California Business Litigation Blog

A lawsuit recently filed against the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) accuses the district of breaking California state law by failing to take student achievement into account during teacher evaluations. Filed by educational reform advocates in Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of the parents of six LAUSD students, the suit also originally named the teachers’ union and LAUSD superintendent John Deasy as defendants.

Although California’s Stull Act explicitly states that schools must consider student achievement as part of a teacher’s performance, the suit claims that the LAUSD ignored the law in favor of the terms of the district’s union contract. Instead, the district allegedly conducted only cursory evaluations that consisted of a brief, previously announced visit by a principal to observe a pre-determined lesson. The parents charge that these evaluations are ineffective and result in the failure of only one percent of the teachers who undergo them.

The lawsuit came at a critical juncture for the district, which is in the midst of negotiations for a new contract with the teachers’ union. Although a tentative agreement between the schools and the union was reached shortly after the trial date was set for June of 2012, the agreement made no mention of the evaluation process.

There is little doubt that changes are needed to California’s education system. One in three California students fail to complete high school and many colleges are compelled to offer remedial education to entering freshmen. Enforcing compliance with existing laws would seem to be a reasonable place to start.

Bill Lucia of EdVoice, which filed the suit, has said that the vast majority of California’s schools utilize evaluation procedures that violate the state’s education code. This may be at least partially due to the fact that the unions have a track record of vigorously fighting all attempts to judge the performance of teachers based on the progress of their students. If the LAUSD loses the current suit, it will have little choice but to bring its procedures for evaluating teachers into line with the law. However, California law does not specify how much emphasis a district should put on student performance when evaluating the performance of teachers, leaving observers to speculate as to what effect a victory for the plaintiffs will have.

The prayer banner (see photo) that has graced Cranston West High School for nearly five decades still hangs on a wall of the school. Although the banner is now covered, the Cranston School Committee put off making a decision about what to do with it at a meeting following a court order to remove it. A rally that had been planned to show support for the banner never got off the ground, but local residents crowded a school committee meeting to express their points of view on the matter.

Police officers attended the meeting as a precaution as angry residents who disagree with the court’s ruling voiced their disappointment. Many residents also expressed their anger towards Jessica Ahlquist, the student who sued the school to have the banner taken down. Ahlquist herself spoke at the meeting in between Tweeted communications with fellow students who were also upset by the decision.

Ahlquist, who is an atheist, has been the target of online threats. Cranston West’s superintendent, Peter Nero, said in an interview that a police officer accompanied Ahlquist throughout the day as students returned to school on Tuesday, Jan. 16, 2012, which was the first regular school day after the ruling. However, he said, Ahlquist has not been the target of any threats or violence inside the school.

In a video posted online, Ahlquist said she never expected what she saw as a simple request to have the banner removed to turn into such a firestorm.

"I'd just say, 'Guys, it's a prayer in a public school. Obviously, that doesn't belong.' And the grownups would be like, 'Yeah, obviously, it's separation of church and state. That makes sense.' And it would just come right down," Ahlquist told viewers.

The school committee is planning another meeting on Jan. 24. Residents will be welcome to express their opinions. However, the decision about whether to remove the banner or to appeal the court ruling will be made by the school committee in a private meeting.

Continue reading "Prayer Banner Still Hangs on Cranston West High School Wall" »

A spokesperson for the Milton Hershey School in Hershey, Pennsylvania announced that the school is the subject of a lawsuit by the family of a 13-year-old honor student who was denied admittance because he is HIV-positive. A spokesperson for the school characterized the action by the child's parents "adversarial."

According to the spokesperson, Connie McNamara, the school refused to admit the boy over concerns about the safety of other students. "In order to protect our children in this unique environment, we cannot accommodate the needs of students with chronic communicable diseases that pose a direct threat to the health and safety of others," said McNamara. "The reason is simple. We are serving children, and no child can be assumed to always make responsible decisions that protect the well being of others."

Federal law, as well as Pennsylvania state law, prohibits schools from refusing to enroll students because they are HIV positive. Officials at the school, which was founded by the late chocolate magnate, assert that, because their school is a boarding school, they are not bound by these rules. "...Children live in homes with 10 to 12 other students...24 hours a day, 7 days a week," said McNamara.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the school's concerns are unfounded. HIV cannot be spread through casual contact, and other household members cannot contract HIV from toilet seats, silverware, dishes or by touching surfaces an infected person has touched.

Attorneys at the AIDS Law Project of Pennsylvania, a non-profit organization, drew parallels between the current case and the Ryan White case. White, a middle-school student in Kokomo, Indiana, was initially denied the right to attend school because of his diagnosis. In that case, the school also cited the safety of other students as the reason for their actions. White went on to become a celebrated AIDS activist before his death in 1990.

"Like Ryan White, this young man is a motivated, intelligent kid who poses no health risk to other students, but is being denied an educational opportunity because of ignorance and fear about HIV and AIDS," said Ronda B. Goldfein of the AIDS Law Project.

A lot of feathers were ruffled by the recent story about a nine-year-old elementary-school student who was suspended from school for remarking to another student that one of their teachers was "cute." People from all over the country were outraged at what many saw as a case political correctness gone wild. Now it appears as though Emanyea Lockett's school district is equally irritated with the actions of the principal who suspended him.

According to Bonnie Reidy, who is the spokesperson for the Gaston County Schools, "We will be sending an official letter of apology to the parents. Also, the suspension will not count against the child and the child will receive additional instructional assistance to make up for the time out of the classroom."

In addition to the public apology, the district announced that the school's principal, Jerry Bostic, who was the one who made the decision to suspend the boy for sexual harassment, has resigned. According to Bostic, the resignation wasn't his idea. In an interview with the Gaston Gazette, the former principal said the district told him he had an hour to resign or face termination. In an interview with a local television station, Bostic complained about his treatment. "One mistake in 44 years, and I'm not given the benefit of the doubt. I really don't believe I was treated fairly."

Here is the full text of the apology that was issued by the Gaston County Schools: "After a thorough investigation by school officials involving the suspension of a fourth grade student at one of our elementary schools, it has been determined there was no sexual harassment. We regret this situation happened.” The superintendent has attempted to contact the family to offer an apology to the parents and student. The school system is also sending an official letter of apology to the parents and student.

"The suspension will not count against the student and additional instructional assistance will be provided to the student for the classroom time missed. If a concern is reported by parents to the district office, our procedure is to investigate it and follow up with the parents."

