Ms. Hamilton was represented in negotiations by ACLU attorney Elizabeth Gill. The complaints allege that teachers verbally harassed then 16 year old Ms Hamilton over her sexual orientation. The teachers then forced Ms. Hamilton to attend a counseling session for gay students. Attorney Gill said the counselor tried to discourage Ms. Hamilton and other students in the session from being gay.

Additionally, according to a letter dated Jan. 17, 2008, from the ACLU to district Superintendent Mary Bull, staff members made comments to Ms. Hamilton including: "Remember, you're a girl, not a boy," and, "You can get HIV/AIDS from being gay and messing with females."

This entire emotional trauma left Ms. Hamilton too depressed to do homework. She would often cut class because she felt like there was no point since her teachers did not care about her getting an education. She ultimately changed high schools.

Ms. Hamilton, her mother and ACLU attorney Gill are looking forward to the school district following through with the agreement. But, if the district defaults on the legally binding agreement, the ACLU will sue, Gill said.

Mostafa Tabatabainejad filed a lawsuit claiming his civil rights had been violated.

Following multiple investigations which included reviews of all YouTube videos capturing the event, the acting chancellor’s police accountability expert found the use of the Taser violated department rules.

UCLA police brought in their own expert who cleared the officers involved of any wrongdoing. Then the UCLA police implemented a ban on the use of a Taser on people presenting purely “passive resistance.”

In a statement, UCLA said they would pay $220,000 to settle the lawsuit. The university also said the settlement would allow Tabatabainejad to “complete his UCLA degree and move forward with his career.” Lastly, the statement said there would be no further comments by Tabatabainejad or the university.

Although not in the statement, this attorney would expect the settlement to also include appropriate retraining for all UCLA campus police related to the use of force and Tasers.

What is incredibly difficult to understand is that the jury and the public were never told that this was actually the third set of accusations that were brought against this man. In two other incidents, he was accused of such crimes and yet, due to a lack of evidence, no charges were pressed and even worse, the man was placed back into the classrooms.

The L.A. Times states that over the years, this is a pattern that the school district has had. There have been other instances, other cases, in which sexual misconduct complaints were brought to the attention of the school district in regards to employees. But, the claims were dropped and the individuals ended up in other schools. In one such instance, the new principal did not know of the background of Guevara.

The evidence is striking. In one instance, a school teacher was accused of molesting a 4th grade student in 2001. Prosecutors declined the case and the man was transferred to another school. He repeated the action and in 2004 was sentenced to six years in jail.

In another instance, an elementary teacher was accused of misconduct for insisting that a child sit on his lap and pose for a camera. The case was brought before the police who told the school to handle it administratively and they did by just telling the man to stop. Later, he pleaded no contest to sexual abuse of a child and will spend 16 years in prison for it.

The problem with these cases is that the legal system does not believe there is enough evidence to pursue legal action. More so, the only evidence comes from frightened children who are often too scared to talk. Many believe, though, the schools should err on the side of safety for the child, rather than protecting the teacher.

The suit was filed against the Santa Rosa County School Board and named former Superintendent of Schools John Rogers and H. Frank Law, Pace High School principal, as defendants. The students claim that the school allowed religious prayer and promoted religion through the activities the school offered, such as offering prayer at school events. They believed this was a violation to their rights under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment under the state's constitution.

The federal judge presiding over this case agreed, and awarded the students a settlement of $1. The judge's ruling stated that the school officials could not promote, endorse or participate in any type of prayer during or in conjunction with any activities for the school. They cannot provide any religious event planning, financing or organizing. They cannot host any school type event at a religious facility if there are other suitable options available. They also can no longer talk about their religious beliefs within the school's classes.

The ACLU worked for two years to try to get a settlement from the school board, and filed suit when they could not reach one. The school must instruct district staff members of the new requirements.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State is helping the parents and students through suing the school district. The group that is suing the district includes one graduating student, several alumni and parents. The school defends their actions to use the church, claiming that the facility is larger and that it is a much more comfortable atmosphere than the other buildings available for such a graduation ceremony in Waukesha County, about ten miles west of Milwaukee.

Originally, the mega-church agreed to cover the large cross that was positioned in the sanctuary. However, it later changed its mind and uncovered it because the church "wants to share its facilities without compromising its identity" as the claim noted. Additionally, those visiting the church for the ceremony also must pass Bibles and Hymnals that are placed in the pews. This creates the uncomfortable situation they are concerned about.

The lawsuit is clear in what it wants to happen. It wants the school district to no longer host this year's or any future year's graduation ceremonies in the mega-church complex. It is also seeking damages for the students and parents named in the case.

