2022 Annual Report

Dear Member:

Thank you for supporting the Education Legal Alliance (ELA) this year. Without the continued support of school districts and county offices of education (COEs) like yours, it would have been impossible for the ELA to carry out its services as the preeminent legal defender of California public schools on issues that have a statewide impact.

For 30 years, the ELA has successfully supported member districts and COEs in navigating the litigious landscape on which California public agencies operate. Though the ELA’s activities primarily involve filing an amicus brief in support of a member district or COE’s position or interest, the ELA has filed lawsuits when necessary to avail the interest of districts and COEs statewide. Over the years, the ELA has been involved in cases affecting governance principles such as local control, as well as legal challenges to state interpretation of the constitutional provisions for public school funding and the funding of statutory mandates. In 2019 alone, the ELA settled a trio of cases; CSBA v. Cohen I, CSBA v. Cohen II, and CSBA v. Bosler, which, altogether, resulted in repayment of $686 million to California public schools for underpayment in previous years.

This year’s report highlights a few of the cases in which the ELA has been or is currently involved. Among the cases in which the ELA filed an amicus brief are Brennon B. v West Contra Costa Unified School District, protecting local educational agencies (LEAs) from the application of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, which could have resulted in awards of treble damages and attorney’s fees against LEAs, and CP V Walnut v. Fremont Unified School District, defending LEAs’ legal authority to assess a higher level of developer fees under the appropriate conditions specified in law. CSBA and the ELA have also appealed the Superior Court ruling in the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) lawsuit filed last year against the California State Controller, to capture nearly $1 billion in lost Proposition 98 funding due to improper calculation of property taxes owed to school districts in five California counties.

In the coming months, the ELA will continue working on legal matters of statewide importance, and more importantly, we are exploring new ways to provide more support to member districts and COEs. The ELA stands in a unique position to do this, and I hope you will continue to support this important legal and advocacy arm of our public schools.

If you have any questions about the ELA or its benefits, please contact ELA staff at (800) 266-3382 or legalservices@csba.org.

Sincerely,

Vernon M. Billy
CEO & Executive Director,
California School Boards Association

Contents

What is the Education Legal Alliance?

Steering Committee

Advisory Committee

CSBA Staff

School funding — Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund

Unfunded state mandates

Reimbursement of mandates

Disability-based discrimination — Claim under Unruh Act

Discrimination/protected employment classes under PERB

Public Records Act requests

Independent study/Distance learning

Special education — Standard for FAPE

Special education — Procedural violations

First Amendment/Equal Access Act — Nondiscrimination policies and student clubs

First Amendment

Facility funding — Lease-leaseback contracts

Members with whom
the ELA worked directly in 2022*

*There are three other cases the ELA is involved in that are on behalf of all California School Districts and County Offices of Education.

What is the
Education Legal Alliance?

CSBA’s Education Legal Alliance (ELA) 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.

“Whether initiating civil litigation and administrative actions, filing amicus briefs with state and federal courts, challenging legislation and regulations, or providing analysis on key legal cases for ELA members, CSBA’s Education Legal Alliance continues to deliver for every local education agency in the state of California.”

— Marisa Lincoln,
CCSA President-elect

CSBA’s Education Legal Alliance (ELA) 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.

“Whether initiating civil litigation and administrative actions, filing amicus briefs with state and federal courts, challenging legislation and regulations, or providing analysis on key legal cases for ELA members, CSBA’s Education Legal Alliance continues to deliver for every local education agency in the state of California.”