Mistakes are sometimes made in schools. It is good to see a school district respond so quickly and positively.

School field trips may become a rare treat at some California schools in the wake of a pending lawsuit that has been brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

The lawsuit, which was filed in 2010, charges that the state of California has neglected to enforce the "free school guarantee" that is mandated by the state's own constitution. The ACLU alleges that charging mandatory fees for educational field trips violates the law.

The suit has led California school districts to re-examine their policies on field trip fees. Typically, it has been assumed that parents will pay fees to cover the cost of school-sponsored educational field trips. Children whose parents do not pay the fees simply fall through the cracks if there are no funds provided by booster groups or other parents to cover their costs.

Children who are left behind when their classmates go on trips may or may not have the opportunity to attend their regular classes. The ACLU claims this practice essentially forces parents to pay additional fees if they want their children to have the same educational opportunities as other students in their schools.

California students are guaranteed the right to a free public education by the State's constitution. Allowable fees are specified in the California Education Code and include fees for such things as optional testing, graduation gowns and caps or tickets for dances and other entertainment activities. Any trip that takes place during school hours and takes students away from their regular classes must be free for all students.

According to Yancy Hawkins, who is the fiscal-services manager for the Palo Alto school district, "We can ask for donations, but it has to be just that." Although his district has had to make few changes, it's not so easy for some districts. "In terms of changing what we're doing, there hasn't been a huge impact, and a lot of that is because of the generosity of this community...Kids weren't being excluded in Palo Alto, whereas in a lot of other districts they were, and I think that's where the lawsuit came in," said Hawkins.

Continue reading "Future of School Field Trips Uncertain in California" »

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.

According to a study conducted by Plymouth University, teachers in the UK are increasingly becoming the target of cyber bullying at the hands of students and parents. Andy Phippen, who authored the study, questioned nearly 400 teachers earlier this year about their experiences with cyber bullying. He discovered that 35 percent of the teachers in his sample said that they or a colleague had been the victim of cyber bullying perpetrated by students or their parents.

In an interview, Phippen stated, “Everyone acknowledges this is a problem and something needs to be done about it, but schools lack support. It is a sticky area as some of the things posted may not be considered illegal." Furthermore, British schools have not shown much support for teachers who have been targeted. "I heard of one case where a teacher told his employers about the bullying and not only did they tell other members to staff to ignore this teacher, they also suspended him. Their reasoning was ‘there is no smoke without fire’.”

The study's participants reported incidents of cyber bullying ranging from Facebook postings to abusive Tweets. Phippen was particularly disturbed to discover that 26 percent of the bullying was actually committed by parents. One educator who participated in the study had what she called a "mini breakdown" after a year-long campaign of abuse by a parent. “The parental statistics were particularly surprising," said Phippen. "Schools are definitely playing down the severity of the issue, whether it’s because they just don’t realize, or because they don’t know how to deal with it.”

Phippen wants to change that and thinks Britain needs a nationwide support network to address the problem. Although I am not aware of any similar study in the US, it's (unfortunately) a safe bet that it's happening here. In recent years American courts have heard several cases in which students were suing over punishments meted out by schools for mocking or insulting posts made outside of school.

The Fontana Unified School District is the subject of a lawsuit filed by the teachers union in the San Bernardino County Superior Court. The suit is demanding that the school district reinstate counselors that the district laid off. The teachers union alleges the counselors should be allowed to return to work on the basis of seniority.

The teachers union claims that the Fontana Unified School District has violated the California Education Code. According to the lawsuit, the district let 68 counselors go after the 2010-2011 school year, then created two new job titles for what was essentially the same position and attempted to hire 42 new counselors.

According to Pat Mazzulli, president of the Fontana Teachers Association, the new counselor positions are “substantially similar” to the old counseling positions. “Rather than follow procedure in the Education Code, the FUSD made reduction in force counselors reapply and interview for their jobs. FUSD attempted to hire outside the district as well," Mazzulli said. According to Mazzulli, the California Education Code requires that the laid-off counselors be given the opportunity to accept or refuse substitute slots before the jobs are offered to new applicants.

The Fontana Unified School District denies any wrongdoing and insists the new counseling positions are entirely different from the old ones. William Wu, assistant superintendent of human resources for the school district, said in an interview that "the district reviewed the comprehensive counseling program, tailored it to the needs of the district and then created new district positions to provide better and different student services…They are not the same as the comprehensive counseling program." Furthermore, said Wu, “The district is not in the business of violating peoples' rights. We are in the business of serving children, but we are not in the business of violating peoples' rights in the process.”

However, the school board has postponed plans to hire applicants for the new positions. According to Mazzulli, no trial date has been set.

Continue reading "Lawsuit Alleges: New Positions a Ruse to Hire New Counselors " »

Reports of schools violating NCAA regulations by providing incentives to student athletes are nothing new. Numerous universities have been sanctioned for such violations in recent years, including the University of Miami, Ohio State University and the University of Southern California, among others. The most recent scandal, involving the University of North Carolina, offers a new twist on an old theme, however. The UNC scandal is notable because it was social media that first alerted NCAA officials that something was amiss. Tweets made by a student player on Twitter revealed that he was receiving unsanctioned benefits from the school.

In the NCAA’s Notice of Allegations, UNC was cited for failing to properly monitor the use of social media by student athletes. In response to the NCAA’s unprecedented actions in this case, universities across the nation have taken steps to limit, and in some cases, entirely prevent, athletes’ use of social media. These actions put schools in the precarious position of trying to restrict the First Amendment rights of their student athletes, most of whom are adults.

Some schools have stopped short of forbidding student athletes from using social media altogether, making mandatory monitoring a condition of team membership. Others have ventured even further into shaky legal ground by enforcing a total prohibition on social media use for all student athletes. Because the Supreme Court has made it clear that university students give up none of their First Amendment rights when they enroll, curtailing these rights leaves a university vulnerable to legal action from student athletes. It could be argued that banning student athletes from using social media rises to the level of a prior restraint on speech.

In the event of a legal challenge, universities will be forced to defend themselves in court and may end up paying damages. A more proactive approach might be to put an end to inappropriate incentives for student athletes, rather than taking questionable steps to prevent the athletes from telling anyone they are receiving them.

A special education teacher has been placed on paid administrative leave after a parent discovered he had posted derogatory pictures and comments about his students on Facebook. Jeremy Hollinger, who is employed by the Mobile (Alabama) County Public School system to teach special education at Eichold-Mertz Elementary School, posted the comments and pictures on his public Facebook page.

