Blog

As our readers are aware, the Finney law Firm, LLC has ben retained to represent the Ohio Republican Party in its claims against Ed FitzGerald and Cuyahoga County for public records sought by ORP relating to FitzGerald’s use of his key card to access the County administrative buildings. Indeed, the original request for the information came from the Cleveland Plain Dealer, and FitzGerald refused their requests for the information as well. A few updates on this case:

• The Supreme Court has set a briefing schedule that most assuredly will see that the case is resolved after election day.
• The Supreme Court Friday rejected FitzGerald’s belated request to send the case to mediation.
• Plaintiff sought FitzGerald’s deposition and that of the County Sheriff, in part to explore the defenses they have raised to the release of the records — that some unspecified threats against FitzGerald militate against release of the records for “security” purposes.  FitzGerald and the Sheriff have filed formal Motions with the Court to prevent those depositions from proceeding.  The Court has not ruled on those motions.
• Late last week the Defendants submitted their evidence, including the Affidavit of a deputy Sheriff.  We have now sought the deposition of that deputy sheriff as well, and the defendants have indicated they intend to oppose holding that deposition as well.

So, as you might expect, the litigation appears to be mired in procedural motions for now.  We anticipate the Supreme Court will clarify many of these issues in short order.

For those following the COAST “Tweets” case, three years into the case we had oral argument Friday before Judge Mike Barrett on our Motion for Summary Judgment. The argument went very well, handled by COAST General Counsel Christopher Finney.

As background, COAST Treasurer Mark Miller on behalf of COAST was “tweeting” about the second Streetcar ballot issue in the 2011 election (see this NYT article). Rob Richardson, Jr. of Cincinnatians for Progress trumped up “false claims” charges against COAST, which the OEC dismissed. But COAST decided to end the OEC’s reign of intimidation.

This case and the Susan B. Anthony List companion case, could spell the end to their “false claims” jurisdiction.

Judge Barrett promises a decision on the preliminary injunction soon (perhaps next week), with a decision on the merits of the case perhaps before year’s end.

On August 18, 2014, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals rendered a decision in N.W. v. Boone County Board of Education, which denied IDEA reimbursement to the parents of an autistic child. The parents filed the action under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) arguing that the school district had failed to offer a “free appropriate public education” (“FAPE”) to their child, as required by IDEA.

This case involved an autistic student who had been diagnosed with apraxia. Under the student’s Individual Educational Program (“IEP”) the student had been placed at St. Rita’s School for the Deaf. However, the parents became dissatisfied with St. Rita’s program, and unilaterally removed their son and placed him in a private school in Cincinnati without the local school district’s consent.
After unilaterally placing their son in a new private school, the parents sought reimbursement of tuition and transportation costs from the school district. The school district, however, maintained that it could provide the student with FAPE. The parties attempted to mediate the placement issue for three years, without success, and eventually litigation ensued at the administrative level, and then before the federal courts.

The parents filed suit in the District Court offering two main arguments for reimbursement: (1) that the school district’s plan failed to provide a FAPE; and (2) IDEA’s “Stay-Put” provision permitted the student to continue attending the private school and required the school district to reimburse the parents for tuition and transportation expenses at such school until the dispute was resolved.

Despite finding that the parents failed to show that the school district denied their son a FAPE and that the parents unilaterally withdrew their child from the district’s schools, the court ordered the school district to reimburse the parents for the tuition and transportation costs incurred by attending the private school. The school district appealed the decision to the Sixth Circuit, which reversed the decision.

On appeal, the Sixth Circuit held that the IDEA does not permit the courts to order reimbursement absent a finding that a school district failed to offer a FAPE. The Sixth Circuit relied on the district court’s determination that the parents had failed to prove the school district did not offer a FAPE, which the parents did not appeal to the Sixth Circuit.

Moreover, the Sixth Circuit ruled that the IDEA’s “Stay-Put” provision did not apply to the student. The Sixth Circuit stated that in order to qualify for stay-put protection and reimbursement, the school district’s approval is necessary for the student to be “placed” at a school. Thus, the Sixth Circuit determined that the student had not be “placed” at the private school because his parents unilaterally enrolled him at the private school, without the school district’s approval.

Under the IDEA, a FAPE must be provided to all disabled children who are 2 to 21 years of age. A FAPE is to be provided at the public’s expense and in conformity with each disabled child’s IEP. According to the Sixth Circuit, however, a school district will not be forced to reimburse parents for expenses incurred for private schooling when the parents unilaterally enroll their child in private school, without establishing that the school district failed to offer a FAPE to the student.

The Dispatch has the story here.

The Finney Law Firm is counsel to the Smitherman for City Council Committee.  As he ran for reelection in 2013, a dark-money group called Cincinnatians for Jobs Now produced and ran hundreds of thousands of dollars in negative advertisements disparaging Council member Smitherman, encouraging voters to oppose his re-election to Council, and  promoting the election of certain other candidates for Mayor and City Council.  The shadow committee filed no campaign finance reports, which would have identified its income and expenses.

Our firm has filed a Complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission to force compliance with campaign finance reporting laws.

This week, the Ohio Elections Commission ruled on pending motions on discovery, and required Cincinnatians for Jobs Now to produce documents and submit participants to depositions, as sought by our client.

You may read the OEC order here.