- The Bronx Household of Faith v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of New York, No. 12-2730 (Apr. 3, 2014) (reversing district court’s decision and ruling that school may refuse to allow its facilities to be used for religious worship). See this post from Evan Seeman and Dwight Merriam at the RLUIPA Defense blog.
- T.M. v. Cornwall Central School District, No. 12-4301 (Apr. 2, 2014) (finding that district court erred as a matter of law in concluding that the school district was not required under the Individuals with Disabilties Education Act to offer student a mainstream extended school year program simply because it does not offer such a program.).
- EEOC v. Baltimore County, No. 13-1106 (Mar. 31, 2014) (finding that county retirement plan unlawfully discriminated against older County employees based on their age). See our coverage here.
- T-Mobile Northeast LLC v. Loudoun County Bd. of Supervisors, No. 12-2396 (Apr. 3, 2014) (affirming that local board properly denied one request to place a wireless facility, but finding that board wrongly relied on concerns about radiofrequency emissions to deny a second request).
- Morgan v. Swanson, No. 13-40433 (Apr. 2, 2014) (affirming grant of qualified immunity to school principal who prevented parent from distributing religious materials to other adults at school party).
- Cowan v. United States of America, No. 13-60464 (Apr. 1, 2014) (remanding for district court to explain its proposed segregation remedy for school district).
- Goldman, Sachs & Co. v. City of Reno, No. 13-15445 (Mar. 31, 2014) (finding that forum selection clauses in contract superseded any right to arbitration by Financial Industry Reguatory Authority).
- Gonzalez v. City of Anaheim, No. 11-56360 (Mar. 31, 2014) (en banc) (finding that summary judgment for officers on deadly excessive force claim was improper, but affirming summary judgment on denial of familial relationship claims).
- S.L. v. Upland Unified Sch. Dist., No. 12-55715 (Apr. 2, 2014) (finding that private placement of student under IDEA was not inappropriate, and that student is entitled to transportation expenses and some reimbursement for private aides, but concluding that student’s appeal seeking attorney’s fees is untimely).**
(**Disclosure: BB&K represented the school district, and Kira Klatchko argued the case.)
(Mar. 31, 2014-Apr. 4, 2014)