Celeste Dennis, who saw Hollinger's site, was upset enough to insist her son, a second-grader at Eichold-Mertz, be transferred out of the school. Although she says there were plenty of derogatory comments on the page, including posts about students soiling themselves and eating crayons, she says that one insult hit especially close to home. "It hurt. It genuinely hurt me, said Dennis."My son wears a helmet for seizures during P.E. He had a picture of himself with my son's helmet on making fun of him like that was some type of a joke."

Dennis responded to the cruel postings by reporting Hollinger to the school system and insisting that her son be transferred. The school was slow to take action against Hollinger, however, and he remained in his position at the school until after the incident caught the attention of the press. Initially, the school system refused to explain why Hollinger was still at his post. Nancy Pierce, the school's representative, initially declined to discuss the matter, saying, “Because it's a personnel matter, I can't discuss that with you. The appropriate measures were taken by our Human Resources Department."

However, on Tuesday, October 18, it was revealed that Hollinger had been suspended with pay as a result of the incident. In the meantime, Dennis hopes the suspension becomes permanent. "It takes a special type of person to deal with special children, and he is not that person," said Dennis. "I just want him out of there."

A second-grade teacher at Hillcrest Elementary School in San Francisco who sued the San Francisco Unified School District in 2006 for employment discrimination and was awarded a $60,000 settlement has gone back to court, this time claiming that officials at the school are retaliating against her for the original lawsuit.

Margaret Reyes filed federal court documents alleging that the school has made unfounded accusations against her and placed her under disciplinary review. Among other things, she claims she was disciplined for letting a student go outside without a jacket and “mishandling” paperwork.

Court papers describe a difficult working environment in which Reyes was denied restroom breaks and forced to teach in a flooded classroom. According to Reyes, the school’s principal, Richard Zapien, taunted the teacher and later refused to come to her assistance when a troubled student got violent and held Reyes and a classroom full of students hostage.

In her suit, Reyes claims that she is being harassed because she took the district to court after the school’s principal suggested that she should leave the district and seek work in a school associated with her religion. Her suit also alleges that Reyes has been discriminated against because of her gender and age as well as her religion.

Richard M. Rogers, attorney for Reyes, stated, “There was a budget crunch. People were getting pink slips. She’s Catholic, and (the principal) made the comment that she should get a job at a Catholic school to open a spot for someone else.”

Rogers also accused the district of not complying with the court’s order in the earlier case, although he said a confidentiality clause prevented him from being more specific.

Continue reading "Second-Grade Teacher Sues School District for Retaliation" »

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.

Granting youth greater leniency is currently a high-profile subject of hot debate within the Sunshine State. For the last two years, Florida lawmakers have considered a statutory amendment to decriminalize underage sexting. Numerous states are wrestling with this “hot” issue.

As the term implies, sexting is the electronic transmittal of sexually explicit content. Cell phones are the most common instruments chosen by minors for this purpose.

Underage sexting is a felony under existing Florida law (and in most other states as well). Therefore, courts must currently treat youthful sexters in the same manner as large-scale child pornography distributors and other sexual predators. Convicted minors incur permanent criminal records, lifelong compulsory sex offender registration, and concurrent travel and residency restrictions.

A notable example involved an 18-year-old Orlando resident sentenced to five years’ probation and mandatory sex offender registration for life. These harsh consequences resulted from the young man’s decision to e-mail nude pictures of his 16-year-old girlfriend to numerous friends and family members after a lover‘s quarrel.

By contrast, the proposed amendment would relegate minors’ first sexting offenses to misdemeanors. Maximum allowable punishment would be an eight-hour term of community service or a $60.00 fine. Penalties for second and subsequent offenses would escalate from those modest levels. Punishment for adult offenders would remain unaltered.

Bullying, intimidation, and blackmail are common motivations for the crime of sexting. Thus, under the new law, underage sexters would still face separate enhanced sentences for ancillary offenses such as stalking.

Florida Senator Charlie Dean observed that such issues need to nipped in the bud to avoid youthful pranks from becoming full-blown sexual predation by full-grown perpetrators. Dean further opined that the amendment would serve all these ends - without turning kids into criminals.

Ensuring that punishment fits the crime is a widely accepted legal principle of long standing. Whether youth is sufficient mitigation for establishing allowable criminal sanctions is the question of the legislative debate.

Society already acknowledges offender-specific traits as valid criteria in setting the relative severity of criminal sanctions. Courts and legislators have long recognized perpetrator intent and mental capacity as legitimate determinants of relative punitive severity. Thus, the Florida Legislature’s reconsideration of its previous stance that turned “molehills” of youthful indiscretion into mountains of lifelong ramifications is commendable.

HERE is a link to a list of 2011 legislation in 21 states related to sexting.

The parent of a San Jose Unified School District pupil has appealed the dismissal of her school district lawsuit to a California appellate court.

Plaintiff Norina Mooney got riled up when the local Lesbian and Gay Bisexual Transgender (“LGBT”) chapter sponsored a “Rainbow Day” celebration at her adolescent’s middle school. Immediately after the event, Mooney requested the insertion of several new items into the school district’s agenda. Her purported reason for making the request was to garner greater event participation by non-LGBT students affected by bullying.

Despite state legislation that mandates the inclusion of such private input into school district agendas, school district officials denied Mooney's request. The stated reason for the refusal was an alleged lack of jurisdiction over middle school decision makers in such matters. In the ensuing school district lawsuit, Mooney seeks injunctive relief to compel educational authorities to adopt her previously proposed agenda modifications.

The Public Justice Institute (“PJI”) is the plaintiff's current legal counsel in this case. PJI president Brad Dacas posited that tolerating the improper imposition of social agendas on the public by its own elected officials is bad. According to Dacas, however, societal acquiescence in the unconstitutional denial of statutory rights to individual expression is far worse.

Dacas further advanced free societies cannot countenance the systematic stifling of open debate about vital public interest concerns.

For now, the question remains open as to whether the California school district officials involved in this case indeed committed grievous legal error. An indisputable fact is that the avoidance of improper conduct or even the appearance of same is crucial for all public school officials.

Continue reading "Rainbow Day Sparks Lawsuit Against California School District . . . and Appeal" »

An African American high school graduate recently sued her school district and several of its officials. Except for one “B“, Kymberly Wimberly earned all “A’s” during her entire tenure at McGehee Secondary School in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. She also completed several advanced courses and earned numerous academic awards.

