California Business Litigation Blog

Pro Life T-Shirt Wins in Federal Lawsuit

2010-08-20T21:32:51Z

In US District Court, a judge ruled against McSwain Union Elementary School in Merced, CA. The lawsuit against the school was filed on behalf of Tiffany Amador, by her mother Anna Amador. In 2008 an incident involving the then sixth grader resulted in the school requiring the student to take off a pro life t-shirt. The judge ruled that the school and three officials from the school violated the student's rights, including violations to the First, Fourth and the Fourteenth Amendment.

The case was scheduled to go to trial later this month, but the school settled the claim for $50,000, without admitting any wrong doing in the case.

The T-shirt in the case portrayed several pictures of an unborn fetus in the womb, with the word "Abortion" written in capital letters across the top of the shirt. The first two pictures on the shirt portrayed an unborn child through sonographic images. The final square was black, with the word "gone" under it. The school stated that the t-shirt violated the school's dress code.

According to the lawsuit, the student was required by a staff member to throw away her lunch and immediately report to the main office of the school. Then, according to the lawsuit, another school official grabbed the student by the arm and forcibly took her to another official's office. She was then ordered to remove her t-shirt and to never wear it again.

The Amadors’ attorney stated that the school had done the right thing by avoiding a trial and by allowing the judgment to be entered. According to the attorney, "Student speech at all grade levels is protected by the First Amendment. With few exemptions, such as profanity and lewdness, the Constitution prohibits school officials from picking and choosing what messages they find acceptable."

The school has since revised its dress code. The new code takes effect in the coming school year and it prohibits students from where any clothing with text or graphics, except for small school logos.

Ninth Circuit Rules in Favor of Defendants' Use of Lexus Name

2010-08-04T00:48:10Z

Last month, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that an automobile broker’s use of the following five letters “Lexus” was not trademark infringement. It stated that it was actually a “lawful nominative fair use”.

Farzad and Lisa Tabari are independent, online auto brokers in Southern California who formerly used the domain names “buy-a-lexus.com” and “buyorleaselexus.com”. Toyota Motor Sales USA filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against the Tabaris. Toyota also sought an injunction to prevent use of the Lexus mark.

The District Court concluded that the brokers had infringed Toyota's mark. That court enjoined use of the Lexus mark in any domain name or metatag. The Tabaris appealed these decisions.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court’s decisions. The appellate court stated that consumers looking for a Lexus online are sophisticated enough to know an official Lexus website from the Tabaris sites. The court also affirmed that internet searchers are used to trial and error searches, and as such would not be confused.

Lacking any affirmative suggestion of affiliation or sponsorship, the Ninth Circuit reasoned, simple use of the mark in the domain name would not cause Internet users to believe there is sponsorship or affiliation with Toyota/Lexus.

Quoted from the Ninth Circuit decision, which may be viewed HERE : “The Tabaris are using the term Lexus to describe their business of brokering Lexus automobiles; when they say Lexus, they mean Lexus. We’ve long held that such use of the trademark is a fair use, namely nominative fair use. And fair use is, by definition, not infringement.”

]]> Sylvester, Oppenheim & Linde represents businesses and their owners in resolving most types of legal disputes. If your business has a legal problem, contact Richard Oppenheim directly for a prompt, no charge initial consultation. You may use the contact form in the left column or call 818-461-8500 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 818-461-8500 end_of_the_skype_highlighting.

Bible Ban Lawsuit In Florida School District

2010-07-29T18:57:13Z

Earlier this month a lawsuit was filed in a Florida court in hopes that ban on the the distribution of Bibles currently in place will be lifted. The ban does not allow Bibles to be distributed on public school campuses on Religious Freedom Day, which is January 16 each year. The President of the United States declares it yearly as such.

The Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit litigation and policy organization filed the suit. The group states that the district school board of Collier County allowed a group called the World Changers to distribute the Bibles each year, during off school hours on that day. The group says that the school board changed its policy and no longer believes that the Bibles offer any educational benefit to students and therefore should be banned.

