districts, county offices of education, and Regional Occupational Centers/Programs that voluntarily joined together in 1992 to create a powerful force to pursue and defend a broad spectrum of statewide public education interests before state and federal courts, state agencies, and the Legislature. The ELA initiates and supports legal activities in areas of statewide significance to all California schools. Working with school attorneys, the efforts of the ELA have proven highly effective in protecting the interests of schools and the students they serve. Potential matters are reviewed and approved by a broad-based steering committee of board members, superintendents, and education leaders. There is also a legal advisory committee of noted school law attorneys to help provide legal analysis and recommendations to the steering committee.
The ELA is funded exclusively by contributions from its members, who are also members of CSBA.
“CSBA’s Education Legal Alliance provides an essential voice in the judicial branch of government, where decisions that often fly beneath the public’s radar can have a tremendous impact on the services schools can provide to students and families. While different stakeholder groups have associations advocating for their specific interests, the ELA is the only entity representing school districts as a whole and advocating on those cases that have the most significance for education agencies across California.”
— Xilonin Cruz-Gonzalez,
CSBA 2020 President and trustee, Azusa USD
CSBA 2020 President and trustee, Azusa USD
What are the benefits of membership in the Education Legal Alliance?
- The ELA files amicus briefs and letters in court to support its members on legal issues of statewide importance.
- The ELA initiates litigation on various issues of statewide importance and often looks to its members to serve as co-plaintiffs in those cases.
- The ELA weighs in on legislation that impacts its members on issues of statewide importance.
Steering Committee
Xilonin Cruz-Gonzalez, Chair
CSBA President
Azusa USD
CSBA President
Azusa USD
Suzanne Kitchens, Vice Chair
CSBA President-elect
Pleasant Valley SD
CSBA President-elect
Pleasant Valley SD
Vernon M. Billy
CSBA CEO & Executive Director
CSBA CEO & Executive Director
Leighton Anderson
CSBA Delegate, Region 24
Whittier Union HSD
CSBA Delegate, Region 24
Whittier Union HSD
Alisa MacAvoy
Director, Region 5
Redwood City ESD
Director, Region 5
Redwood City ESD
Dana Dean
Delegate-at-Large
Solano COE
Delegate-at-Large
Solano COE
Mary Jane Burke
County Superintendent
Marin COE
County Superintendent
Marin COE
Dr. Heather Olsen
Superintendent
Pacifica SD
Superintendent
Pacifica SD
Dr. Michael Lin
Superintendent
Corona-Norco USD
Superintendent
Corona-Norco USD
Dr. Kevin Skelly
Superintendent
San Mateo Union HSD
Superintendent
San Mateo Union HSD
Paul Gothold
County Superintendent
San Diego COE
County Superintendent
San Diego COE
Robert Manwaring
Consultant
Consultant
Advisory Committee
Staff
Mike Smith, Chair
Lozano Smith
Lozano Smith
Spencer Covert
Parker & Covert LLP
Parker & Covert LLP
Sue Ann Salmon Evans
Dannis Woliver Kelley
Dannis Woliver Kelley
Peter K. Fagen
Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP
Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP
Paul Loya
Atkinson, Andelson, Loya,
Ruud & Romo
Atkinson, Andelson, Loya,
Ruud & Romo
Jeffrey Riel
Orange County
Department of Education
Orange County
Department of Education
Teresa Stinson
Sacramento County
Office of Education
Sacramento County
Office of Education
Keith Bray
General Counsel &
Chief of Staff
General Counsel &
Chief of Staff
Elaine Yama-Garcia
CSBA
Deputy General Counsel
CSBA
Deputy General Counsel
Mike Ambrose
CSBA
Associate General Counsel
CSBA
Associate General Counsel
Bode Owoyele
CSBA
Associate General Counsel
CSBA
Associate General Counsel
Anita Ceballos
CSBA
Legal Specialist
CSBA
Legal Specialist
Advisory Committee
Mike Smith, Chair
Lozano Smith
Lozano Smith
Spencer Covert
Parker & Covert LLP
Parker & Covert LLP
Sue Ann Salmon Evans
Dannis Woliver Kelley
Dannis Woliver Kelley
Peter K. Fagen
Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP
Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP
Paul Loya
Atkinson, Andelson, Loya,
Ruud & Romo
Atkinson, Andelson, Loya,
Ruud & Romo
Jeffrey Riel
Orange County
Department of Education
Orange County
Department of Education
Teresa Stinson
Sacramento County
Office of Education
Sacramento County
Office of Education
Staff
Keith Bray
General Counsel &
Chief of Staff
General Counsel &
Chief of Staff
Elaine Yama-Garcia
CSBA
Deputy General Counsel
CSBA
Deputy General Counsel
Mike Ambrose
CSBA
Associate General Counsel
CSBA
Associate General Counsel
Bode Owoyele
CSBA
Associate General Counsel
CSBA
Associate General Counsel
Anita Ceballos
CSBA
Legal Specialist
CSBA
Legal Specialist
Current
Activities
Activities
“There is strength in numbers and CSBA’s Education Legal Alliance gives California’s school districts and county offices of education a collective power in the courts that far exceeds what 1,000 local educational agencies could do on their own,” said CSBA’s 2020 President-elect Suzanne Kitchens. “The ELA allows the state’s many mid-sized and smaller school districts to advocate for and defend themselves in a fashion that would be unimaginable if the ELA didn’t exist.”