Despite this exemplary record and having the highest grade point average (“GPA”) in her class, Kymberly was denied the designation of sole valedictorian. Her lawsuit alleges that racial discrimination was the underlying motivation.

Her legal complaint (available HERE) posits that school administrators favored two white students as “heir[s] apparent” to the coveted “Valedictorian” and “Salutatorian” titles.

Kymberly’s mother, Molly Bratton, claims to have overheard educators express concern that acknowledging Kymberly’s rightful place in the Class of 2011 might create a “mess.” The following day, school principal Darrell Thompson told Bratton that a white student whose GPA was lower than Kimberley’s would be “co-valedictorian.”

School Superintendent Thomas Gathen purportedly prevented Bratton from protesting the co-nomination at a subsequent school board meeting. His stated reason was Bratton’s “failure” to complete the correct grievance form. Gathen also precluded Bratton from appealing his decision until after Kymberly’s graduation.

Per court documents, school officials engaged in a pervasive pattern of racial discrimination. Nearly half of the student body is African American. Nonetheless, more than two decades have passed since a Black pupil’s nomination as class valedictorian.

Kymberly’s suit seeks injunctive relief to compel her retroactive nomination as sole valedictorian. She is also demanding punitive damages.

The outcome of this case depends largely upon whether the court finds that school officials’ denial of Kymberly’s status as sole valedictorian constituted intentional discrimination. Because it is a mental state, intent is always impossible to prove categorically. It may, however, be extrapolated from the circumstances that surround an act or event.

Continue reading "Valedictorian Files Lawsuit Against School District" »

A federal appeals court has refused to order the reinstatement of a student suspended for cyber bullying. Kara Kowalski was a senior at Musselman High School in West Virginia when she launched her vicious attack against a classmate. Kara’s weapon of destruction was a personalized MySpace page entitled “S.A.S.H.”

At subsequent court hearings, Kara stated that S.A.S.H was an acronym for “Students Against Sluts Herpes.” She went on to allege that another student started a false rumor that the title really represented “Students Against Shay’s Herpes.”

Nonetheless, numerous youth immediately posted images of Shay on S.A.S.H. All of the intentionally altered pictures suggested that Shay had a venereal disease. Shay suffered severe harassment and ostracism as a direct and proximate cause thereof.

When Shay’s parents complained to authorities about this offensive content, school administrator deemed that S.A.S.H. was indeed a “hate website.” Official school policy prohibits cyber bullying. Accordingly, Kara received a five-day disciplinary suspension.

The ensuing litigation posited that this punishment violated Kara’s constitutional rights to due process and free speech.

The court rejected those claims, however. The sole purpose of S.A.S.H. as a forum for defamatory publication and derogatory depictions seems to have been the underlying rationale.

Thus, the Fourth Circuit jurists ruled that school officials did not usurp their legal authority by suspending Kara. Judge Paul V. Neimeyer penned the majority view. In it, he opined that school officials acted appropriately by taking Kara’s callous disregard for a fellow student very seriously.

In addition to being suspended, Kara was prohibited from crowning her successor to the “Queen of Charm” throne. She also lost a cheerleading post.

Ironically, Kara also claimed to have suffered severe depression and social isolation as collateral consequences. The court was apathetic to those assertions, however.

This is a great example of school authorities doing the right thing for the right reasons.

The last paragraph of the Court’s decision says it best: “Rather than respond constructively to the school’s efforts to bring order and provide a lesson following the incident, Kowalski has rejected those efforts and sued school authorities for damages and other relief. Regretfully, she yet fails to see that such harassment and bullying is inappropriate and hurtful and that it must be taken seriously by school administrators in order to preserve an appropriate pedagogical environment. Indeed, school administrators are becoming increasingly alarmed by the phenomenon, and the events in this case are but one example of such bullying and school administrators’ efforts to contain it. Suffice it to hold here that, where such speech has a sufficient nexus with the school, the Constitution is not written to hinder school administrators’ good faith efforts to address the problem."

The entire decision may be viewed HERE.

Continue reading "Federal Appeals Court Rules Against High School Cyberbully" »

A former Illinois college staff member is suing her ex-employer. Discrimination and retaliation are the dual legal bases of a lawsuit filed by former Richland Community College registrar JoAnn Wirey.

The current legal controversy began over four years ago when Wirey was diagnosed with mononucleosis. The debilitating blood disorder is characterized by lethargy and chronic fatigue.

Despite medical documentation of health contraindications, Wirey was charged with “insubordination” for failing to work on Saturdays. Consequently, she invoked the protective legal provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA“). This federal law requires employers to make “reasonable accommodations” for disabled workers.

Shortly after filing suit, Wirey was disciplined for posing in a picture alongside an adult male student whose abdomen was partially exposed. Next, she was sanctioned for stating that foreign students needed American sponsorship to avert another 9/11 catastrophe.

Wirey initiated formal grievances immediately after both incidents. Soon afterward, she was suspended for allegedly advising a student’s mother that the pupil’s grades were “none of [the mother’s] business.”

While suspended, Wirey was accused of grade altering. One month later, she was finally dismissed after refusing to waive her right to appeal the disciplinary actions.

Wirey further alleged that the college provided a derogatory job reference to the school district. Legal pleadings posit that this action was retaliatory and resulted in Wirey’s rejection for a teaching position. Court documents disclose that Wirey received consistently positive employee performance evaluations prior to the litigation.

Patience is a virtue in academic, pecuniary, and altruistic contexts alike. College officials may have been well advised to wait and “bide time.” Even if entirely appropriate, disciplinary actions can have devastating impact by creating inaccurate impressions and negative perceptions.

Avoiding every appearance of impropriety is often more prudent than taking immediate remedial measures. Effective administrators must accurately assess and act in accordance with the totality of all relevant circumstances.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently overruled a lower court’s dismissal of a lawsuit filed by a former school district employee who had been fired for sitting next to her boss in public.

In 2004, the Washoe County School Board publicly convened in Reno, Nevada to announce its decision to terminate the employment of general counsel Jeffrey Blanck. Providing moral support, administrative assistant Katherine Nichols sat stoically beside him without uttering a single word.

The next day, Nichols was offered a difficult choice: demotion or early retirement. After accepting the latter "option," she filed suit. In dismissing her case, a federal District Court reasoned that the district had a legitimate interest in preventing "disruptive" employee conduct.