The Collier County School District does allow for nonprofit organization to distribute material, however approval for the process must be obtained from the superintendent and from the Community Request Committee first. In January of 2009, World Changers were denied this approval. The group says that they include a disclaimer in the material of school endorsement or sponsorship and no one is forced to accept a Bible.

According to Superintendent Dennis Thompson, the denial of approval was based on a new legal opinion the school district received.

Liberty Counsel states in their lawsuit that the school district is in violation of the group World Changer’s rights to free speech, press and exercise of religion, as well as the equality protection guaranteed under the 1st and 14th amendment. The organization states that the school board does not understand the distinction of a private speech, which they claim is what World Changers is offering, and how private speeches should not be banned.

]]> If you are a California school administrator with a question about student/teacher safety, special education, accommodations, student rights, free speech or discipline, feel free to call attorney Richard Oppenheim at 818-461-8500 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 818-461-8500 end_of_the_skype_highlighting. There is never a charge for an initial consultation and we can help you choose the best direction to resolve any school district issue.

Louisiana School Officials Sued Over Handcuffing Six Year Old

2010-07-19T22:37:24Z

Louisiana school officials face a lawsuit for handcuffing and shackling a six year old boy. The advocates who filed the charges include the child’s parents, the Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana and the Southern Poverty Law Center. School officials from the Louisiana Recovery School District are accused of handcuffing the child for what the attorneys call, “minor offenses.” Included in the lawsuit are Paul Valias who is the superintendent for the school district and security officers of the Sarah T. Reed Elementary School where the child, now seven, was a student.

According to the director of communications for the school, Ken Jones, the employee involved in the charges was terminated and the child was never arrested. However, attorneys say that the methods of punishing students at the school crossed the line.

According to the lawsuit, an armed school security officer took a six year old to the principal’s office where the child was then handcuffed and shackled to a chair. The student was accused of shoving another child. Two days prior to the incident, which occurred in May of 2010, another officer handcuffed the child for failing to “listen and follow directions.”

The parents of the child said that the principal defended the officer’s actions in the case. The lawsuit states that the principal told the parents that it was part of the school’s policies to handcuff children who were “out of control” until they calm down. The child did not move when the principal told him to and the principal is accused of saying, “if the child failed to follow the rules in the future, he would be handcuffed.”

The parents claim in the lawsuit that the child’s life will never be the same since being handcuffed.

On a related note, HERE is an AP story about a similar lawsuit recently filed on behalf of an eight year old autistic girl who was allegedly handcuffed and arrested at her school last year. This lawsuit claims that the school district and the Sheriff's Department violated the Americans With Disabilities Act.

]]> If you are a California school administrator with a question about student/teacher safety, special education, accommodations, student rights, free speech or discipline, feel free to call attorney Richard Oppenheim at 818-461-8500. There is never a charge for an initial consultation and we can help you choose the best direction to resolve any school district issue.

Federal Trial Could Answer Question: Is Cheerleading a Sport?

2010-07-13T17:38:27Z

In Connecticut, a federal judge will rule on whether or not cheerleading is a sport. The lawsuit filed by the Connecticut's Quinnipiac University's volleyball members and its coach, Robin Sparks, further looks at whether schools need to look for other ways to meet the gender equity requirements. The school cut the women's volleyball team last year and instead put in place a competitive cheer squad.

The judge in the case, Judge Stefan Underhill, further needs to determine if the school manipulated the size of its rosters on other teams to ensure that it meet the requirements of Title IX, a federal law established in 1972 that requires all schools to offer equal options for men and women in athletics. The judge has ruled that the lawsuit should be a class action suit for all current and future female athletes at the school. The trial will go to US District Court in Bridgeport for a decision.