— Suzanne Kitchens,
CSBA President-elect, Pleasant Valley SD
CSBA President-elect, Pleasant Valley SD
Disability-based discrimination — Claims under Unruh Act
Brennon B. v. West Contra Costa Unified School District Case No. A157026 – California Court of Appeal, First District New
Member(s) Involved: West Contra Costa Unified School District
Current status and/or outcome:
On Nov. 13, 2020, the appellate court upheld the lower court’s dismissal, finding that public school districts are not “business establishments” under the Unruh Act, and that districts are already subject to an array of antidiscrimination laws. Plaintiff Brennon B. has appealed, and the case is currently before the California Supreme Court.
Special education
A.W. v. Tehachapi Unified School District Case No. 19-15680 – Federal Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit New
Member(s) Involved: Tehachapi Unified School District
Current status and/or outcome:
On June 25, 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the U.S. District Court’s decision in favor of Tehachapi Unified School District in an unpublished opinion, holding in part that the school district was not required to seek a due process hearing in the situation when parents requested additional services, but the district believed it was providing a free appropriate public education (FAPE). The ELA filed a request for publication, which the court denied, so the case may not be cited as precedent but is still citable as persuasive authority on this issue. The decision remains important for districts, as districts do not need to change their practice around offering FAPE because of this case. A district must file for due process if it determines that the proposed special education program component to which the parent does not consent is necessary to provide FAPE to the student, but when a school districts determines that it is offering FAPE to the student, but the parent disagrees and requests additional services, the school district does not need to affirmatively file for due process.
Special education
D.O. v. Escondido Union School District Case No. 19-56043 – Federal Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit New
Member(s) Involved: Escondido Union School District
Current status and/or outcome:
The ELA filed an amicus brief before the Ninth Circuit on May 6, 2020. The parties await the court’s decision.
Special education — Attorney’s fees
Gordon v. Los Angeles Unified School District Case No. 19-55806 – Federal Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit New
Member(s) Involved: Los Angeles Unified School District
Current status and/or outcome:
The case has been briefed before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the parties await the court’s decision.
Immigration and K-12 Education — Revised Public Charge Rule
State of California, et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al. Case No. 19-17213 – Federal Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit New
Member(s) Involved: On behalf of all California school districts and county offices of education
Current status and/or outcome:
On Dec. 2, 2020, in a victory for immigrant families, as well as for states and municipalities, including school districts and county offices, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in a combined appeal, affirmed lower court orders barring the Department of Homeland Security from enforcing the revised public charge rule in several states, including California, until the validity of the rule is determined.
Developer Fees
CP V Walnut v. Fremont Unified School District Case No. A157722 – California Court of Appeal, First District New
Member(s) Involved: Fremont Unified School District
Current status and/or outcome:
On July 31, 2020, the ELA filed an amicus brief with the appellate court in support of Fremont Unified School District’s argument that it properly imposed Level 2 and Level 3 development impact fees on CP V Walnut, LLC (CPVW), noting that California’s Constitution grants to local school districts and their governing boards the flexibility and local control appropriate to address their communities’ unique needs. The parties await the court’s decision.
Public Comment at Board Meetings
Vue v. Fresno Unified School District Case No. F076110 – California Court of Appeal, Fifth District New
Member(s) Involved: Fresno Unified School District
Current status and/or outcome:
On July 13, 2020, the Court of Appeal denied the request for publication of the decision, but its holding in favor of the district remains citable as persuasive authority and highlights important law for school boards, confirming that the board could not have restricted the public comment at issue even if it had anticipated that the comment would be objectionable.