The school claims that they do not have an alternative site for the event and that while the church will remove anything that is nonpermanent, it will not move anything that is a permanent fixture within the facility.

The woman, Sopharie Leang, is a Cambodian immigrant who taught English as a second language to students at a public school. She claims that she said her laryngitis on a particular day was brought on by stress and that her doctor told her that, "the amount of stress in my body could have killed some people." But, another teacher, whom Ms. Leang was speaking to in front of a body of 22 students, claims she said, "I'm so stressed out I can kill 22 people."

The school took decisive action, which the Supreme Court ruled was the right step to take. The school district was justified because an "appropriate and decisive response" was required in this case. The laws that define the boundary between teacher's rights and student's protections is a fine line that often needs to be tested, by cases such as this.

When the other teacher, Vladmir Ashworth noticed her behavior and poor appearance, he reported the situation to the school nurse and to the principal. At that time, the teacher was escorted to the nurse’s office to wait for the principal. When the principal returned to the school some time after being notified, Leang became further aggravated. At that time, the principal called the Jersey City Police Department stating that an emotionally disturbed person was at the school.

She was later taken to a hospital where it was determined she was under a lot of anxiety and her blood pressure was elevated, but she did not have any homicidal ideation. The teacher sued the school district and school officials for the situation claiming a list of claims including breach of contract, wrongful or constructive discharge, sexual harassment and several others. The claims were placed in one lawsuit, which was dismissed on judgment due to the lack of evidence in the case.

The case went in front of an appellate court, which restored some of the claims. After much deliberation, it was determined by the Supreme Court of New Jersey that Leang did not have any cause of action to sue the school officials for their actions.

If you are interested in reading the entire 46 page Supreme Court opinion click here.

The mothers, Debbie Veldhuizen and Jamie Doak, have filed a complaint with the Office for Civil Rights and have sent notice to the Utah Professional Practices Advisory Commission and the Weber district. Nothing has been done. A lawsuit was dismissed for not being properly filed and they have since stopped pursuing it. They have moved their children out of the school.

But, What Happened?

According to a teacher's aide named Holly Wilson, a third child, not identified, touched Veldhuizen's clothed groin during school, causing him to have an accident. In addition, the same child harassed her son in the bathroom, screaming profanities at the child and threatening to kill him. The eight-year-old boy was so frightened; he was afraid to use the restroom and began having accidents. The other boy, Tucker Doak, does not speak and is about the size of a toddler. The same student choked Tucker and later tried to suffocate him.

The mothers believe that the school officials should have done more for their sons, specifically alerting them of what was happening. However, the school authorities said they did not alert outside authorities because they have to be careful doing so when children act out against other children. They work as a team to handle the situation and ensure it does not happen again. The mothers do not blame the offending child because he too is a special needs child. They do blame the school for the lack of notification and the lack of providing the proper environment.

Throughout the school year, there were four aides. Moreover, for six months of the year, there was no licensed teacher in the classroom due to budget shortfalls.

In Tennessee, some 107 school districts have an Internet filtering software program that stops LGBT content from being displayed on school computers. This software, called Educational Networks of America filters content according to the settings selected by the district.

Because of the filtering, high quality and nationally established websites including the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, Human Rights Campaign and the Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gay's websites cannot be accessed.

Enter a school librarian named Karyn Storts Brinks from Fulton High School. She tried to improve the situation and change the rules, to no avail. The problem with the software is that it only allows students to get one side of the story even though the contents are in the public forum now. While it does not allow students to visit these websites, considered legitimate resources, it does allow for students to visit websites encouraging reparative therapy which has been labeled dangerous by the American Medical and Psychiatric Associations.

One student tried to access information for LGBT students on scholarships available. Others have used it to research current debates in the public venue. There is no law, federal or state wide that requires such a block. The state law does require the blocking of material deemed obscene or harmful to minors.

The hope is that with the aid of the American Civil Liberties Union, there will be a solution put in place to aid these students.

The Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 states that states need to provide appropriate action to provide for equal education to all students, regardless of their origins and nationalities. Yet, in Arizona, the claim is that there was a lack of funding for English language learners instructional methods. The law states, specifically, that every state must, "take appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impeded equal participation by its students in instructional programs."

In 2006, a law passed that increased per pupil ELL funding. In 2007, a judge from the U. S. District stated that the law did not go far enough to provide for the programs in that it only went for providing $444 per pupil in ELL education up from $365 per pupil. Further, the law cut off funding for students who remained in such courses beyond two years. The judge ruled that the state's ELL funding was in violation of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act.

The case gets further complex when the No Child Left Behind Act, a federal act, is taken into account. The state's ELL law requires an offset of funds from the federal government to districts, but runs the risk of reducing the amount that the state can obtain from the No Child Left Behind Act.