Last month, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated Nichols' lawsuit. Judge Margaret McKeown noted the absence of any evidence of possible disloyalty or disruption that sitting next to one's boss in public portends.

The court ruled that actual disruption or its reasonable anticipation is the only permissible grounds for disrupting public employment.

In a related opinion released in June, the US Supreme Court espoused restricted First Amendment rights for outspoken public servants who openly complain about workplace issues.

The Court recognized an exception for speech that pertains to matters of vital public import, however. In fact, the entire legal basis of Nichols' original claims rested upon this "public interest" immunity against official reprisals.

This type of employment controversy lies within the proper definition of "speech." Can tacit actions such as taking a certain seat constitute "speech”? Just how far should the concept of “expression” be extended? What constitutes valid grounds to terminate public employment?

This case is a prime example of why private and public employers, especially school districts which often manage and make decisions by committee need to tread carefully.

Continue reading "Court of Appeals Reinstates Nevada School Administrator’s Lawsuit" »

An official state investigation in Georgia revealed the routine falsification of student test scores by Atlanta public school officials. A long-standing history of problems within that city’s public schools apparently prompted these improprieties.

Reportedly, nearly 200 faculty members at 44 different schools perpetrated the fraud. Nearly half of the culprits have confessed in the scandalous aftermath.

Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed referred to this outrage as a “dark day” for his city’s public schools. Reed further noted that it represented a severe leadership failure that negatively impacted thousands of pupils.

Endemic fear of reprisals apparently facilitated the fraud’s longevity. Now that the cat is out of the bag, many will lose their positions. In addition, most of the co-conspirators now face criminal prosecutions throughout three surrounding counties.

This shocking revelation comes as no surprise to cynical commentators. Numerous reports by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution had previously spawned widespread suspicion about highly improbable pupil performance levels. Such questions sparked the state investigation that ultimately disclosed numerous test answer erasures.

Endemic educator falsifications have fueled rampant rifts among local religious and business leaders. A turbulent tug-of-war over power among school board members has also ignited.

The cumulative detriment to students affected by the artificial score alterations is hard to quantify. Investigators estimate that as many as 12,000 remedial pupils’ test scores were tampered with.

Parental reactions reflect a mixture of emotions. Adults expressed empathy for teachers coerced into cooperating with and covering up the scandal and concerns over their children’s quality of education.

Continue reading "Cheating Scandal Catches Atlanta Educators With Raised Hands and Red Faces " »

Recently released federal correspondence charged officials of the Tehachapi Unified School District in central California with gross negligence. The letter alleged that educators failed to properly respond to and rectify repeated harassment complaints from a 13-year-old student.

The relentless taunting resulted from the boy’s alleged homosexuality. Last September, the student killed himself in response to intolerable social isolation. Consequently, his mother filed a federal civil rights action against the school district.

Her litigation sparked an in-depth governmental investigation. The official conclusion was that school authorities had indeed shirked their legal duty to protect its pupil against "persistent, pervasive and often severe sex-based harassment."

A report by the US Dept. of Justice revealed that the student endured more than two years of malicious taunting, inappropriate touching, and having objects hurled at him. Conditions became so severe that he stopped donning gymnasium attire in the locker room. He feared assaults from fellow classmates.

The vice-principal once dismissed such complaints by citing the “difficult age” of students and his inability to change inherent attitudes instilled by their parents.

In another instance, the principal asked Seth to point out his harassers from school yearbook pictures. He took no further action, however, because the boy could not recite his harassers‘ names.

In partial settlement of this case, the school district agreed to retrain faculty and staff and to submit to several years of intensive monitoring of its anti-harassment remedial efforts. The school district Superintendent expressed positive anticipation about these changes.

American Civil Liberties Union attorney James Gillian represents the boy’s mother. Gilliam expressed being “ecstatic” over the official confirmation of his client’s allegations. He further posited that this case will set a precedent by sending the message to school officials throughout the entire nation that they have a positive duty to protect pupils.

Last month, a Philadelphia state court‘s reversal of a six-year-old kindergartener’s expulsion sparked renewed controversy over school rules and school district law.

The preschooler was expelled from the First Philadelphia Charter School for Literacy for touching his teacher’s thighs. Court documents quoted the boy as saying that he only wanted to “make them feel better” after the teacher complained of leg pain.

A Philadelphia Common Court of Pleas recently agreed. In a May 23 ruling, Honorable Paul P. Panepinto found that the child only intended to comfort his teacher.

The heart of legal contention lies in the question of whether charter schools should have greater legal license in student discipline than other institutions. Arguing in the affirmative, charter school operators cite students’ ability to resume instruction at public schools following expulsion from charter facilities.

Critics charge that such a double standard is legally impermissible, however.

History of Disruption?

Court documents revealed three prior expulsions during the plaintiff‘s enrollment. The first occurred last December after the boy touched a female classmate’s buttocks beneath a table while attempting to retrieve mislaid crayons.

He was suspended on two subsequent occasions for allegedly tripping, shoving, or stepping on the toes of other children. According to legal pleadings, the child was a habitual disciplinary problem. One staff member ranked his disruptive behavior as “8” on a scale of 1 to 10.

Judge Panepinto limited his focus to the thigh-touching incident in ruling that the boy’s final expulsion last March was an abuse of school officials’ discretion. In so finding, the court opined that such conduct was developmentally normal.

School officials view the matter much more seriously, however. In court briefs, school district attorneys posited that touching an adult teacher’s upper thighs was inappropriate conduct in a classroom.

The current posture of the case is pending mandatory court mediation. Absent a satisfactory settlement, it will advance to the Commonwealth Court. Meanwhile, the kindergartner is enrolled in a private school where he has reportedly presented no major behavioral problems.

Broader questions of education law and/or school district law loom large in the backdrop of this litigation, as charter schools proliferate across the nation. In this writer’s view, uniformity is in the best long-term interests of our nation’s youth. Mere piecemeal accountability leaves them at the mercy of capricious school authorities.

Continue reading "Kindergartener’s Expulsion Prompts Educational and Legal Controversy " »

Of late, fifteen-year-old Phoebe Prince has been an American media icon. The Massachusetts high school student recently committed suicide following a relentless campaign of malicious bullying by ruthless classmates. Her story has served to prompt parents and other concerned parties to ponder the prevention of similar future teen tragedies.

