California Business Litigation Blog

The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) is being sued by the union that represents teachers within that school system. The lawsuit, filed on December 28, 2009 claims that the school district failed to comply with state requirements before converting a school to a charter campus.

According to teachers, the California Education Code requires the approval of a majority of permanent teachers before schools can be turned into charter schools. In a news conference held at Garfield High School, the teachers claimed that schools like Garfield and Esteban Torres High School fall into this category.

The lawsuit specifically wants the LAUSD to comply with the Education Code, and hopes a court order will force this to happen.

The plaintiffs in the case are UTLA, and LAUSD teachers from Garfield High School, 28th Street Elementary School, Foshay Learning Center and Pio Pico Span School.

While Esteban Torres High School (charter) should relieve some of the overcrowding from the nearby (non charter) Garfield High School, LAUSD’s position is that a vote of the teachers was not required since Esteban Torres High School is a brand new school, and not a conversion of an existing school.

The two high schools, Garfield and Torres are part of the 36 new and existing schools in the Public School Choice Resolution passed by the Board of Education for the 2010 and 2011 school year. This plan allows for operations of the school to be put out to bid by third parties. The goal of the program is to help provide options for the operation of schools considered low performing campuses. Monica Garcia, who is the president of the LAUSD Board of Education, says that no schools will automatically be converted to charters as a result of the program.

This lawsuit is expected to be just the first in a series that will be filed by the UTLA in opposition to the LAUSD's plans to reform. It is also important to note that charter schools are not required to hire union teachers.

Continue reading "Teachers Union Sues Los Angeles Unified School District" »

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Education   Education Law   School District Law   School Lawsuit

Bookmark:

Here in Los Angeles, a woman who is legally blind is suing the National Conference of Bar Examiners because she believes they are unfairly restricting her from using necessary equipment to take the licensing test. The woman, Stephanie Enyart says that the agency needs to catch up with better, currently available options for its standardized testing.

When she entered law school, the Law School Admissions Test was required. UCLA, the school she was testing into, hired a human reader to read the test questions for her. The problems happened on test day. She says that the man hired was so sick that he continued to leave to get tea and blew his nose. She had a hard time understanding him through his nasally congestion, too. However, she passed the test and entered law school. She believes her score suffered because she was denied the use of a computer software program that would magnify the text of the test and convert it to speech heard through an ear bud.

The National Conference of Bar Examiners has denied her request to use a computer program to take a portion of the California bar exam that it controls. Rather, it says she must use a human reader instead.

Due to this, she has sued the national conference. She claims that the conference violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act that prohibit discrimination.

Enyart says, as reported by the LA Times, "To use a human reader or the visual accommodations they have offered just simply doesn't meet my disability needs. It would be like trying to run a race in someone else's shoes."

Mr. Enyart is not the only person who wants the national conference to catch up. A man named Michael Witwer, who will graduate from Catholic University of American's law school this year took another required test, the Multistate Professionals Responsibility Exam recently and passed though with a score he believes was reduced because he was unable to use computer programs during the test. Rather, a human reader was imposed by the administrator of the test.

He says that the reader commented on big words in the questions and struggled with pronunciation including struggling with the word constitutional.

However, there is some improvement seen within the industry. The National Conference of Bar Examiners has allowed three blind test takers to take the test in July using a pilot program that allows software to read the text aloud to the user. This was reported through Larry Paradis, an attorney who is part of the firm representing Enyart in her lawsuit. The pilot's internal report says that the pilot program has been successful. However, the program is unable to be used at this point, and will not be available in February when Enyart will take her test.

There are about 500 blind or vision impaired lawyers in practice in the United States. Most use equipment similar to what Enyart wants to use within their day-to-day practices.

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Business Litigation   Education   Education Law   Special Education

Bookmark:

University of California Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco refuses to recognize, and thereby help fund, a Christian group of students because they exclude non-Christians, lesbians and gays. The U. S. Supreme Court will determine if that is legal.

