An appeals panel has ruled a group of plaintiffs may continue their suit, which alleged Los Angeles school and union officials discriminated against minority students through remote-learning Covid-19 policies, saying that although schools are back in session, any academic damage to students remains.
The recent decision was authored by Justice Brian Currey, with concurrence from Justices Audra Mori and Audrey Collins, of the California Second District Appellate Court. The decision favored Keshara Shaw and eight other plaintiffs in their action against the Los Angeles Unified School District and the teachers' union, United Teachers Los Angeles.
In 2020 in Los Angeles Superior Court, plaintiffs filed a putative class action against the District and union. The suit alleged District and union officials improperly relied on the teachers union's collective bargaining powers to establish emergency at-home schooling policies during the Covid-19 pandemic. They said the actions by school officials and the teachers union violated the constitutional rights of students, and resulted in policies that deprived all students of quality education, but particularly discriminated against poor Black and Latino students. Plaintiffs asserted most Black and Latino students took part in remote classes only once or twice a week, or not at all, which was 10 to 20 percent lower than white and Asian students.
Even though remote learning has ended, plaintiffs contend the harm persists, because officials have not taken steps to remediate the "learning loss" inflicted during the pandemic.
In September 2021, Judge Yvette M. Palazuelos granted defendants' motion to dismiss the case. Palazuelos found the suit moot, on grounds students were back in regular class. As to ongoing harm, Palazuelos said it would not be practical to evaluate each student to ascertain the extent of their loss, if any, because evaluation would have to be "highly individualized."
On appeal, Justice Currey reinstated the suit, determining it's plausible that harm is continuing, which means the case is not moot and the harm can be addressed.
"The question of mootness in this case is fundamentally entwined with the question of remedy. If the trial court erred in striking the prayer for relief, appellants still have a viable remedy for past and continuing harms, and their constitutional claims are not moot," Currey said.
Currey added: "Relief and mootness are two sides of the same coin."
Currey went on to say it's not necessarily true that ongoing harm is irreversible.
"It is far from obvious at this point that all possible remedies would necessitate prohibitively cumbersome individual inquiries," Currey noted.
Currey said Judge Palazuelos, with input from both parties, could plot a course of action for pinpointing and overcoming any learning deficits.
"School districts across the country are developing programs to identify and remediate pandemic learning loss, so it is not as if the court [Palazuelos] will have no models to consider," Currey said.
Plaintiffs have been represented by Mark C. Holscher, Sierra Elizabeth, Edward S. Hillenbrand, Robert Carnes, Laura E. Uhlenhuth and Kathryn Panish, of Kirkland & Ellis, which is headquartered in Chicago.
The District has been defended by Sue Ann Salmon Evans, Ellen C. Wu, Keith A. Yeomans, Luke L. Punnakanta and William Guy Ash, of Dannis Woliver Kelley, which is based in San Francisco.
The union has been defended by Ira L. Gottlieb, Lisa C. Demidovich, Michael E. Plank and Dexter F. Rappleye, of Bush Gottlieb, of Glendale.