EdLawConnect Blog

As AI technology becomes more prevalent in education, school districts are exploring ways to use these tools to streamline administrative tasks.  Some districts have already implemented pilot programs with AI platforms.  We have recently received a surge in inquiries from district administrators regarding the use of AI for various educational purposes.  One inquiry revolves around whether it would be permissible to use AI to transcribe and translate various types of meetings that are legally protected from general public access or disclosure, such as Individual Education Program (“IEP”) team meeting discussions, student disciplinary hearings, and counseling sessions.  While the benefits of such technological advances may be appealing, there are important privacy and legal considerations that administrators need to know.

A federal district court in Massachusetts recently ruled against Harvard University in an ongoing lawsuit filed on behalf of disabled individuals challenging the accessibility of online video content on the university’s websites. (National Association of the Deaf v. Harvard University (D. Mass. March 28, 2019) 2019 WL 1409302, No. 3:15-cv-30023-KAR.) On the same day, the court issued a similar ruling in a companion lawsuit against the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, relying on the rationale from the Harvard University decision. (National Association of the Deaf v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (D. Mass. March 28, 2019) 2019 WL 1409301, No. 3:15-cv-30024-KAR.)

Senate Bill 792 (“SB 792”), which went into effect on September 1, 2016, requires employees and volunteers of day care centers (including preschools) licensed by the California Department of Social Services (“CDSS”) to be vaccinated for influenza, pertussis, and measles. The author of SB 792, Senator Mendoza, captured the legislative intent of the bill in the Comments to the Senate Bill Analysis:

On May 6, 2013, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied a district’s motion to dismiss an attorney’s fees action in J.B. v. San Jose Unified School District, 2013 WL 1891398, No. C-12-06358 SI (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2013). This ruling is particularly relevant to all school districts which are currently receiving increasingly more requests for independent education evaluations (“IEEs”) than in past years. In short, the Court ruled that the withdrawal of the San Jose Unified School District’s due process hearing complaint to defend its own evaluation may have conferred on J.B. (“Student”) “prevailing party” status which would entitle him to reasonable attorneys’ fees.

PLEASANTON, Calif. —Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo (AALRR) is pleased to welcome partner Elizabeth J. Rho-Ng to its Pleasanton office, where she will work in the firm’s Education Practice.