The U.S. Supreme Court, which chooses not to hear most submitted cases, has decided to hear this one as it will likely affect public universities around the country. The battle is not a new one. Conservative Christian groups believe these limitations violate their constitutional rights. They are being forced, they say, to tolerate views that violate their religious beliefs.

Christian Legal Society filed a lawsuit against the school in October of 2004. This group limits those who may join the society based on one clear statement. The student is unable to join if he or she "advocates or unrepentantly engages in sexual conduct outside of marriage between a man and a woman." The group's members must sign documentation stating they are committed evangelical Protestant or Catholics.

The school enforced its policy on barring discrimination based on race, national origin, sexual orientation or religion and refused the society. The group then took the matter to federal courts. U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White then ruled that the school was justified in its refusal and said the school could require that organizations "accept all comers as members." This was later upheld in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

However, the group appealed to the Supreme Court. Their opinion is that the school is forcing the society to abandon their identity or shut down the society altogether.

The answers to these concerns will not come soon. The case is likely to be heard in March of 2010 and a ruling may come down by June.

The argument that the society is making is that if all members had to be accepted, this would restrict the progress of the group since valuable time would be repeatedly spent discussing the fundamentals of members’ various religious beliefs. The school, however, believes the issue is whether or not universities and other public schools should subsidize discriminatory groups.

Other cases like this have been heard. In 2007, a lawsuit by Christian Legal Society against Southern Illinois University was settled in which the school said it would recognize the group. More so, the Boy Scouts of American was upheld in its decision to exclude gays and atheists from its membership roles, as a private organization's right to free association. However, the California Supreme Court upheld another incident with the Boy Scouts in 2006 in which Berkeley denied a rent subsidy to the Sea Scouts, a Boy Scout Subsidiary.

Continue reading "Can UC Hastings College of the Law Refuse Christian Student Group Based On Group's Beliefs?" »

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Education   Education Law   Freedom of Speech   School Lawsuit

Bookmark:

A teacher from Dayton found not guilty of charges of having sex with a 16-year-old student is now suing the prosecutor who brought the charges. The teacher, Nicole Howell, and her attorney, Eric Deters, filed the claim in U.S. District Court against Rob Sanders, Kenton Commonwealth's attorney. Sanders released a statement saying that the lawsuit was baseless and without merit.

Sanders commented that he was simply another high profile person to be sued by Deters, a reference to the Deters suits against the New England Patriots and Chad Ochocinco. In addition, he commented on Deters radio career saying Deters was "a publicity seeking radio personality with a law license."

Under law, a prosecutor cannot be sued as they have immunity. However, Deters claims that the actions prior to the charges being filed are not included in that immunity. Although Sanders says that a judge determined there was probable cause to arrest Howell, Deters argues that "when a prosecutor violated the public trust, those destroyed in the wake of the abuse of power deserve their remedy."

In the state of Kentucky, only a judge can issue an arrest warrant. Kenton Circuit Judge Gregory Bartlett determined there was probable cause and sent the case on to the grand jury, where 12 members found that there was sufficient evidence to send the case on further, to the jury.

It took juries only 70 minutes to find Howell not guilty of first degree sexual abuse. Howell says she is suing the attorney because she doesn't want someone else to face the same level of wrongful prosecution. She claims her reputation and her teaching career are over due to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit claims that Howell's previous attorney, Patrick Moeves, was told by Sanders that he did not care about the privately administered polygraph test that Howell passed. He wanted her arrested. Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Stephanie Kastner made statements to Moeves that she did not want any part of the case, however had to act as Sanders requested. Moreover, it claims that Sanders knew numerous facts that would dispute the minor’s claims. These facts include the polygraph test passage, the minor being unable to identify a tattoo on Howell's back, rumors about the incident at school, and that the minor denied the rumors first before going forward.

Sanders, however, says that the minor did describe the layout of Howells apartment and could describe details of that apartment.

Interestingly, Howell's case was the first prosecuted under a more-stringent state law that makes it a felony for a person in authority to have even consensual sexual relations with someone under 18. In all other instances in Kentucky, the age of consent is considered to be 16.

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Education   Education Law   Employment Law   School District Law   School Lawsuit

Bookmark: