California Business Litigation Blog

In response to severe imminent budgetary crises which could include cuts of more than $407 Million and elimination of up to 2500 staff positions, the Clark County School District (“CCSD”) filed suit against the local teachers’ union earlier this month. In its lawsuit, the school district petitioned the Eighth Judicial District Court to rule on a proposed increase in employee retirement contributions. Currently, school district employees participate in the state’s Public Employees’ Retirement System (“PERS”). Purportedly, a 1.125 percent hike in mandatory employee contributions is slated to begin on July 1.

The suit alleges that district workers must incur the increase instead of an equal pay raise. Alternatively, employees may elect to accept an offsetting salary reduction. School district officials maintain that the collective costs to its employees will total $14 million. Ultimately, they claim, the school district will sustain the loss.

In an apparent effort to clarify the value of this multimillion-dollar figure, the district equated the sum to 200 full-time school district employee slots. Litigation documents further detailed the district’s ongoing negotiations for revised employment contracts with the teachers’ union. If negotiations are successful, the new contracts would become effective with the 2011-2012 academic year. Meanwhile, state legislators are contemplating the legalities of CCSD’s proposed budget cuts.

Ostensibly, the district is seeking declaratory relief in case it is unable to reach a compromise with the teachers’ union. If granted, such relief would constitute a restraining order. The court order would ultimately become moot by the terms of a renegotiated contract or binding arbitration.

To date, the teachers’ union has not filed a formal response to the school district’s claims.

Continue reading "Nevada School District Sues to Cut Budgetary Costs" »

The Woodland Hills (Pittsburgh, PA) School District has agreed to pay $25,000 per year, plus a 3% annual inflationary increase, to the family of an elementary school aged student diagnosed with autism and mental retardation. The agreement will enable the family to seek private education for their child.

The suit, on behalf of an unnamed family, alleged that the district’s plan to place the then-six-year-old child diagnosed with autism and mental retardation, in Wilkins Primary School was inconsistent with the educational requirements laid out in the federal Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act and other laws. It argued that the Pace School, a private school for emotionally disturbed and developmentally disabled children in Churchill, PA was significantly better equipped to meet the child's needs. The family's attorney stated that the family "felt very strongly ... that the private placement was what was best for their child" therefore the district’s plan would not meet their child’s needs.

The federal civil lawsuit was filed in U.S. District court last May and resolved in mediation this February. The payments, required for 15 years, will allow the family to send their child to the Pace School, despite the fact that it only partially covers the tuition expenses the family will incur.

In a ruling by the Arizona Court of Appeals handed down on March 31, 2011 the Congress School District, located in Yavapai County, has been ordered to supply records sought by four local residents.

The Congress School District had rejected the records requests by the four residents claiming that it was "vexatious," due to the number of previous requests for records by the individuals.

The ruling by the Court of Appeals stated that the school district did not provide evidence to prove the requests unreasonable and that the records are available to the public by law. The ruling also stated that the public has a right to information regarding the district and how it conducts business. Requests for, and access to, this information does not constitute a public nuisance.

There were a total of 55 requests for records by the four residents for information during the 2008-2009 school year. There were also four complaints filed that year with the Arizona Ombudsman's Office, the agency in charge of complaint review, due to lack of response to the requests. The residents filed an additional 13 information requests during the 2009-2010 school year.

The response by the school district to the repeated requests for information was to sue in an effort to block any future records requests, stating that they are a "public nuisance, an abuse of laws regarding public records and harassment." No mention was made, however, that any of the previous requests were improper or illegitimate.

In the ruling, the judge wrote that the officials from the Congress School District did not provide proof of any request made for non-public records.

Citing the arguments in the suit by the school district as 'preemptive action,' the judge stated that it was inappropriate but that the school district was welcome to seek legal action in the future to bar any requests that are outside the bounds of public records law.

The Congress School District has also been ordered to pay the legal expenses incurred by the individuals due to the court proceedings.

A student complaining about a grade is certainly not a new development but threatening to file a lawsuit against a student for disputing a grade is a different story. As hard as it is to imagine such a thing, that's exactly what happened to young Monserrat Ramirez of California. The girl contested her grade after her teacher gave the group she was in a C+.

Ramirez went through the proper channels, first appealing to her teacher, then to the administrators of the school. Finally after finding no suitable resolution elsewhere Ramirez turned to the Basset Unified (La Puente, CA) school board to have the matter resolved and that's when the young woman was issued a letter from the teacher's lawyer, Michael Feinberg.

In a letter sent from Feinberg's law firm, Ramirez was told that her comments and communication with the school board were classified as "actionable slander" and was advised that further comments from her could result in "costly litigation". Initially the letter had the desired impact, essentially silencing Ramirez.

"I was going to give up as soon as I saw that." Ramirez said.

This would be the end of the story in most cases, but 18 year old Ramirez isn't like most people. The honors student with a 3.5 GPA couldn't just stand by and let this go; her grades were hard earned and one teacher shouldn't be able to put a black mark on an otherwise excellent student record.

The teacher, Tom Covington, taught Ramirez's yearbook class. While the other students in her group were goofing off or failing to show up at all, Ramirez showed up faithfully and completed all work assigned to her within the time allotted. When an editor for the yearbook quit Ramirez was responsible for the work of that editor in addition to her own.

Bassett Unified Superintendent Marty Galindo confirmed that Ramirez followed proper channels when contesting her grade and said he feels Covington's actions were "unfortunate and overboard".

Tom Covington defended his actions by stating that: "My intent was to have this little girl stop dragging my name through the mud. As a teacher, what I have to go on is my reputation and false accusations can wreak havoc on a career."

The threatened lawsuit against Ramirez may be a potential suppression of First Amendment rights. Covington's lawyer declined to comment on the matter.

Continue reading "Student Threatened With Lawsuit for Complaining About Grade" »