Articles Posted in School District Law

Published on:

One of the questions I hear frequently is about whether we are accepting new clients.

While the short answer is “Yes”, here is some additional information which many people find interesting.

Great%20Fit%20Gears%2039896521-001.jpgOur law firm, Sylvester Oppenheim & Linde is committed to client service and quality legal representation for each and every client. That means that we only accept clients who we feel are a good match for our expertise, experience and areas of practice.

I learned a long time ago that we can’t be all things to all clients, but we can be all things to some clients: and those are the ones we welcome and serve in an exemplary manner.

The purpose of this blog is to provide helpful information to anyone who reads it. On our website, you will find another example of our “Be of Service” attitude by reading our Home Page Article “Eleven Questions to ask BEFORE Hiring a Business Attorney“. You will also find a list of our practice areas on that page.

Our clients tell us that they appreciate our honesty, accessibility and guidance. And we appreciate our clients.

Back to the question. The answer is: “Yes, we are always looking for one or two new good clients.” If you have a legal issue, I invite you to call and let’s find out whether we are a great fit for each other. I can be reached at 818-461-8500 or via the Contact form on this page.

Richard Oppenheim

Published on:

A lawsuit has been launched by the ACLU against Kansas City Public Schools. In the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that a seven year-old child, who weighed less than 50 pounds and was not even four feet tall, was handcuffed before being led to the principal’s office after a classroom disturbance.

Wooden gavel and handcuffsThe incident occurred in April 2014. Kalyb Primm, a student with a slight hearing impediment, was asked by his teacher to move to another seat in their classroom at George Melcher Elementary School. Primm alleges in the lawsuit that he was being teased and bullied, which led him to cry and yell. A school resource officer named Brandon Craddock was passing by and heard the disturbance.

Entering the classroom, Craddock tried to join the teacher’s efforts to quiet Primm. When these efforts didn’t succeed he asked Primm twice to accompany him to the office of the school’s principal Anne Wallace. The complaint says that Primm became frightened once outside the classroom, crying again and trying to walk away. Craddock attempted to lead Primm to the principal’s office by the arm, but the child grasped a railing with his free hand. Allegedly without trying to find a way to de-escalate the situation, Craddock handcuffed the boy, taking him to the office where he sat quietly for 10 to 15 minutes while waiting for his father to arrive.

The ACLU lawsuit argues that Primm’s Constitutional rights were violated by the actions of the school resource officer. Among the allegations, the complaint says that Primm was unlawfully seized and restrained. ACLU legal director Tony Rothert remarked that, “Gratuitously handcuffing children is cowardly and violates the constitution.” Moreover, the action may have been a violation of state law. Plaintiffs are requesting attorney’s fees and compensation for damages. Additionally, the complaint asks for enhanced training regarding constitutional rights for school resource officers in the region.

This lawsuit is still in its early stages. Nonetheless, it demonstrates the pressing need for law enforcement, security officials, schools and businesses to be aware of the constitutional rights of every citizen, and to actively work to support those rights.

Published on:

The Third Circuit Court has ruled in favor of a Pennsylvania school district in a lawsuit brought by the family of a student who was assaulted on a school campus. The assault occurred in the 2012-2013 school year at Chester High School, which is within the boundaries of the defendant in the lawsuit, Chester Upland School District.

Stop school violence road signThe victim was Alphonzo Green, a high school freshman at the time of the assault. Chester High had abolished the issuance of student identification cards, and was not requiring visitors to register at the office or wear a pass. A trespasser entered the campus on a day that is referred to as “National Fight Day” with the apparent object of assaulting several students. Green was one of these.

Green’s father, Alphonzo King, filed a lawsuit against the school district, citing their lax security policies as having caused the attack on his son. According to the complaint, Green’s civil rights had been violated and the district had fostered a dangerous condition when it did away with the ID card requirements. Thus, the complaint argued, Green’s due process was violated.

A district court decided in favor of the defendant, but King chose to appeal to a higher court. The three judge panel sided with the lower court, finding that the claim did not meet four criteria that would have proven the school district’s liability. Mainly, the judges relied upon whether or not the district’s decision not to provide student identification cards was an affirmative act that created a situation that was dangerous for the plaintiff. They concluded that the omission of ID cards did not constitute an affirmative act.

Moreover, the judges felt that the plaintiff couldn’t demonstrate how the physical assault was a “fairly direct” consequence of the school’s refusal to issue ID cards. The plaintiff could only succeed with this claim if he proved that the lack of student ID cards somehow provided the impetus for the physical assault. Arguing that the attack was the result of “random criminal conduct,” the judges decided that the district bore no liability in the incident.

Published on:

With a total of more than 1,200 charter schools, California has the largest concentration of these alternative learning institutions in the country. Students and their parents may choose a charter school if they are interested in a more creative curriculum and the higher potential for one-on-one interaction with students.

school%20bus%20%26%20child%2044980077-001.jpgCharter schools encourage students to reach enhanced academic goals. Sometimes these alternative learning centers prove to be a valuable asset for at-risk youth too. School resource officers in California have been known to divert students who have gang affiliations or who are being recruited by gangs to charter schools, a maneuver that often puts them back on the right path.

