MALDEF Appeals Ruling That Pasadena Unified Did Not Discriminate in School Closures

A Latino civil rights organization is asking a state appeals court to overturn a judgment that found the Pasadena Unified School District did not violate state law when it closed three elementary schools. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which represents Latino parents and students, filed suit on behalf of seven Latino parents whose children were transferred to other schools after the closures. The organization argues that California law bars education decisions with significant discriminatory effects, whether or not officials intended them.

Thomas A. Saenz, MALDEF’s president and general counsel, made that argument in a statement released Tuesday.

“Civil rights protections are only real if judges understand them and apply them with fairness and diligence. California law categorically protects against significant discriminatory effects in education decision-making, regardless of whether the effects are intentional or not. Latino students here plainly bore the brunt of the dislocation, discontinuity, and other negative effects of school closures in Pasadena,” Saenz said.

Attorneys filed the notice of appeal March 26 in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, according to the release. Briefing began Monday as the case moved forward before the California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District.

The appeal challenges a judgment the trial court entered Jan. 30. The court issued a statement of decision concluding that Pasadena Unified did not violate the California Equal Protection Clause, California Government Code section 11135, California Education Code section 220 or any other applicable law in connection with the school closures.

The court also denied all requests for declaratory and injunctive relief and awarded costs to Pasadena Unified.

The case was tried before the court without a jury over four days in November 2025. Attorneys for the organization presented evidence that the district shuttered the schools without providing parents with adequate opportunity for meaningful input, and that the closures violated the California Constitution’s guarantee of a right to education as well as California civil rights protections.

Carly Pablos, a MALDEF staff attorney, described what the appeal seeks in a second statement provided for attribution in the release.

“Latino students disproportionately shouldered the burden of PUSD’s decision to close three elementary schools during the 2019-2020 school year, and our clients faced academic disruption, emotional distress, and logistical challenges as a result of being forced to change schools. With this appeal, we hope that the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, will recognize the discriminatory impact of PUSD’s elementary school closures on the Latino community and deliver justice to PUSD’s Latino students,” Pablos said.

The district has denied the allegations. In a January 2023 statement, Pasadena Unified called the lawsuit meritless and said any closures would inevitably affect Latino students because they made up 60% of the district’s enrollment in 2019-20.

“The District did not target Latino-majority schools for closure,” the statement said.

The district has not commented on the appeal.

The original lawsuit

The organization sued the district in December 2022 on behalf of the seven parents. In a release announcing the case in January 2023, it said it was challenging the closure of elementary schools that serve high concentrations of Latino students, according to papers filed in Los Angeles Superior Court.

The schools were Roosevelt, Franklin and Jefferson elementary, campuses in the central and northwest portions of the district with a high percentage of Latino students. The district closed them because of low district enrollment and as a cost-cutting measure, according to the district.

Attorneys said none of the closed schools were in the eastern part of the district, which generally has a higher percentage of white students and a lower percentage of Latino students. The district considered but did not close two schools with declining enrollment where the student population had a lower percentage of Latino students than the shuttered schools, attorneys said.

One MALDEF attorney said in the 2023 release that the district disregarded equity in reaching the decision.

“PUSD failed to take into account basic racial equity when it decided to close three majority-Latino schools,” the attorney said. “PUSD has placed these schools last when it comes to investment in the students’ education. Latino children deserve better, and we’re holding PUSD accountable through this lawsuit for its discriminatory practices.”

What the parents said the closures did

Parents said the closures and subsequent transfers upended their children’s schedules, impeded their education — which the pandemic had already negatively affected — and caused them emotional distress, according to the 2023 release.

Some of the children were assigned to schools that did not offer the same curriculum as their old schools, and a few lost access to programs such as STEM — science, technology, engineering and math — and Spanish Dual Language Immersion.

When students returned to in-person classes, some had been transferred to schools that required parents to change their work schedule to match the new school’s schedule. The influx of new families at the new schools caused congestion at drop-off and pickup points, the suit says.

The 2023 release said the son of one of the plaintiffs has a disability and requires weekly therapy sessions, which took place near his former school. According to that release, he was transferred to a school that did not have the appropriate accommodations for his condition and that was more than five miles from home. Because his mother does not drive, he must miss class on the day he has therapy, causing him to fall behind, the complaint says.

One of the schools to which children were transferred did not have enough room, and some students were forced to attend class at a nearby middle school, which led to bullying of the younger children by the older ones, the suit says.

The decision to close the schools discriminated against Latino students in violation of sections of the state’s government and education codes that prohibit the denial of state-funded benefits because of ethnicity or race, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs and the relief sought

The plaintiffs are parents Luz Becerra, Jose Flores, David Chavez, Belen Cid-Garcia, Carla Ponce, Jess Mancia and Danae Tapia. They all say they were not given enough notice before the closures to make other arrangements for their children.

The organization asked the court to order the district to conduct a new, equitable school closure process that complies with state government and education codes as well as the California State Constitution.

Saenz framed that request in the 2023 release as a matter of statewide consequence.

“Well more than half of California public school students today are Latino,” Saenz said. “Ensuring fairness that will facilitate education equity for Latino students is essential to the future success of California; PUSD must redo its decision-making on school closures to reflect this imperative.”

Pasadena Unified serves students in kindergarten through 12th grade. The district includes Altadena, Pasadena, Sierra Madre and unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County.