"The decision sends a strong message that civil rights protections cannot be dismantled by fiat."
We recently sat down for a brief Q&A with Reid Skibell and Jon Friedman, partners at Glenn Agre Bergman & Fuentes, after the firm obtained a preliminary injunction in a pro bono lawsuit brought on behalf of Victim Rights Law Center and two students and their parents.
Here is what we learned about the case, the injunction, and its particular importance regarding civil rights and education today.
Q: Can you provide an overview of the case and its significance?
Reid Skibell (Partner, Glenn Agre Bergman & Fuentes):
This case centers on protecting students' civil rights across the country. The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) faced drastic staffing cuts and office closures, which would have made it impossible for OCR to investigate and resolve complaints of discrimination in schools in a timely manner.
"This decision is a critical victory for civil rights and students relying on the OCR."
Our clients—Victim Rights Law Center, two students who experienced discrimination in school and are waiting for OCR to resolve their complaints, and their families—brought this lawsuit to challenge these actions. The preliminary injunction we secured requires the OCR to fulfill its statutory mandate to protect students from discrimination and harassment. This decision is a critical victory for civil rights and students relying on the OCR.
Q: What were the key legal arguments that led to the preliminary injunction?
Skibell: The Court found that the Department of Education’s actions were likely arbitrary and capricious, violating the Administrative Procedure Act. We submitted significant evidence confirming that the mass terminations and office closures would have left the OCR unable to resolve discrimination complaints in a timely and meaningful way, effectively dismantling its ability to enforce federal civil rights laws.
In its response, the government offered no evidence whatsoever that the OCR was continuing to process complaints in the wake of the mass termination. The Court recognized the situation's urgency and the harm that would result if these cuts were allowed to proceed.
Q: How does this ruling impact students and families nationwide?
Jon Friedman (Partner, Glenn Agre Bergman & Fuentes):
The Secretary of Education had announced her plan to lead the Department of Education on a “Final Mission” to shut itself down. If allowed to continue, that would have precluded the OCR from fulfilling its legally required responsibilities to protect students. This ruling ensures that the OCR remains a resource for students and families facing discrimination. Without this injunction, thousands of investigations would have stalled, and students would have nowhere to turn. The decision sends a strong message that civil rights protections cannot be dismantled by fiat.
Q: What role did collaboration with Public Justice play in this case?
Friedman: Public Justice has been an invaluable partner, and its lead lawyer on this case, Sean Ouellette, has been a thoughtful and effective advocate. Their expertise in civil rights litigation and willingness to push back on illegal curtailments of civil rights have been instrumental in achieving this outcome.
Q: Can you share more about the plaintiffs and their experiences
Skibell: Our plaintiffs include the Victim Rights Law Center, a national advocacy organization for survivors of gender-based violence, and two families who have faced heartbreaking discrimination.
"...this ruling is a testament to their resilience."
Karen and Glenn Josefosky’s son endured life-threatening harassment due to a severe food allergy, with other students bullying him with taunts and intentionally exposing him to his allergen. Tara Blunt’s son was forced to leave public school after persistent racial harassment.
They repeatedly sought help from their local school systems but received no meaningful relief, effectively locking them out of school. Their courage in standing up for their rights has been inspiring, and this ruling is a testament to their resilience.
Q: What does this decision mean for the future of civil rights enforcement?
Skibell: This decision reinforces a critical principle: the administration cannot unilaterally dismantle civil rights protections without Congressional approval.
It’s a reminder that the rule of law prevails, even in the face of attempts to undermine it. Moving forward, we hope this case serves as a precedent for protecting the integrity of civil rights enforcement.
Q: Why is pro bono work like this important to Glenn Agre Bergman & Fuentes?
Skibell: At Glenn Agre, one of our core values is that pro bono work is our responsibility and a cornerstone of our legal system. It allows us to use our skills and resources to advocate for those who might not otherwise have access to justice.
This case exemplifies the power of pro bono work to uphold fundamental rights.
Q: What’s next for this case?
Friedman: While the preliminary injunction is a significant victory, the government must now take the required steps to restore terminated employees and ensure that the OCR fulfills its legal responsibility to protect the civil rights of students facing discrimination.
To this end, under the terms of the injunction, the government is required to make weekly reports to the Court on its progress towards restoring the OCR’s capacity to do its job.
We are monitoring that process and will continue to advocate for our clients as the litigation progresses and work to ensure that the OCR remains equipped to fulfill its mission. The fight for civil rights is ongoing, and we’re committed to seeing it through.
Q. What challenges did you face in litigating this case, and how did you overcome them?
Skibell: Learning about the horrific discrimination faced by our clients—children who were bullied so severely that they had to leave school—made us feel a particular responsibility to get justice for them. We understood that these students relied on us after their school districts failed them.
We are grateful that the Court reached the right result.
Q. What are the broader implications of this case for civil rights litigation?
Skibell: This case underscores the judiciary's critical role in safeguarding civil rights, particularly when government actions threaten to undermine them. It also highlights the importance of swiftly challenging policies that could cause irreparable harm to vulnerable populations.
"...this case reminds us that civil rights protections are not static"
More broadly, this case reminds us that civil rights protections are not static—they require constant vigilance and advocacy to ensure they are upheld. It’s a call to action for attorneys, advocacy organizations, and the public to remain engaged in the fight for equality and justice.
Q. How do staffing cuts and office closures impact the ability of government agencies to fulfill their mandates?
Friedman: Staffing cuts and office closures profoundly impact the ability of government agencies like the OCR to fulfill their mandates. In this case, the Department of Education’s decision to cut half of the OCR’s staff and close half of its offices would have effectively paralyzed the agency. These cuts also send a troubling message to the public that civil rights enforcement is not a priority. This can erode trust in government institutions and discourage individuals from coming forward with complaints.
The Court recognized these impacts, noting that the OCR would be “unable to resolve student discrimination complaints in a timely and meaningful fashion” without adequate staffing and resources. This decision highlights the importance of ensuring government agencies are adequately funded and staffed to carry out their critical work.
Q. What precedent does this case set for other lawsuits challenging government actions?
Skibell: This case sets an important precedent for holding government agencies accountable when their actions threaten to undermine statutory protections. For other lawsuits challenging government actions, this case demonstrates the Administrative Procedure Act's power to ensure that agencies act within the bounds of the law.
"This is a critical safeguard against executive overreach..."
It also highlights the importance of presenting clear evidence of harm and mobilizing strong advocacy coalitions to support litigation efforts. This is a critical safeguard against executive overreach and a reminder that the rule of law remains a cornerstone of our democracy.
Q: Any final thoughts on this ruling?
Friedman: This ruling affirms that students are entitled to a federal government that protects them from discrimination and defends their civil rights. It’s an honor to stand with our clients and collaborate with Public Justice on this important matter.
We’re proud to play a role in protecting the rights of students nationwide.
+++