— Marisa Lincoln,
CCSA President-elect

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

Dr. Susan Heredia, Chair
CSBA President
Natomas USD

Susan Markarian
CSBA President-elect
Pacific Union ESD

Vernon M. Billy
CSBA CEO & Executive Director

Renee Nash
CSBA Director, Region 4
Eureka Union SD

Susan Henry
CSBA Director, Region 15
Huntington Beach Union HSD

Dana Dean
Regional County Delegate, Region 3
Solano COE

Mary Jane Burke
County Superintendent
Marin COE

Dr. Heather Olsen
Superintendent
Pacifica SD

Paul Gothold
County Superintendent
San Diego COE

Robert Manwaring
Consultant

Advisory
Committee

CSBA
Staff

Mike Smith, Chair
Lozano Smith

Spencer Covert
Parker & Covert LLP

Sue Ann Salmon Evans
Dannis Woliver Kelley

Peter K. Fagen
Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP

Paul Loya
Atkinson, Andelson, Loya,
Ruud & Romo

Jeffrey Riel
Orange County
Department of Education

Teresa Stinson
Sacramento County
Office of Education

Keith J. Bray
General Counsel &
Chief of Staff

Kristin D. Lindgren
Deputy General Counsel

Bode Owoyele
Associate General Counsel

Dana Scott
Associate General Counsel

Anita Ceballos
Paralegal

Advisory
Committee

Mike Smith, Chair
Lozano Smith

Spencer Covert
Parker & Covert LLP

Sue Ann Salmon Evans
Dannis Woliver Kelley

Peter K. Fagen
Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP

Paul Loya
Atkinson, Andelson, Loya,
Ruud & Romo

Jeffrey Riel
Orange County
Department of Education

Teresa Stinson
Sacramento County
Office of Education

CSBA
Staff

Keith J. Bray
General Counsel &
Chief of Staff

Kristin D. Lindgren
Deputy General Counsel

Bode Owoyele
Associate General Counsel

Dana Scott
Associate General Counsel

Anita Ceballos
Paralegal

SCHOOL FUNDING —
EDUCATIONAL REVENUE AUGMENTATION FUND

CSBA v. Betty Yee – California Court of Appeal for the Third District (Case No. C096838)

MEMBER(S) INVOLVED: All California school districts and county offices of education

IMPORTANCE OF STATEWIDE ISSUE:

The Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) was created by the Legislature in 1992 to relieve pressure on the state’s General Fund while meeting the constitutional minimum funding guarantee for K-14 education. The ERAF statute redirects a portion of property taxes statewide from cities, counties and special districts to local school districts and community college districts, reducing the demands on the state’s General Fund. School districts and COEs throughout the state have lost out on Proposition 98 funding as a result of miscalculation of “excess ERAF” in five counties, resulting in nearly $1 billion in lost Prop 98 funding and potential future losses.

Read Full Article

UNFUNDED STATE MANDATES

San Diego Unified School District, et al. v. State of California – California Court of Appeal, Third District (Case No. C090477)

MEMBER(S) INVOLVED: San Diego Unified School District; San Jose USD; Clovis USD; Grossmont Union High School District; Newport-Mesa USD; Poway USD; Castro Valley USD; East Side Union HSD; and Fullerton Joint Union HSD

IMPORTANCE OF STATEWIDE ISSUE:

The mandate requirement in the California Constitution requires the state to pay for any programs that it imposes on local governments, including school districts. Districts rely on this reimbursement, and the obligation to pay for mandated programs helps keep a check on state programs mandated on local governments. The state’s attempt to chip away at the mandates reimbursement system and transfer the financial burden of state-mandated programs to districts harms school districts that have followed the mandate reimbursement procedure and are legitimately anticipating the additional funding.

Read Full Article

Reimbursement of Mandates

Coast Community College District, et al. v. Commission on State Mandates, et al. – California Supreme Court (Case No. S262663)

MEMBERS INVOLVED: All California school districts and county offices of education

IMPORTANCE OF STATEWIDE ISSUE:

School district budgets are affected by determinations of the Commission on State Mandates (Commission) regarding whether the state has legally or practically compelled the district to implement a new program or higher level of service (thus creating a mandate). The courts’ decisions in this case may modify or reinforce existing law and will likely influence the Commission and lower courts in determining when the state has legally or practically compelled a school district or other local agency to implement a new reimbursable program or higher level of service.

Read Full Article

Disability-Based Discrimination —
Claim Under Unruh Act

Brennon B. v. West Contra Costa Unified School District – California Supreme Court (Case No. S266254)

MEMBER(S) INVOLVED: West Contra Costa Unified School District

IMPORTANCE OF STATEWIDE ISSUE:

Application of the Unruh Act to school districts could open up districts to recovery of excessive treble damages and attorney’s fees for plaintiffs, thereby creating greater financial risk for already underfunded public schools.

Read Full Article

Discrimination/Protected Employment Classes Under PERB

Visalia USD v. Public Employment Relations Board – California Court of Appeal, Fifth District (Case No. F084032)

MEMBER(S) INVOLVED: Visalia Unified School District

IMPORTANCE OF STATEWIDE ISSUE:

Under the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) decision being challenged, an employee is deemed to be part of a protected class simply by virtue of holding office in the union. Being part of a protected class insulates an employee from adverse employment actions regardless of whether those actions are related to a protected union activity. If upheld, the ruling would make it difficult to discipline union employees who are also union officers, and it could open the door to unions expanding “officer” roles as a shield to guard against disciplinary actions.

Read Full Article

Public Records Act requests

Rodriquez et. al. v. Superior Court of the State of California, In and For the County of Monterey – California Court of Appeal, Sixth District (Case No. H049836)

MEMBER(S) INVOLVED: All California school districts and county offices of education

IMPORTANCE OF STATEWIDE ISSUE:

The Public Records Act (PRA) is intended to ensure the people of California have a right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business. Although the PRA is liberally construed in favor of disclosing public records, it does not apply to personal records that are outside the scope of the public’s business. PRA requests are usually sent to the agency that is the custodian of record for the records being sought. In this case, the court required the disclosure of emails related to a public charter school by way of a PRA request to a public community college. The emails sought belonged to a community college employee who also served in a volunteer role for the charter school. If it stands, the ruling in favor of the requesting party could increase the burden on school districts and COEs to respond to PRA requests simply because they employ someone who has connections to another public entity. The precedent set by this would increase the burden on public schools having to respond to PRA requests.