The judge issued a temporary injunction last year to stop the school from disbanding the volleyball team until a decision is made. That decision was made because Underhill found that the school was over reporting the number of participant opportunities for females and underreporting those for men.

The case has drawn attention by other women's sports players and coaches. Not only will the case decide if cheerleading is a sport, but also what requirements need to be put in place for counting players. For example, the women's track athletes are counted three times as members of outdoor, indoor and cross country teams.

Upon investigation, it was determined the school's men's baseball and lacrosse teams would drop players before they had to report to the Department of Education. Then, they would reinstate the players after reports were submitted. The opposite was true for the women's softball team, where players were added prior to reporting, knowing those players would not play. The school's officials declined to comment about the lawsuit, but believe that it is in compliance with Title IX.

Students and coaches are unable to comment on the case. However, attorneys for the plaintiffs stated that the lawsuit is significant because it is the first to rule on whether competitive cheer is a sport. The cheer coach believes that cheerleading is a sport. The school says that the cheer squad offers more athletic opportunities for women and costs less. The judge has recognized that cheer does have competitive attributes, though it is not an NCAA recognized sport or emerging sport.

One of the qualifications to be in compliance with Title IX is that there must be a governing body for the sport. Quinnipiac has formed a governing body along with seven other schools called the National Competitive Stunts and Tumbling Association.

The school has said that any improper changes in rosters have stopped and that the percentage of men and women athletes is now in line with the population of the school and in compliance with Title IX.

]]> If you are a California school administrator with a question about student/teacher safety, special education, accommodations, student rights, free speech or discipline, feel free to call attorney Richard Oppenheim at 818-461-8500. There is never a charge for an initial consultation and we can help you choose the best direction to resolve any school district issue.

Fort Wayne School May Stop Bible Study

2010-07-09T18:42:28Z

According to local reports, a Fort Wayne school district may stop sending students to a religious instruction program on school property. A federal lawsuit has triggered the action by the school district. This after the school board president’s statement that it would be irresponsible for the district to defend themselves in a case where the standard has been previously set by prior court rulings.

In 2008, a similar case was brought before the court against Huntington Schools, where the judge ruled against the schools allowing religious activities on the grounds. In that case, the American Civil Liberties Union was issued a preliminary injunction.

The school board president, Mr. Mark GiaQuinta stated that it was both academically irresponsible and fiscally irresponsible to defend against the case. He stated that several board members agree with this decision.

The case involves a third grade student at Haley Elementary School. The parents of that student sued the district in US District Court in Fort Wayne. The parents stated that the school sent their child to an onsite trailer for Bible studies without their consent. The America Civil Liberties Union is helping to represent the child’s parents. The ACLU states that the action is an infringement on the First Amendment rights of the parents. The lawsuit asks that the judge rule the program unconstitutional and to ban it from operations on school property.

The program offered by the Associated Churches of Fort Wayne and Allen County has been established and operational since 1944. Students take part in Bible education during the school day in mobile classrooms. In some situations, 80 percent of the students will take part in the education, including those in the third, fourth and fifth grade.

Should the school board decide to pull the program, the case could be dismissed. However, assurance that such a program will not be on school grounds is necessary for this to happen.

California Parents Sue in Federal Court Over American Flag T-Shirts

2010-06-30T18:17:12Z

On Cinco de Mayo, students wearing T-shirts with the American flag on them were asked by the assistant principal to remove them. That controversial move made national news and is now headed to federal court. The parents of three of the students attending Live Oak High School filed federal civil rights lawsuits in US District Court in San Jose. Students say they are fighting for their First Amendment Rights.

The students and parents in the case want a judge to rule that the incident that occurred on May 5th was a violation of their First and Fourteenth amendment rights and that the school district's policy on student speech is not clear. The suit also asks for nominal damages and attorney fees to be paid by the school district. Named as defendants in the case are Morgan Hill Unified School District, the principal Nick Boden and assistant principal Miguel Rodriguez.