Overall public response has been a veritable rush on government. In response, Massachusetts legislators hurriedly enacted anti-bullying statutes. The new law designates the fourth Wednesday in each January as “No Name-Calling Day” in the Commonwealth.

Touted as the most comprehensive anti-bullying statute in the entire nation, the law goes much further than mere establishment of establishing an official day of anti-bullying observance. It also mandates annual training and mandatory harassment reporting by school personnel.

A prominent query currently on many minds is the likelihood of the law having any real long-term positive impact. Unfortunately, any affect will probably be minimal.

Local authorities made further attempts to deter future bully malfeasance by initiating criminal prosecution against Phoebe’s tormentors. Their sentences to community service with probation led to widespread outrage in many circles. A perceived failure of the criminal justice system was the primary cause of such vehement criticism.

Other commentators have proposed civil suits as the best antidote to the alarming recent rise in harmful teen taunting. Attorney Wendy Murphy publicly promoted federal civil rights litigation by Phoebe’s parents against the school district. Murphy suggested this approach as a strong economic incentive for education officials’ strict adherence to anti-bullying laws..

The sad fact is that virtually every facet of modern society is saturated with bully ented propaganda. From political candidates’ derogatory public statements to primetime television airings right beneath our own roofs, the problem is pervasive.

Sadly, Phoebe’s story is reminiscent of an ancient anecdote about a busy father, his young son, and a magazine. To keep his son sufficiently distracted while he worked, the man tears the page into dozens of pieces and instructs the boy to reassemble them. One side of the page featured a man’s face while the other displayed a globe.

Within moments, the boy returned with the reconstructed picture. When asked how he had accomplished the task so quickly, the child responded that it was easy. It seems that once the man was back together, the whole world also fell right into sync.

Likewise, the most effective anti-bullying approach starts with wholesome adult who examples. Exhibiting courtesy and respect in all interpersonal interactions is the permanent best cure. In the long run, it portends much more effectiveness than mere “Band-aid” solutions of lawsuits and legislation.

Los Angeles schools will have to find a new way to fund extracurricular programs. Currently, many school districts charge activity fees to its students as a way to bring in more funding for the extra programs and activities. Due to a December 2010 lawsuit that ruled it unconstitutional to charge fees for extracurricular activities, school districts will have to come up with a more creative alternative.

The December lawsuit brought on by the American Civil Liberties Union, claimed that many area districts were illegally charging students for various activities and clubs. According to the lawsuit, it's illegal to accept these types of fees in a public school district setting. This law is now in effect for activities ranging from sports teams, cheer squads, musical groups, booster clubs and other school community organizations.

Currently, a law is pending which will penalize the school districts that have been illegally charging these fees. The law will also require all educational materials and supplies to be available free of charge.

This will leave many school districts looking for new ways to bring in money for these programs. Many districts are already struggling to keep extra activities and programs available. In order to keep some of these programs, school districts will be looking for donations and volunteer support.

Schools will begin to be audited during the following school year.

Some area schools have already taken steps to get rid of activity fees, and have been successful with a volunteer base. Many of these school districts are able to continue the many extracurricular activities and program without the use of student activity fees.

Unfortunately, many school districts may not be able to get the funding and support that is needed to keep the many programs running. This will make it extremely difficult to have a wide variety of programs and activities for the students.

It will be interesting to see how creative school districts get, when looking for funding options. Hopefully most schools will still be able to provide the same level of programs and activities to students.

Michele Vulcano Hall is currently fighting to keep her case against the Easton Area (PA) School District alive in Federal District Court. The school district’s attorneys have asked the court to dismiss Vulcano Hall’s claims on the grounds that she has failed to prove the violation of any legally-protected right.

In August of 2008, Vulcano Hall was engaged in a practical skills workshop internship when the district offered her a full-time teaching job. She was fired one year later. In her lawsuit, Vulcano Hall alleged she was dismissed in retaliation for her father’s position as a vocal school board member.

In response, the district denied any retaliatory motive. Further, it alleged that Vulcano Hall’s employment was a 10-month temporary position. The district admits, however, that its primary motive for terminating Vulcano Hall’s employment was her failure to attain full certification.

Currently, Vulcano Hall works as a substitute teacher for the district. Although she does not possess full teaching certification, her current credentials are sufficient for substitute teaching. During her prior 10-month teaching tenure in the district, Vulcano Hall taught subjects in multimedia/study skills.

The entire case appears to turn upon two primary points of contention: 1) Whether or not Vulcano Hall’s former teaching position was permanent or temporary employee; and, 2) The true motive for her eventual termination.

Hall’s attorney argued that her client had received written and verbal assurances of 2 to 3-year extension of time to earn full teaching certification. The district had purportedly made an exception to this policy for Vulcano Hall, as she has several long-term learning disabilities.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) requires employers to make “reasonable accommodation” for disabled workers. Felker also invoked a Pennsylvania statute that requires prior unsatisfactory job ratings as a condition precedent for terminating public employment. Allegedly, Vulcano Hall consistently received positive evaluations.
Hall’s attorney asked that the court allow the modification of original pleadings if it finds that they do not sufficiently set forth Vulcano Hall’s legal claims. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows judges to permit the amendment of complaint documents in such instances.

Continue reading "Former Schoolteacher Determined to Take School District to Task" »

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" »

A lawsuit has been filed in the New York courts by Manhattan mom, Nicole Imprescia, against a posh, private preschool for not doing enough to prepare her four-year-old daughter, Lucia, for an Ivy League education.

Charging $19,000 a year for tuition, the York Avenue Preschool promises to provide Upper East Side children with a custom-tailored, age-appropriate education in art, music, physical activities and language. Imprescia claims the school’s laid-back teaching style caused them to fail in delivering on their promises. She says this could have sabotaged Lucia’s opportunity to be accepted into an elite private school and thus irrevocably hindered her chance to be accepted into a top U.S. college.

Although the year-round school offers its young pupils access to teachers with master’s degrees in early childhood education, the curriculum is largely the same as any preschool classroom – learning the alphabet, singing songs and finger painting – except for the French lessons given to the four-year-old children.

Imprescia claims her daughter wasn’t properly prepared for the standardized Educational Records Bureau (ERB) entrance test used by highly-competitive private elementary schools in New York City, including Dalton, Chapin and Spence. Instead, Lucia and her peers were taught their colors and shapes.

The Imprescia family lawyer is equating the situation to theft and false advertising, saying Imprescia was duped into believing the thousands of dollars would be money well spent on a first-class education. Imprescia says her daughter was forced to mingle with two-year-olds and basically spent her days playing instead of learning. She pulled her daughter out of the school less than one month after enrolling in the fall of 2010.

