California Business Litigation Blog

A six million dollar lawsuit was filed last week against the Saranac Lake Central School District in upstate New York. Amy and Hiram Oliveras claim that their daughter, who is of Caribbean descent and is now 12 years old, was bullied, harassed and assaulted in school as a result of her race and that the school district failed to protect her from these acts.

The alleged incidents happened from 2008 to 2010. In one attack her belongings were damaged and deodorant was used to write a racial slur on the sidewalk. The school did not wash away the writing for eight days, opening the district to an onslaught of criticism.

A.J. Bosman is representing the Oliveras. Mr. Bosman is the director of the Children's Rights Initiative, which provides legal services to low income children at no cost. He states that the girl was clearly a victim of bullying based on her race and that the school district did not do their part to address the problems.

School Superintendent Gerald Goldman, one of the defendants named in the lawsuit said on Friday that he hadn't received a summons and otherwise declined to comment. He referred additional questions to the lawyer representing the school district in the case.

School officials claim they have spent the past year working to "change the culture" of the district. The school board implemented a new harassment, bullying and hazing policy. An outside group provided diversity training for administrators, school board members and teachers. Superintendent Goldman claims the district has tried to respond to what happened to the girl in all possible ways.

A San Fernando Valley (CA) school district will pay more than $1 million to a middle school student who was used in an amateur drug sting by school officials at Porter Middle School. The Los Angeles Superior Court found in favor of the boy, known in court documents only as “Roe,“ and awarded him $1 million for his ongoing emotional distress, as well as $15,250 for tutoring.

According to court documents, in 2010 the 12-year-old boy reported that another student was selling marijuana on school grounds. The court determined that after the boy reported the problem, Joyce Edelson, the Principal of the school, Armando Mejia the Assistant Vice Principal, and Laura Custodio, Dean of Students came up with the idea to conduct a television-style drug sting on their own without consulting police or the boy’s parents.

The scheme involved giving the 12-year-old cash and having him attempt buy drugs from the suspected dealer. After the “sting,” the boy began receiving death threats from other students and was forced to leave the school for his own protection.

Alexander Calfo of Yukevich Calfo & Cavanaugh, who represented the plaintiff in the case, pointed out that using a minor in a drug sting is against the law. Furthermore, the action was in violation of school policy. According to Calfo, “Pursuant to their own policies and procedures, all they had to do was pick up the phone. Call the parents. Call the police. There were other methods, other than invading or intruding into this boy’s life.”

The defense admitted administration officials broke the law but said that the officials involved felt that the situation was severe and merited the action. He also stressed that they never intended to harm the boy. The attorney defending school officials stated that the assistant principal “felt that it was so important to act then and act swiftly that he didn’t think about the potential consequences down the road. He felt that the greater concern was to act swiftly and to do something to take care of the problem.”

The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado and the ACLU Women’s Rights Project have indicated their intent to take legal action on behalf of a Jefferson County teacher who was fired for exercising her right under state and federal anti-discrimination laws to express her breast milk at work.

The ACLU took the first step towards bringing suit against the Rocky Mountain Academy of Evergreen (RMAE) by filing a state notice of claim against Rocky Mountain and a federal complaint of discrimination on behalf of Heather Burgbacher.

Burgbacher taught at Rocky Mountain for five years and consistently received positive evaluations. When Burgbacher tried to exercise her legal right to express milk at work, Rocky Mountain refused to allow her to pump and even told her she should feed her baby formula. Breastfeeding requires the mother to express milk at regular intervals throughout the day in order to maintain an adequate supply of milk to nourish her baby. Formula is considered an inferior substitute for breast milk.

After mediation forced the school to accommodate Burgbacher's legal rights, the school made plans to terminate her contract. Burgbacher's supervisor informed her that the sole reason for the termination was her request to pump. However, Colorado's Workplace Accommodations for Nursing Mothers Act recognizes the benefits of breastfeeding to health and society at large and grants mothers the unequivocal right to express milk at work and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for nursing mothers who need to pump at work.

“Colorado law explicitly states that no mother should have to choose between breastfeeding her baby and keeping her job. Yet that’s precisely the position in which RMAE placed Ms. Burgbacher,” said Rebecca T. Wallace of the ACLU.

In their legal filings, the ACLU references the Colorado statute as well as federal laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex or pregnancy and forbids employers from retaliating against employees who protest violations of the anti-discrimination laws.

Continue reading "Teacher Fired for Pumping Breast Milk " »

A federal court recently ruled in the infamous Indiana “slumber party lawsuit” we highlighted in 2009 (CLICK HERE). Two female students sued school officials following their respective athletic suspensions for posting sexually suggestive pictures of themselves online. Captured during a summer-break slumber party, the depictions displayed no indication of the subjects' academic or athletic affiliations.

U.S. District Chief Judge Philip P. Simon U.S. District Court for the District of Northern Indiana found in favor of the minor female plaintiffs. Remoteness of the girls' “guilty act” to their respective athletic and academic qualifications was the apparent lynchpin of the court's legal analysis.

The court's legal reasoning relied heavily upon that articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 1969 landmark decision, Tinker v. Des Moines. Tinker involved a legal challenge by two students who were disciplined for wearing black armbands to school as a show of anti-Vietnam sentiment. An absence of any potential disruption within the academic arena was the main factor that clinched the case.

Judge Simon also assigned substantial significance to prior Pennsylvania precedent in the instant action. He cited the grave inherent dangers of permitting public school officials to reach beyond educational boundaries to exert undue influence in extracurricular matters.

In its final analysis, the court also noted the very vague pupil handbook verbiage that prohibits actions that “discredit” or “dishonor” the school or its students. This over breadth was found to be violative of students' Constitutional rights to free expression.

The court repeatedly deemed plaintiffs' postings as obscene absurdities. To its credit, however, it also noted that official sanctions based upon subjective judgments are precisely what First Amendment framers sought to prevent.

ACLU attorney Ken Falk is plaintiffs' legal counsel. Falk expressed personal pleasure with the precedential value of this case for filling an ever-widening legal void in today's high-tech communicative environment. He further posited that the ruling offers all public school officials a valuable lesson by delineating educators' permissible legal boundaries.