A coalition of Los Angeles-area parents has sued the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) and the union representing its 30,000 teachers, seeking payment of $15,920 per student to be used to satisfy tuition at an institution that provides in-person learning.
The lawsuit alleges that in keeping schools closed the district is prioritizing the social agenda of the United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA) over educating students.
“In March 2020, Plaintiff A.S.’s son was told not to return to class and began exclusively online instruction,” the March 30 complaint states. “This began a downward spiral for Plaintiff A.S.’s son. Plaintiff A.S.’s son has experienced mental, emotional, social, and physical harm due to the continued closure of schools and an exclusively online education.”
In addition to LAUSD, the lawsuit names UTLA and its president, Cecily-Myart Cruz, as defendants.
“We've got a situation here that is best described as UTLA being willing to hold the welfare of kids hostage in order to achieve their political agenda,” said Tim Snowball, a civil rights attorney with Freedom Foundation, a non-profit which filed the lawsuit on behalf of the beleaguered parents.
The Freedom Foundation is a national public policy watchdog organization specializing in government union abuses.
UTLA’s demands have included defunding the police, universal healthcare for all Californians, full funding for the homeless population, shutting down publicly funded, privately operated charter schools, and cash payments, according to a press release.
“The list of demands UTLA has issued in order for schools to reopen has nothing to do with COVID or with keeping kids and teachers safe,” Snowball told the Southern California Record.
Count 1 of the lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, is breach of duty of undivided loyalty against the LAUSD.
“The school district, which is elected to set an educational policy in Los Angeles, should be the ones dictating what's going to happen and it’s the unions that should come to the bargaining table in negotiating with the district,” Snowball said. “It’s the other way around. The district is bending over backward to do anything they can to placate and satisfy the demands of UTLA.”
Count 2 against UTLA alleges aiding and abetting in breach of fiduciary duty
“We’re saying that UTLA is fully aware of the responsibility the district has toward the students and yet UTLA aided and abetted the district in Count 1’s breach by forcing their political agenda as the cost of reopening schools,” Snowball said.
Count 3 alleges UTLA is interfering with contractual relations.
“UTLA is interfering by foisting their political agenda as the price of returning to school while being fully aware of the contract between the district and the parents,” Snowball said.
Under Count 4, both LAUSD and UTLA reportedly failed to perform for the benefit of third-party beneficiaries.
“The natural third-party beneficiary of the employment contract between the district and the union are the parents and the kids and by failing to perform according to the requirements of that contract, both UTLA and the district are in breach to that third party beneficiary who are the families,” Snowball said.
Finally, LAUSD allegedly violated the California Constitution under Count 5 because it requires an in-person education in each district at least six months of every year.
“There's no exception for Zoom classes in the California Constitution,” Snowball said. “They are required to provide in-person school, and by not doing so, they are in violation of that constitutional amendment.”