The incident involved Rodriguez asking the three boys to take off their t-shirts with the American flag on them or to wear them inside out on Cinco de Mayo. He believed wearing them on the holiday was incendiary. The boys thought this was disrespectful and called their parents. The boys are all part Latino. The case quickly hit news media around the country.

The Superintendent of the school district made a statement the next day that the school district does not prohibit or punish students from wearing clothing that is patriotic nor that students should be disciplined for wearing it.

While the actions of the assistant principal seemed wrong, the school does not have a policy that is in violation of the rights of students. First Amendment Coalition in San Rafael executive director Peter Scheer stated that the federal lawsuit may not be valid since the students do not have a "case or controversy" in policy. The school district claims it made a mistake. This means the controversy is now in the past and may not be able to be a part of a federal lawsuit.

CA Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Vonage in Spam Lawsuit

2010-06-25T22:46:52Z

When Craig Kleffman received 11 email messages offering broadband phone services from Vonage and noticed that they came from a variety of domain names, he found a lawyer and filed a lawsuit. Kleffman felt that these emails were spam (also known as junk emails) and as such a violation of a California spam law that prohibits marketers from sending messages with misleading headers.

While the emails might be annoying, the California Supreme Court ruled this week that they were not spam, and did not violate California law.

Justice Ming W. Chin wrote on behalf of a unanimous court: "We find that a single e-mail with an accurate and traceable domain name neither contains nor is accompanied by 'misrepresented … header information' ... merely because its domain name ... is 'random,' 'varied,' 'garbled' and 'nonsensical' when viewed in conjunction with domain names used in other e-mails.”

He continued: "An e-mail with an accurate and traceable domain name, makes no affirmative representation or statement of fact that is false."

And concluded: “…we hold that, on the undisputed facts of this case, sending commercial e-mail advertisements from multiple domain names for the purpose of bypassing spam filters is not unlawful under section 17529.5(a)(2).”

The ruling (which may be viewed HERE) will likely make it more difficult for internet users to sue email marketers in California, which has an anti-spam law that is broader than the federal Can-Spam law. Generally, the federal law (which bars individuals from suing for spam violations) overrules most state spam laws. There's an exception for state laws to be used when dealing with fraud.

Strip Search at School Leads to Lawsuit

2010-06-16T13:39:52Z

A lawsuit was filed on behalf of three girls who were subjected to a strip search. The strip search was conducted at Atlantic High School in Atlantic, Iowa. The lawsuit names the school district and two school officials who were part of the strip search, allegedly. The incident occurred on August 21, 2009.

The three students, Matthew Jacobsen, Lisa Ferguson and Lee Lank were accused, along with two other students, of stealing $100 from a student's purse in the girl's locker room. The lawsuit states that the then assistant principal and athletic director, Paul Croghan ordered the guidance counselor Heather Turpin to strip search a total of five female students. Croghan waited in the adjacent room while the counselor made the girls remove their clothing, one at a time, to various degrees. No money was discovered on them at that time.

After the event occurred, Croghan was placed on administrative leave and in November of 2009, he resigned his position. Turpin is still employed with the school district.

According to one of the girls' attorneys, Edward Noethe, the attorneys had tried to make several attempts with the school district to settle the case out of court, to no avail. He also believes that the circumstances will make it difficult for his client to live in the small community. He did not provide specifics on the types of steps he took to resolve the matter out of court, nor the amount of money the plaintiffs were seeking.

The lawsuit states that the search of the girls "constituted an unreasonable search" under the 14th Amendment. Further, it states that this type of code is part of the Atlantic Community School District's code, which the two officials were following when they performed the search. The lawsuit states that the search was a violation of the US Constitution.

Also, the petition filed in court states that the Constitution of Iowa also includes a provision that does not allow for such unreasonable searches to be conducted and therefore the school was in violation. The Iowa Student Searches Act was violated by the school and further the student's privacy was invaded during the search.

