.

Legal Updates for Special Education Law

Legal Update for Special Education Law – Updates from the U.S. Department of Education

Presented by the School Leaders’ Liability Practice Group

May 1, 2024

by Ray C. Freudiger

Newly Released Title IX Protections

On April 19, 2024, the U.S. Department of Education released its updated Title IX regulations, which aim to prevent sex discrimination in schools. Title IX is a civil rights law that bans sex discrimination against students, employees, and others at public schools, colleges and universities that receive federal funding. As such, all educational institutions that receive federal funding must comply with these new guidelines. 

The newly released regulations will have a significant impact on the process by which schools resolve claims of sexual harassment. Prior to these changes, schools were required to investigate claims made only through a formal reporting process. Under the new system, however, schools will have the option to offer an informal resolution process, unless the complaint includes allegations that an employee engaged in sex-based harassment of an elementary school or secondary school student, or unless such a process would conflict with federal, state or local law.

These changes will also affect the manner in which sexual harassment is investigated. A significant change is that victims of sexual assault will no longer be required to attend live hearings. Additionally, the regulations no longer mandate that cross-examinations be performed when investigating an incident. One of the most controversial changes, however, is the decision to re-implement a single investigator model. Under this system, there is one individual examining the facts of a case and making a decision on its outcome. Arguments have been presented for and against this model, with some arguing that this framework minimizes stress on sexual abuse survivors, while others argue that it poses issues with regard to due process. 

In addition, the 2024 regulations significantly expand the definition of sexual assault and harassment. Previously, the definition of these terms was fairly narrow, but the updated regulations now apply to “sex-based harassment,” which includes quid pro quo sexual harassment, sexual assault, dating violence, domestic violence and stalking. As a result of these changes, schools will now be permitted to investigate far more cases of discrimination, abuse or harassment. 

Further, these new regulations also provide protections to new demographics that were not previously afforded protection under Title IX. Specifically, the 2024 regulations prohibit discrimination not only on the basis of sex, but also on the basis of sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation and gender identity. It must be noted that this update drastically expands protections for pregnant and lactating students and employees by requiring that schools provide reasonable modifications for students based on pregnancy or related conditions.

Finally, under these regulations, there will no longer be a geographic limitation on Title IX responsibilities. Under the old rules, federally funded schools were only permitted to investigate incidents of sexual assault or harassment that occurred on campus. However, the updated guidelines caution that a Title IX recipient should not focus on whether the alleged misconduct happened on or off campus, “but rather on whether the recipient has disciplinary authority over the respondent’s conduct in the context in which it occurred.”

Educational institutions have until August 1, 2024, to update their policies and train staff on the new Title IX requirements.  


 

Legal Update for Special Education Law – May 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.