is similarly misplaced. Although the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit stated that “[a] decision made with blinders on, based on misinformation or a lack of information, cannot be binding as a matter of fundamental fairness and due process,” id. at 943 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), the case before it involved a plaintiff who retired from his employment after receiving a reduction-in-force notice that failed to inform him that he would be forfeiting his right to appeal the reduction-in-force decision by retiring. Id. The misleading notice therefore affected the plaintiffs right to appeal an adverse decision, which is entitled to more protection than the right to be informed of possible penalties. Cf Betts v. Bd. of Educ., 466 F.2d 629, 633 (7th Cir.1972) (<HOLDING>). In addition, Herrada has been unable to cite
holding that a students private school tuition should be reimbursed where parent did not unilaterally place student in private school because the school district tacitly consented to the private school attendance before proposing a different placement holding that where a high school student and the students mother received adequate notice of the charges had sufficient opportunity to prepare for the meeting with school personnel were accorded an orderly hearing and were given a fair and impartial decision no due process violation occurred even though the school failed to provide advance notice that the potential disciplinary actions included a transfer to another school holding that a school district was not liable for sexual molestation of plaintiffs daughter by a teacher even though the acts occurred on school property and during school hours holding that a school district owed the highest degree of care to a student on a school bus such that the district could be liable for the sexual abuse of the student by the school bus driver recognizing due process right to notice and informal hearing in school disciplinary process