Imprescia is seeking class action status for the lawsuit. The case has also sparked widespread debate in media outlets and online about the cost versus the quality of an elite education and the high expectations that are being placed on very young children to succeed.

York Avenue officials released their own statement to the media, saying these are the first charges brought against the preschool in its 30-year history and that they hope Lucia has found a school that better fits her needs.

Employment law as it pertains to public employees in Wisconsin is set to undergo a significant transformation if and when the state Senate passes Governor Scott Walker's controversial Budget Repair Bill. The specifics of the legislation were made public in early February, with the Assembly approving the bill on February 25. It remains unclear when the proposed law will be subject to a vote in the Senate.

No matter which side of the aisle one sits, it is indisputable that the proposed legislation is poised to drastically alter how public sector unions function. Employers impacted by the potential changes will be need time to adjust their practices to adapt to a new employment law landscape, though certain portions of the legislation would necessitate almost immediate changes for public sector unions and their membership.

The Governor maintains that the bill offers the only hope of preventing significant pubic employee layoffs resulting from the state's growing financial instability. While Mr. Walker has provided a great deal of information intended to support his party's position on the proposed legislation, opponents and public sector union s have disputed the bill's necessity and have organized large-scale demonstrations at the capitol over the past few weeks. The Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission (WERC) estimates that upwards of 200,000 individuals represented by 2,000 collective bargaining units in Wisconsin could be affected.

Among the possible change for public employees (with the exception of some public safety personnel) are:

Limitations on collective bargaining, including a prohibition on bargaining over issues not under the umbrella of the Wisconsin Municipal Employment Relations Act would be enacted. Preliminary certification elections would occur in April 2011 to decide if bargaining unit members desire continued union representation, or else face decertification. Union contracts would be limited in duration, dues could no longer be required for union membership, and collection of dues through salary deduction would become illegal.

Covered employees would pay one-half of retirement contributions as prescribed by the Employee Trust Fund Board, and it would no longer be permissible for most public sector employers to make employee-required contributions on their behalf.

Employer categories affected by the legislation would no longer be permitted to pay greater than 88 percent of the average cost of group insurance plans falling into the cheapest employee premium tier.

The employers specified in the law would be permitted to fire public sector employees taking part in strikes, work stoppages or other organized protests, or those missing work without prior authorization for a period exceeding three days.

Because of the substantial potential changes embodied in the proposed legislation, public sector employers are well advised to monitor developments in the capitol as they continue to unfold.

Continue reading "Wisconsin's Budget Repair Legislation's Potential Impact on Collective Bargaining" »

Five teens in southern Nevada have been charged with the distribution of child pornography stemming from an incident of apparent sexting.

Nationwide efforts are being made to establish sexting as a legitimate crime in the minds of youngsters.

All five teens are under the age of 15 and will be facing disciplinary action at school as well as in a court of law.

According to police, two teens were discovered viewing nude images of three different girls, ages 12 and 13. The pictures were apparently taken by the girls themselves, texted to another boy, and then distributed by the boy via text message.

The charges will be reviewed and punished after an assessment by the District Attorney, a judge, and a juvenile probation officer.

According to Nye County Sheriff Tony DeMeo, parents and communities nationwide should consider the incident a wakeup call. Teens are not always mature enough to handle cell phones responsibly, nor are they able to gauge the impact of such actions on their futures, DeMeo adds.

Unfortunately, such practices are growing in popularity.

Eli Cline, an eighteen-year old female, claims that teens are only thinking in the moment. According to Cline, middle and high school kids are only worried about being accepted in the now, and the future isn’t given much thought.

Cline thinks that the best way to address the problem is through shared responsibility and suggests that law enforcement officials give seminars in the school to warn of the dangers of sexting.

Sheriff DeMeo agrees that something must be done, noting that he would be more than willing to assist the school district in educating students about the consequences of sharing sexual material via texting.

The lawsuit filed by former teacher Sandra Brody against the Fort Worth Independent School District has been settled. The settlement was approved in January and the district will be required to pay $41,500.The teacher claimed administrators retaliated against her after concerns were reported about the school’s handling of P.E. classes. Brody worked as a teacher during the 2008-2009 school year at Clifford Davis Elementary School. She reported that the time allotted for physical education classes were being used to prep students for state math tests.

In the retaliation lawsuit, she claimed that students were not receiving state required physical activity. She felt an obligation to also notify parents of the activities. In Brody’s suit, she also alleged that her teaching contract was not renewed as a result of her report. Brody began her career with the district in 2006 when she worked as a teacher’s aide. In the summer of 2007, she became certified to teach. Brody said she became concerned during the 2008-2209 school year when she became aware that the students were not having recess and that physical education classes were being used to prepare for the Texas Assessment test. The Texas State law has a requirement of 30 minutes of moderate or vigorous physical activity each day. The law does not specify that the activity has to be in a formal P.E. class. According to the Texas Education Agency, the activity can be offered in a number of ways.

Brody also claimed that the central administrator, who has since retired, reinstated the physical education classes after the concerns were reported. According to Brody, when she continued to report her concerns, she started to receive threats of losing her job. During this time, she had been written up regarding concerns of her job performance. There is a stipulation in the settlement that neither party in the suit has admitted to any illegal activity. The school board will rescind Brody’s termination proposal and acknowledge her letter of resignation.

District officials disputed her claim that retaliation was an issue in the case and in the district as a whole. Clint Bond, district spokesman, has declined to comment on the specifics of the retaliation lawsuit. There are currently at least three pending lawsuits against the district where retaliation is claimed. Another suit was brought about by an employee who claims that she was terminated for making a report regarding payroll problems. The third school district lawsuit was filed by a former assistant principal, who claimed that district officials sought to fire him after he made a report regarding problems at Arlington Heights High.

Continue reading "School District Settles Retaliation Lawsuit Filed by Teacher" »

The following is the new "invocation" disclaimer added by the Polk County (Florida) School Board to all meeting agendas:

"Voluntary invocation may be offered before the opening of the School Board meeting by a private citizen. The views or beliefs expressed in the invocation have not been reviewed nor approved by the School Board, and the Board is not allowed, by law, to endorse the religious beliefs or views of this, or any other speaker."