Student Sues School After Sexting Incident

2010-06-08T18:56:17Z

In Scranton, PA, a teenage student is suing the principal of Tunkhannock Area high school, the school district, the county, prosecutors and a detective in the case. The student's phone was searched in a sexting case, which has recently been ruled on by a Federal Appeals Court.

More information on that decision may be found HERE. In a nutshell, the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the district attorney may not pursue felony charges against a teenage girl for "sexting".

According to the lawsuit, the teen, who is now 19 years of age, states that the principal illegally searched her phone during the incident, which occurred in January of 2009. Through the search, the principal found nude photos the student had taken of herself. The principal then took the phone and gave it to prosecutors. In the lawsuit, the student states that the photos were never meant to be shared, but were for herself and perhaps her long term boyfriend.

However, due to the nature of the photos, the school's principal, Gregory Ellsworth turned the phone over to the then district attorney of Wyoming County, George Skumanick Jr. After reviewing the images, Skumanick threatened, the lawsuit states, for the student to take a class on sexual violence or to face charges of child pornography, which would be felony charges.

Within the lawsuit documents the plaintiff states, "I was absolutely horrified and humiliated to learn that school officials, men in the DA's office and police had seen naked pictures of me." The student's name is not being released and in court documents she is named only as N.N.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania is representing her in court and through the lawsuit seeks unspecified damages against numerous individuals who were part of the case. The lawsuit also seeks immediate destruction of all remaining images.

HIV AIDS Talk In Class Leads To Teacher Suspension, Lawsuit

2010-05-31T18:05:36Z

A Staten Island teacher was given a federal court ruling to allow her lawsuit against the New York City Department of Education to continue. The teacher was suspended after allowing students to use sexually explicit language within the classroom as the class discussed HIV/AIDS.

The teacher, Faith Kramer, was expelled for eight months for allowing the students to discuss sex openly in the classroom. Kramer has 26 years of experience in the teaching field. She held tenure at the school. Parents were outraged when they learned that the teacher had allowed such a conversation to take place. The school district required her to sit out eight months of teaching in one of the infamous "rubber rooms", which have since been shut down.

The ruling from Judge Jack Weinstein was lengthy. It contained some 67 pages of text and even included an appendix of the terms that the students used during the classroom discussion. Many of those terms were explicit and were slang terms. The attorneys representing the school stated that those specific terms were not suitable for use within a school setting.

Within his notes regarding his decision to allow the case to go forward, Weinstein stated, "Executing such a task would require great sensitivity, skill, commitment, and not a little courage…Based on the regulation, this teacher ought never to have been removed from the classroom." His statement was in reference to the way that the teacher interacted with the students, in that she treated the students as adults throughout the conversation.

Kramer has filed a $1 million lawsuit against the school district for their decision to suspend her. The funds also cover lost wages and embarrassment.

Student Suspended Over Sexting Sues School

2010-05-17T19:43:59Z

In Bedford County, Virginia, a Liberty High School senior has filed a lawsuit against school officials claiming that his rights were violated when the school district suspended him for sexting, the process of sending explicit material or words through text messaging.

The student, 18 year old Aaron Merkey, was suspended in March through the end of the school year. According to the school district, he sent a pornographic image to a female student through his cell phone. The lawsuit the student has filed claims that the school district’s punishment was too harsh and that his rights of due process were violated because of the disciplinary actions taken. Eight school board members, the superintendent and the principal are named as defendants in the case.

Merkey’s lawyer has filed a motion for an order to allow the student to return to school, through a preliminary injunction. In addition, he is suing for $100,000 in punitive damages against Liberty High School Principal Mary Brandon and $50,000 in compensatory damages.

Merkey was scheduled to graduate in early June and because of the lawsuit, the student is suffering from “embarrassment, humiliation, emotional anguish and public ridicule” from the suspension, according to the lawsuit. He also is unable to participate in sports activities and prom.