California Public Records Act
National Lawyers Guild v. City of Hayward Case No. S252445 – California Supreme Court New
Member(s) Involved: On behalf of all California school districts and county offices of education
Current status and/or outcome:
On June 16, 2020, the California Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision and ruled in favor of the National Lawyers Guild, holding that an agency may not pass on to the requester the cost of redacting exempt information from electronic records requested under the California Public Records Act (CPRA). The Court identified some situations where costs may be recovered for data extraction but found the costs associated with searching for responsive documents or redacting exempt information from electronic records were not recoverable.
First Amendment
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District Case No. 20-35222 – Federal Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit New
Member(s) Involved: On behalf of all California School Districts and County Offices of Education
Current status and/or outcome:
On Sept. 28, 2020, the ELA joined the National School Boards Association (NSBA) in filing an amicus brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, noting that students are a captive audience in the school setting, that teachers and coaches hold positions of authority at schools and courts must evaluate speech issues with the recognition of the public school context, and that school districts have a compelling interest in restricting some religious expression of employees when on duty to avoid the appearance such expression is school sponsored. The parties await the court’s decision.
School Staff Dismissal
Crawford v. Commission on Professional Competence of the Jurupa Unified School District Case No. S264534 – California Supreme Court New
Member(s) Involved: Jurupa Unified School District
Current status and/or outcome:
On Nov. 24, 2020, the Supreme Court denied the petition for review, leaving in place the decisions upholding Crawford’s termination from the district for immoral conduct.
Mandate Redetermination and Offsetting Revenues
CSBA v. State of California (2013) Case No. S247266 – California Supreme Court Update
Member(s) Involved: Butte County Office of Education; Castro Valley Unified School District; San Diego Unified School District; San Joaquin County Office of Education
Current status and/or outcome:
On Dec. 19, 2019, the California Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s opinion, ruling that the Legislature could consider funds it already provides schools as offsetting revenues for new mandates it imposes on them, and need not provide additional funding for the new mandates. The Court wrote that, “[a]lthough CSBA asserts that the [Graduation Requirements] funding designation leaves school districts with less unrestricted money to provide general education programming and that the [Behavioral Intervention Plans] funding designation diminishes the amount of funds available for other special education services, these general claims of insufficient funding, without more, do not make out a constitutional violation.” In its decision, the Supreme Court recognized that the purpose of the mandate requirement in the California Constitution is to ensure the State pays for any programs it imposes on local governments, including school districts and county offices of education, but found that the language of article XIII B, section 6 does not preclude the Legislature from adjusting the mix of state funding allocated for unrestricted versus mandate purposes. The Court noted that it is conceivable that increased compliance costs imposed by the state could become so great that the funds provided would not cover the cost of complying with the mandate, which likely would be a constitutional violation, but the Court did not find the state mandates at issue in this case in violation, even if some districts have had to make difficult decisions and cuts to other programs to meet the requirements of these state mandates.
California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (CUIAB)
United Educators of San Francisco v. CA Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (2015) Case No. S235903 – California Supreme Court Update
Member(s) Involved: San Francisco Unified School District
Current status and/or outcome:
On Jan. 16, 2020, the California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal decision and held that Unemployment Insurance Code section 1253.3 does not bar public school employees from collecting unemployment benefits if the summer session constitutes an “academic term.” The Court did not determine whether the United Educators of San Francisco (UESF) employees were actually eligible for unemployment benefits, as it found that the record from the lower court contained little evidence of whether San Francisco USD’s summer school session should be defined as an “academic term.” The Court sent the case back to the lower court to allow the district and union to present evidence on the characteristics of the district’s summer session. While the Court’s decision means that some school districts employees may be eligible for unemployment benefits during the summer, it is unlikely to affect most districts — few California districts appear to be running comprehensive summer programs across all grade levels, with district-level supervision and funding. Districts that are not offering an “academic term” in the summer under the Court’s definition should not be affected by the Court’s decision.
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)
University of California v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (and related cases) (2017) Case No. 18-587 – U.S. Supreme Court Update
Member(s) Involved: On behalf of all California school districts and county offices of education
Current status and/or outcome:
On June 18, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that the Trump administration may not immediately proceed with its plan to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. While the decision is a significant victory for DACA recipients and K-12 schools, the decision was based on narrow administrative grounds and did not determine the legitimacy of the DACA program, thus leaving the door open to future efforts by an administration to end DACA.