However, not everyone is thrilled with the prevalence of charter schools in California. There are no fewer than six lawsuits pending in Los Angeles and San Diego counties that, if successful, might shut down or relocate several charter schools. The main point of contention concerns so-called Satellite Facilities, which may also be referred to as Resource Centers or Meeting Centers. Supporters of these lawsuits claim that many of these facilities exist in violation of the 1992 act that created the charter school system.

Plaintiffs allege that California Education Code Section 47605 places geographic restrictions on where charter schools can be located. Charter school proponents counter that this restriction applies only to school campuses and not to Satellite Facilities. A representative from the charter schools, says that these facilities are, resource centers used for non-classroom based independent study. Accordingly, charter school supporters believe that they should be able to open such facilities without having to adhere to the location restrictions.

Defendants in the lawsuit believe the problem all comes down to money. Charter schools are becoming increasingly popular. Enrollment has soared at facilities across the state, taking away students from traditional schools. This means less funding for these schools and more funding for charter schools.

These lawsuits are still in the early stages. It seems unlikely that charter schools will be disappearing, but supporters may be in for a fight when it comes to preserving existing facilities.

Published on:

In a controversial response to a 2012 lawsuit, the private records of approximately 10 million public school students is about to be released to attorneys. The lawsuit was filed as a joint effort by the Morgan Hill Concerned Parents Association and the statewide California Concerned Parents Association. Both groups cited concerns regarding the disposition of services to intellectually and physically disabled children as the basis for the lawsuit.

Blackboard%20%21%21%21%2053226367-001.jpgThe plaintiffs allege that they requested data from the California Department of Education on numerous occasions. They wanted to take a survey of the test scores and mental health assessments to prove that disabled students were not receiving the education and assistance that are guaranteed to them under federal law. Parents involved in the groups believed that students were being systematically deprived of these rights.

When the Department of Education denied requests, even though members of the student advocacy groups stated that they weren’t seeking specific information about individual students, a lawsuit was filed. Now, Judge Kimberly Mueller has ruled that data dating back to January 2008 should be released to lawyers for the plaintiffs. The data will include Social Security numbers, addresses and other sensitive information. According to the order, no more than 10 people will have access to the data which will be accessed and managed by a court-ordered individual. Once the survey has been conducted, the data must be either destroyed or returned to the Department of Education.

Parents who object to the release of their children’s information have until April 1 to file the paperwork. However, it seems that many school districts remain unaware of the order and accordingly are not able to get the word out to parents who might not want their children’s data to be shared. Complicating the problem is the large number of immigrant parents in the state who speak little or no English. The state’s Parent Teacher Association is considering asking for an injunction that would at least slow down the release of information so parents have a better opportunity to decide whether or not to allow their children’s information to be released.

Published on:

Now is an excellent time for employers to assess their compensation policies. That’s because the New Year activated California’s Fair Pay Act. Analysts say it’s one of the country’s toughest equal pay laws, and the consequences are serious for companies that are found to be in violation.

Fair%20Pay%2070618813-001.jpgThe new legislation was signed in October 2015 by Governor Jerry Brown. It’s essentially an amendment to the state’s existing fair pay laws, which have been in place for several decades. Federal laws also ensure equal pay for workers regardless of gender or other characteristics. However, this new legislation puts more of the onus on employers to ensure that they are fairly paying employees.

Democratic state senator Hannah-Beth Jackson introduced the bill earlier in 2015 in the wake of actress Patricia Arquette’s Oscar acceptance speech that called for an end to the gender pay gap. A key component of the new law is the requirement for employers to be able to prove that they are paying employees of both sexes the same compensation for “substantially similar work.” The law asks employers to look beyond titles, assessing actual duties performed and responsibilities assumed, when settling questions of pay. If disparities exist between the compensation for male and female workers who perform substantially similar work, then the employer must be able to articulate a non-gender based reason why the disparity exists.

Employers can use distinctions like seniority and merit to justify offering higher compensation to men when compared to women in a similar role. It is advisable for employers to assess and document such decisions in case questions or disputes arise at a later date. Similarly, the new law is forcing many employers to dig deep into company archives to assess the current salaries of employees and decide whether or not such disparities already exist.

While a full-scale, company-wide audit of employee compensation is neither easy nor inexpensive, it is far preferable to being made the subject of a class-action lawsuit. Employers may want to contact employment law attorneys to learn more about how to protect themselves in light of the new fair pay law.