Neither the spokesman for the school or the school's attorney would comment.

However, within the lawsuit, the details of what happened are presented. On February 22nd, the school received a photo from a cell phone showing a woman’s buttocks with a caption under it reading “Have a nice day, A------.” The student forwarded the picture to another student, a female, who complained about it to the school. Merkey was then sent to the principal’s office and there admitted to sending the picture to the female student. Later, the message circulated throughout the school.

On February 24, the principal informed Merkey’s mother that the student was guilty of sending pornography through his cell phone and sexting. At that time, the student was suspended for ten days with a recommendation for suspension for the rest of the school year. According to the lawsuit, the principal told the parents that the suspension was harsh because Merkey sent the message to a female but had it been to just males, “boys would be boys” would be considered.

On March 8th, the superintendent ruled that the suspension should hold for the remainder of the school year. She also ruled that a four week review period would be used to determine if he could return to school after April 2nd. An appeal by the parents did not dissuade the school board from the decision. The school board also ruled that the student would be suspended through the end of the school year without the review that the superintendent had allowed.

The lawsuit says that the student was never made aware of his right to appeal the decision on his own, since he is 18. Further, it states that school district’s harsher punishment was driven by the principal of the school and her recommendation was based on discriminatory standards between the sexes. Additionally the lawsuit contends that Merkey, an honors student and varsity soccer player, was given a harsher punishment than one recently given to a student who brought a handgun to school.

Indiana School District in Battle Over Commencement Prayer

2010-05-05T03:56:18Z

Free speech is the topic of discussion in a Greenwood, Indiana high school where the central Indiana school district is trying to allow a graduation prayer that the senior class voted to be allowed to be said. The problem is that the valedictorian of the school has filed a lawsuit in federal court claiming that the prayer and the vote for it are unconstitutional.

The school district says that if the court blocks the prayer, it could be seen as a violation of free speech. The request from the school district is brought on by the lawsuit filed by class valedictorian Eric Workman. He, along with the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed the lawsuit on Monday. He claims that the prayer is unconstitutional because it is a practice of majority rule.

The case looks to the courts to determine where the fine line is for the expression of religious values in schools. The ACLU states the organization’s reasoning behind overturning the earlier blocking of the prayer goes against Supreme Court precedent in similar cases.

The organization plans to allow for the students to have student led prayer unless a judge orders them not to do so. However, a ruling is scheduled to be made on April 30th. The school says that students voted to allow student led prayer during the graduation in September at an assembly. Students did not have to attend the assembly, nor did they have to vote. The practice of allowing prayer in the school setting changes year to year but in most cases, at least one student is allowed to lead a prayer during the opening remarks, though the prayer is said to be nonsectarian.

Also notable is that the school requires that all who speak during the graduation ceremony submit their speeches in advance for approval and that some do use religious themes within those speeches. The school does not forbid them from doing so.

The school district maintains that allowing student led prayer is not a violation as students are not compelled to participate in it. The school says that anyone not praying will be expected to remain quiet and respectful as is the practice when anyone speaks. The ACLU on the other hand, says that students who are still being subjected to the prayer and will feel compelled to participate, which would make it uncomfortable for Workman and others.

ACLU Sues Over Truancy Court Practices

2010-04-13T23:03:02Z

The American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island is suing Family Court Chief Judge Jeremiah S. Jeremiah claiming that the practices of the truancy court program violate the constitutional rights of the public school children and their parents.

The administrators of the program, the class action lawsuit contends, have threatened to arrest students or have them placed in custody if they fail to attend school. The lawsuit says that the administrators of the court engaged in a “pattern and practice of intimidation designed to bully plaintiffs.” The bullying is said to lead to a waiving of the constitutional rights of those involved.