State Board of Education Charter Appeal Process
CSBA/ELA and San Jose Unified School District v. State Board of Education (Promise Academy) (2018) Case No. C087996 – California Court of Appeal, Third District Update
Member(s) Involved: San Jose Unified School District
Current status and/or outcome:
In 2019, the Legislature passed Assembly Bill 1505, which has significantly limited the scope of the State Board of Education’s (State Board) authority on charter school appeals. Under AB 1505, the State Board will only hear appeals where a district or county office of education abused its discretion. The ELA brought this case to restrict the State Board from continuing to make material changes to charter petitions presented to districts and county offices, and to force the State Board to review charter petitions as they were denied by a district or county board. AB 1505 has created these changes through a legislative, instead of judicial, avenue. As a result, the ELA and San Jose USD voluntarily dismissed their appeal.
Fair Political Practices Commission REGULATION
California State Association of Counties & CSBA v. Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) (2018) Case No. BS174653 – Los Angeles County Superior Court Update
Member(s) Involved: On behalf of all California school districts and county offices of education
Current status and/or outcome:
On Dec. 14, 2020, the court denied California State Association of Counties (CSAC) and CSBA’s petition for Writ of Mandate, finding that the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) regulations at issue should not be set aside. While the court found in favor of the FPPC, the case may still protect avenues of communication for boards and other elected officials, as the FPPC argued before the court that its regulations do not mean that television, radio and electronic media are per se violations of the prohibition against spending of public dollars on advocacy, but rather communication in the medium will be evaluated based on its content.
Discrimination under Americans with Disabilities Act
A.L. v. Clovis Unified School District Case No. 18-16669 – Federal Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit update
Member(s) Involved: Clovis Unified School District
Current status and/or outcome:
On March 18, 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Clovis Unified School District, affirming the lower court’s dismissal of claims against the district. The Ninth Circuit found that the district court correctly concluded that the gravamen of Plaintiff’s claim was for the denial of FAPE, that Plaintiff did not exhaust IDEA remedies because plaintiff’s IDEA claims were settled without receiving an administrative decision on the merits, and that because Appellants’ decision to settle in lieu of pursuing IDEA administrative remedies was “clear from the face of the complaint,” dismissal was proper. Importantly, the decision means districts are not required to wait until after potentially expensive discovery procedures to bring a motion to dismiss a case for a failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
“CSBA’s Education Legal Alliance (ELA) stands alone in championing the interests of school districts in the judicial arena. In 2020, the ELA filed an amicus brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals supporting Clovis USD in a case involving the obligation of a plaintiff to exhaust IDEA administrative remedies before suing for alleged violation of Section 504 and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Ninth agreed with the district, affirming a lower court’s dismissal of the claims against it. Although we never doubted the district was in the right, the support from CSBA’S Education Legal Alliance was greatly appreciated and helped the court reach a decision that spared Clovis USD the significant time, resources, and costs that would have accompanied extended litigation.”
— Susan K. Hatmaker,
Clovis USD Trustee
Clovis USD Trustee
Current status and/or outcome:
On March 18, 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Clovis Unified School District, affirming the lower court’s dismissal of claims against the district. The Ninth Circuit found that the district court correctly concluded that the gravamen of Plaintiff’s claim was for the denial of FAPE, that Plaintiff did not exhaust IDEA remedies because plaintiff’s IDEA claims were settled without receiving an administrative decision on the merits, and that because Appellants’ decision to settle in lieu of pursuing IDEA administrative remedies was “clear from the face of the complaint,” dismissal was proper. Importantly, the decision means districts are not required to wait until after potentially expensive discovery procedures to bring a motion to dismiss a case for a failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
“CSBA’s Education Legal Alliance (ELA) stands alone in championing the interests of school districts in the judicial arena. In 2020, the ELA filed an amicus brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals supporting Clovis USD in a case involving the obligation of a plaintiff to exhaust IDEA administrative remedies before suing for alleged violation of Section 504 and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Ninth agreed with the district, affirming a lower court’s dismissal of the claims against it. Although we never doubted the district was in the right, the support from CSBA’S Education Legal Alliance was greatly appreciated and helped the court reach a decision that spared Clovis USD the significant time, resources, and costs that would have accompanied extended litigation.”
— Susan K. Hatmaker,
Clovis USD Trustee
Clovis USD Trustee
©Copyright 2020
California School Boards Association
3251 Beacon Blvd., West Sacramento, California 95691
(800) 266-3382 | (916) 371-4691
www.csba.org