Published on:

A Connecticut teen and his family are suing the boy’s former school. The lawsuit alleges that the boy was inappropriately expelled after an incident in which the boy is accused of selling pot-laced brownies to fellow students.

pot%20brownie%2070921206-001.jpgThe incident began on June 11, 2014. Joshua Walker-Thomas was an 18 year-old student at Metropolitan Learning Center, a magnet school for students in the sixth through twelfth grades. He and two accomplices, a boy and girl both aged 16, sold pot-laced brownies to eight students. One of the purchasers was later found by school officials in a stupor while hyperventilating. The student had to be transported to a hospital for treatment. Both Walker-Thomas and the 16 year-old girl were charged with risk of injury to a minor. Those felony charges are still pending. The third participant, who has not been identified because of his age, was not charged with a crime. Nonetheless, the school confronted him about his involvement. He was suspended from June 12 onward.

However, the lawsuit filed by this student’s family alleges that the school mishandled the suspension and subsequent expulsion from beginning to end. Among the allegations is the fact that the expulsion hearing did not occur until September when such hearings are supposed to take place a mere 10 days after the suspension, a requirement stipulated by state law. Moreover, the boy’s family argues that they were not informed about the expulsion hearing until the day before it occurred, giving them no opportunity to review the evidence. The lawsuit contends that the boy’s right to due process was ignored.

Other allegations also appear in the complaint. According to legal documents, the hearing officer at the expulsion hearing offered no evidence to support the possession or sale of illegal substances by the student. The lawsuit also protests that no audio recording was made of the hearing and further that the student’s diagnosis with ADHD was not taken into consideration.

School districts always need to ensure compliance with state laws when meting out disciplinary action.
Continue reading

Published on:

We at Sylvester Oppenheim & Linde would like to take a moment to wish our clients, family and friends (including our blog readers), a very joyous and happy Thanksgiving.

Whether you are celebrating with a small gathering, or preparing for what is shaping up to be dinner for a small country, we wish you and yours all the very best.

It also seems appropriate to quote John F. Kennedy.

“As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them.”


Published on:

The NLRB handed down a decision that appears to be a win for employers. In the case of Shore Point Distribution Co., the NLRB found that there was no wrongdoing on the part of the employer when they installed a GPS tracking device in an employee’s work truck. The device helped the employer prove that the employee was stealing time and was instrumental in the employee’s dismissal.

GPS%20navigation%2085141634-001.jpgShore Point became suspicious of the employee, a route driver for the beverage distribution company, who seemed to take significantly longer on his routes than other drivers. Suspecting that the employee was stealing time, the employer hired a private investigator to follow the driver. Shore Point’s employees are unionized. A bargaining agreement allowed the employer to engage a private investigator for this purpose. However, Shore Point went further by installing a GPS tracker in the driver’s work truck.

The use of GPS devices is not specifically included in the existing bargaining agreement. This became a point of contention between Shore Point and the union, with the union arguing that the employer should have bargained for the right to install the GPS unit. On the surface, it looked as though the NLRB might agree with the union. However, they went the other way.

The NLRB found that the GPS was only used by the private investigator once to locate the employee when he temporarily lost sight of the truck. Because this use did not seem to materially affect the conditions of employment, the NLRB argued that Shore Point did not have to bargain for the right to install and use the device.

This decision seems like a win for employers, but it still makes a great deal of sense to proceed with caution before installing GPS devices on company vehicles.
Continue reading

Published on:

Childhood obesity is a hot topic, and a settlement in a California lawsuit is aimed at tackling that issue. Attorney Donald Driscoll took on the case in 2013, working on behalf of advocacy group Cal200 and parent Marc Babin. The lawsuit involved 37 school districts, which are responsible for educating one in five of all California elementary school students, and alleged that children were not receiving enough physical education.

school%20bus%20%26%20child%2044980077-001.jpgCalifornia requires that elementary school students receive at least 200 minutes of P.E. instruction every 10 school days. Previously, there were no reliable methods for tracking this time. Many teachers understood the 200 minutes requirement to be a suggestion, leading them to sometimes choose preparation for standardized tests over physical activity.

The settlement of this lawsuit demonstrates that the 200 minute minimum is a mandate rather than a suggestion. Moreover, school districts involved in the settlement are now facing strict reporting requirements. Some districts, like San Bernardino and Riverside, say that they have already enacted reporting strategies.

As part of the settlement, districts are now required to monitor the time that elementary school teachers spend on P.E. instruction. Teacher P.E. schedules must be publicly posted and teachers are also required to sign forms certifying that they are meeting the state-required minimums. School principals are being required to make surprise classroom visits to ensure that the requirements are being met.

In the Riverside Unified School District the technology department has already rolled out purpose-built software that is designed to help teachers and administrators comply with the reporting requirements. Teachers keep track of their P.E. minutes online, printing reports every two weeks to be passed on to principals for review. The principals sign the forms, and the school board receives an official report three times per year.

The other outcome of the litigation is new legislation aimed at curbing costly and time-consuming lawsuits against school districts. Complaints are now required to go through an administrative process that must be completed before a lawsuit can be filed. Hopefully, this will help districts direct more funds toward students and classrooms.