The plaintiffs in the case are nine teenagers who are identified through the lawsuit by pseudonyms and their parents or guardians. The students have special education needs, chronic medical conditions or family caretaking obligations. The lawsuit says that these special circumstances resulted in the student’s missing school, being tardy or being unable to maintain schoolwork requirements in class. It also says these conditions also lead to the students to be unable to behave in school.

These abuses are alleged to have occurred in five school districts in the state, including Providence, North Providence, Coventry, Cumberland and Woonsocket. More than 700 students attend schools in this area in the past two years.

Of those filing the lawsuit is a student from a middle school who suffers from sickle cell anemia and who has an education plan that specifically says the student should not be punished for missing school. In this case, the mother was ordered to appear in Family Court because she failed to appear in the truancy court because she was hospitalized. The mother appeared in the court but without the child who was home ill. The court, under Judge Jeremiah, issued an arrest warrant for the child then told the mother it would vacate the arrest warrant if the child was brought in to school by noon that day. The mother took the child to school and two hours later, he complained of chest pains and had to be rushed to the hospital by ambulance.

Some plaintiffs were under the age of 12 when they were labeled as being wayward or truant students. One mother was ordered to leave her night job early to ensure that her child made it to school by 7 am. The woman lost pay because of this decision and eventually lost her job, though it is not known if the change in schedules played a role in this. Another mother was ordered by the school to bring an ill child to school or he would be arrested.

In another instance, a child with Tourette’s syndrome and ADHD who struggled to attend school and often had behavior problems in class was told by the magistrate that he “had no interest whatsoever” in the child’s behavior or health concerns, but only that the student failed to come to school and fell behind in studies.

The Truancy Court program was created by Judge Jeremiah in 1999 and it was designed to help those students who are labeled as at risk to stay in school. These courts operate in school offices and school libraries and are part of the Family Court process. Attorneys are appointed as court magistrates to administer such hearings. These types of courts are present in 150 schools throughout the state and have no written transcripts of what occurs in each of the hearings. That is a violation of due process rights to the plaintiffs, the class action lawsuit claims.

The court requires parents to sign documentation that “waive their rights” to legal representation in a Family Court situation. Weekly truancy court hearings may be required if the magistrate issues them.

]]> If you are a California school administrator with a question about student/teacher safety, special education, accommodations, student rights, free speech or discipline, feel free to call attorney Richard Oppenheim at 818-461-8500. There is never a charge for an initial consultation and we can help you choose the best direction to resolve any school district issue.

Judge Rules Cancellation of Prom Violated Gay Student’s Rights

2010-04-08T22:26:50Z

A federal judge ruled late last month that the school board from Itawamba County, Mississippi violated a lesbian student’s rights when it canceled the prom because the student challenged a ban at the prom of same sex couples. However, the federal judge did not order the district to reinstate the prom.

Judge Glen Davidson from US District Court did not reinstate the prom because a private prom that some parents are planning will provide the student with the same experience. The late date of the April 2nd prom made it difficult for the judge to require its reinstatement saying it would be too much of an inconvenience for all involved.

The case began when Constance McMillen requested to bring her girlfriend who is a sophomore at the same school, to the dance and she wanted to wear a tuxedo to the event. McMillen, 18, contacted the American Civil Liberties union to sue the school district to allow the same sex couple access to the prom.

Davidson stated a trial would be set for a later date but did not set a date for it. The parents of students at the school are hosting a private prom on the same day the school prom was to take place. All junior and senior students are able to attend, though there was not specific information about whether or not gay students would be allowed to attend. Another prom is being sponsored by the Mississippi Safe Schools Coalition, which is an advocacy group for same sex couples.

The court case furthers the First Amendment rights of same sex couples within the school setting. Kristy Bennett, who is the legal director for the ACL, is preparing the case for trial and plans to ask the judge to list the board’s actions as unconstitutional. They are hoping to be awarded damages plus court costs.

The school board says it canceled the prom because they did not believe the prom could be successful at protecting the safety of students. The school is in a rural northern Mississippi community and has some 715 students in the high school.