Skip to main content

Termine v. William S. Hart Union High School District

9th CircuitSeptember 28, 2007No. Nos. 05-56062, 05-56121, 05-56733
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Failure to Accommodate

Outcome

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment that the school district failed to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under IDEA and must reimburse the parents for half of the student's private school tuition at Westmark School from October 2001 through July 2002.

What This Ruling Means

**Termine v. William S. Hart Union High School District** This case involved parents who sued their local school district after it failed to provide proper educational services for their child with disabilities. The student had learning disabilities that required specialized support under federal disability laws. When the school district couldn't meet the child's needs through its regular special education programs, the parents enrolled their child in a private school that specialized in serving students with learning disabilities. The court ruled in favor of the parents. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the school district had violated federal law by failing to provide an appropriate education for the student. As a result, the court ordered the district to reimburse the parents for half of their child's private school tuition costs from October 2001 through July 2002. This decision matters for workers because it demonstrates that public employers, including school districts, must follow federal disability accommodation laws. When government employers fail to meet their legal obligations under disability rights laws, they can be held financially responsible. The ruling reinforces that institutions receiving public funding must properly serve individuals with disabilities, and there are real consequences when they fall short of these requirements.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.