STUDENT A, by and through PARENT A, her guardian, et al. v. Berkeley Unified School District, et al.

This disability civil rights class action is brought against Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD) for failing to educate students with reading disorders. Despite the availability of effective teaching methods, BUSD refused to alter its policies and practices, leaving students of all ages who have reading disorders without the basic tool of literacy. The complaint is filed against BUSD, the BUSD Superintendent, the BUSD Board of Education, and the Directors of the BUSD Board of Education, for failure to ensure that students with disabilities receive a free appropriate public education as required by federal and state laws, and implementing regulations (the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and California Education Code Sections 56000 et seq.).

Children with reading disorders have extreme difficulty learning skills needed to become literate, such as decoding (sounding out) words. Many children with reading disorders are incredibly intelligent and need to be taught how to read in different ways than their peers. Reading disorders are prevalent and affect many people. It is estimated that 6 to 17 percent of the population in the United States demonstrates some sign of dyslexia, making it the most prevalent learning disability by far.


Jacobson Education Law, Inc.


October 12, 2017 – Berkeley, California – Federal district Judge John Tigar denied an attempt by Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD), the BUSD Superintendent, the BUSD Board of Education, and the Directors of the BUSD Board of Education to have the court dismiss this lawsuit challenging the school district’s failure to comply with federal and state laws that ensure students with reading disorders receive a free appropriate public education. The case will go forward.

The Court held that because the question of exhaustion of administrative remedies raised disputed issues of fact, the case could not be resolved by a motion to dismiss.