Read Full Article

INDEPENDENT STUDY/DISTANCE LEARNING

E.E. et. al. v. State of California – United States District Court, Northern District (Case No. 21-cv-07585-SI)

MEMBER(S) INVOLVED: All California school districts and county offices of education

SUMMARY OF THE CASE:

Plaintiffs, a group of students with disabilities, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, against the State of California, the State Board of Education and the California Department of Education, alleging that Assembly Bill 130 makes distance learning inaccessible to students with disabilities. The district court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining defendants from altering the status quo in effect prior to the enactment of AB 130, requiring a return to the 2020–21 distance learning format for the named students. The ELA filed an amicus brief discussing the numerous issues associated with enjoining AB 130 at this time.

Read Full Article

Special education — Standard for FAPE

A.O. v. Los Angeles Unified School District – Federal Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (Case Nos. 22-55204, 22-55226)

MEMBER(S) INVOLVED: Los Angeles Unified School District

IMPORTANCE OF STATEWIDE ISSUE:

This matter involves the application of the standard for determining whether a local educational agency’s (LEA) offer of services to a special education student is reasonably designed to offer the student a fair appropriate public education (FAPE) to meet their individual needs in the least restrictive environment (LRE). This standard has been developed through U.S. Supreme Court precedent. In this case, regarding the placement of a 3-year-old deaf and hard of hearing student, both the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) and the federal district court applied an incorrect standard, in which they compared the Los Angeles USD’s program to a program at a private nonpublic school and determined that the nonpublic school’s program was “better” than the district’s program. If this standard were to be utilized moving forward, it would place a heavy burden on LEAs to provide the best possible program for special education students, rather than a program reasonably designed to offer a FAPE.

Read Full Article

Special Education — Procedural Violations

D.O. v. Escondido Union School District – Federal Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (Case No. 19–56043)

MEMBER(S) INVOLVED: Escondido Union School District

IMPORTANCE OF STATEWIDE ISSUE:

While school districts must provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to eligible students, this case provides an opportunity to clarify what happens when there is a procedural violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the violation itself does not necessarily result in the denial of an educational benefit or opportunity. If the court finds that a procedural violation of IDEA alone equates to a denial of FAPE, it could expose local educational agencies (LEAs) to increased liability and further complicate their ability to meet the educational needs of students with disabilities.

Read Full Article

FIRST AMENDMENT/EQUAL ACCESS ACT —NONDISCRIMINATION POLICIES AND STUDENT CLUBS

Fellowship of Christian Athletes, et al. v. San Jose Unified School District, et al. – Federal Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (Case No. 215827)

MEMBER(S) INVOLVED: San Jose Unified School District

IMPORTANCE OF STATEWIDE ISSUE:

Because this matter involves a challenge to a school district’s nondiscrimination policies by a student club that excludes students in certain protected classes from holding leadership positions, it may impact the way local educational agencies (LEAs) in California implement their nondiscrimination policies with respect to student clubs. State law requires that LEAs maintain nondiscrimination policies and also prohibits discrimination based on various protected classes in school programs and activities. Federal laws, such as Title IX, also prohibit such discrimination. If a court were to agree with the Fellowship of Christian Athlete’s (FCA) claim that its First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment and Equal Access Act rights require that it be allowed to exclude students in protected classes from its leadership positions but still have all of the rights and privileges of an Associated Student Body-recognized club, it would place all LEAs in an untenable position in which they would have to make exceptions to their nondiscrimination policies for religious clubs in contravention of state and federal law.

Read Full Article

FIRST AMENDMENT

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District – Federal Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (Case No. 20-35222)

MEMBER(S) INVOLVED: All California school districts and county offices of education

IMPORTANCE OF STATEWIDE ISSUE:

As public entities, pursuant to the First Amendment and the principal of separation between church and state, school districts and county offices of education are charged with regulating speech and conduct that endorses religion within the schools. Local educational agencies (LEAs) should have the authority to establish reasonable restrictions on speech directed at students within the school context, and enforce their board policies, without fear of violating constitutional rights.

Read Full Article

Facility Funding — Lease-leaseback Contracts

Davis v. Fresno Unified School District (Davis II) – California Supreme Court (Case No. S266344)

MEMBER(S) INVOLVED: Fresno Unified School District

IMPORTANCE OF STATEWIDE ISSUE:

To complete school construction projects, school districts can choose from a variety of project delivery methods, including lease-leaseback agreements. School districts rely on being able to validate the contracts and have certainty in their legality. The appellate court ruling in Davis II creates uncertainty and risk for school districts that use the lease-leaseback method around the use of validation proceedings. The resulting uncertainty calls the continued viability of lease-leaseback agreements into question.

Read Full Article

California School Boards Association
(800) 266-3382 | (916) 371-4691
www.csba.org

Return to Cover