Articles

The court of appeal opinion in Lhotka v. Geographic Expeditions, Inc. is a cogent reminder to any drafting a contract clause requiring arbitration of disputes.

In cases under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 20 USD §§ 1400-1491), courts must wrestle with the difficult issue of determining when an individualized educational program (IEP) meets the command of the statute.

When parents sue to assert their child’s right to a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 20 USC §§ 1400-1491), they are entitled to recover attorney’s fees and costs if they are a “prevailing party.”In Weissburg v.

The Ninth Circuit stated the issue right up front in United States v.

Employees who work more than 8 hours a day are entitled to overtime pay (one and one-half normal salary).

David Ohton, strength and conditioning coach at San Diego State University, was fired after he informed his superiors that the school’s football coach was drunk in public. He contended that when the school fired him, it was in fact retaliating against him for exposing the coach’s problems.

California consumer protection laws do not apply to student loans regulated by the Higher Education Act (20 USC §§ 1001-1155). In Chae v. SLM Corporation, the plaintiffs complained about improper interest charges, contending they were overcharged on their student loans.

With the proliferation of charter schools in California and other states, an issue was sure to arise over whether the school stands in the shoes of the state for all purposes when it offers educational services to the public. In Caviness v. Horizon Community Learning Center, Inc.

When authorities are investigating allegations of sexual abuse, can they remove a student from her classroom without a warrant? The short answer is no, absent exigent circumstances.

In recent years, many courts have rejected sexual harassment claims after finding that the acts complained of were not substantial.