The addition of the disclaimer comes after the attorney for the school board, Wes Bridges, received a letter from the Freedom From Religion Foundation. The organization threatened a lawsuit if the members of the school board continued to include prayers in its meetings. The disclaimer helps to ensure that the school board is not working to promote or to establish any type of religion.

If the school board were to face the lawsuit, it could cost the school board up to $500,000 in legal fees to fight the lawsuit and even more if the school board loses the legal fight. As a way to bridge the gap, Bridges used the aforementioned disclaimer and to allow these types of prayers to only occur prior to the start of the meeting, which officially begins at the sound of the gavel dropping.

Bridges states that it is not unconstitutional for a school board to have invocations, but this disclaimer helps ensure the school board is not stepping outside of the laws otherwise. He proposed other options for avoiding the litigation as well, but this is the remedy the school board decided upon.

The Vice Chairman of the School Board, Tim Harris, stated that he was concerned with why the school board was the target of the Freedom From Religion Foundation when state legislators and Congress open meetings with prayers as well.

In La Quinta, California, the Desert Sands Unified School District is being sued in federal court because the school will not include bricks bearing Bible verses in the sidewalk. The bricks were part of a fundraiser used to build the sidewalk. The Alliance Defense Fund is suing the school district on behalf of two people, Lou Ann Hart and Sheryl Caronna. The two claim that the school violated the First Amendment Rights of the individuals when the bricks were rejected based on religious merit.

The attorney representing the Alliance Defense Fund believes that the government is signaling out religious viewpoints. He is quoted as saying, "Christians have the same First Amendment -protected rights as everyone else does on public school campuses and their messages are no less worthy of exposure than other individuals."

The bricks were rejected, according to the lawsuit, by the district based on constitutional "separation of church and state." The complaint also stated that neither woman received a refund. The Alliance Defense Fund wants the district to pay monetary damages to the women, and pay attorney fees, and to include the bricks in the sidewalk.

Resident of Palm Desert, Hart, purchased the bricks, which measured four by eight inches, and Caronna, from Rancho Mirage, purchased an eight by eight inch brick. The two purchased the bricks to provide a message of hope for students.

After the bricks were made, the women were notified by the school district that the bricks would not be displayed in the project. That was in August of 2010. The school district claims it is looking into the situation and believes the filing of the lawsuit was premature.

The case, Hart V. Tomack, was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Tomack is a member of the school board.

Continue reading "Desert Sands Unified School District Sued Over Religious Bricks" »

Three residents of Montgomery County, Maryland have filed a lawsuit against Montgomery College, stating that the college should stop providing discounts and the lowest tuition rates available to illegal immigrants. The civil lawsuit is aimed at stopping the long standing policy within the school to provide in county tuition to graduates from Montgomery public schools within the previous three years. The school does not take the immigration status of these students into consideration. However, all other students who apply to the school must provide and meet immigration status.

Of the school's budget, $208 million of it came from county and state appropriations, which accounts for 60 percent of the budget for the 2011 year. The goal of the policy, the school claims, is to provide low cost access to more students.

In the state, students are given free K - 12 public educations no matter what their immigration status is. However, state laws prohibit these students from receiving tuition assistance for higher education. There are two lawmakers currently working to reverse this, this year. This includes State Senators Richard Madaleno and Victor Ramirez. The legislation proposed would make it possible for some undocumented students to be eligible to receive tuition assistance from public schools in the state.

McDonough, who is a Republican delegate from Baltimore County, who wants stricter immigration laws, stated about the school, "They are public officials using taxpayer month for an unlawful act." He says that the civil lawsuit brought against the school is just the first step and stated that he plans to file criminal lawsuits with the state as well as the FBI's public corruption unit. An investigation has been ongoing for the last six months with the school, including audits obtained during the report. In one report, the school provided in-county tuition for more than 11,000 credit hours annually to students who did not verify their legal status.

The lawsuit also claims that the school could have collected some $5.9 million in the last three years if it had charged out-of-state rates to those students. For a three credit course, the cost for in-county residents is $321 where as for those who are out-of-state residents, the cost is $897.

The Sarasota (Florida) County School District has reached a settlement over a lawsuit filed by a student alleging mistreatment. The district will pay $52,500 to settle the claim. The claim comes from a developmentally disabled student who states that she was mistreated by her teacher, Diana O'Neill, from Venice Elementary School. The teacher no longer works for the school.

The parents of the girl will drop the lawsuit against the district but still can file additional lawsuits against the teacher. All school board members and the district have agreed to settle the claim.

However, all is not in the clear for the school district since three other students have come forward alleging further abuse. They have sent letters of intent to sue to the district.

The current settled lawsuit states that the teacher pinched, poked, slapped and shoved the disabled student and called her a "fat ass" and a "waste of air." This occurred when the student did not respond to the teacher. The student is missing half of her brain, which was surgically removed as an infant. The student is unable to talk, see or walk. According to the lawsuit, the day the student was abused, she came home with bruises.

The student's attorney, states that the student was unable to communicate her abuse to the parents since she does not communicate. The parents state that they sent the child to school daily without any idea of the child's poor handling.

O'Neill did not comment on the settlement. The amount of the settlement was reached through mediated session.

The teacher was arrested in 2008 on charges that she abused the disabled students in her care. She was acquitted of those charges. She kept her job in the school district but does not work as a teacher, but rather works in the record's department. It is possible that she could lose her teaching certificate. A state administrative judge is scheduled to hear the case against O'Neill later this month, and will then make a recommendation about revoking her teaching certificate.

The Education Practices Commission will then vote whether to accept the judge's recommended order. If the commission revokes her teaching certificate, the district would be able to fire O'Neill since she would no longer be qualified for her $78,000/year job.

Continue reading "School District Pays $52,500 to Settle Student Mistreatment Claim" »

The Fargo (North Dakota) School District has agreed to pay a sum of $300,000 in damages to a former student and his attorney. The school district agreed to settle the bullying case out of court to reduce costs. The former student alleges that he was bullied in the school system by other students from the 5th through the 9th grade.

The former student is now 21. The student left the Fargo public school system, but returned and later graduated from the high school. According to his attorney, the former student is happy with the outcome and that the school will be putting new bullying programs in place.

According to the school district, the claim has been paid by the North Dakota Insurance Reserve Fund. Mediation was used to help reach the agreement, which occurred late in 2010.

As part of the agreement, the school district has agreed to improve training to teachers and other school staff on how to notice and react to bullying occurring between students. Additionally, a curriculum that includes programs designed to teach students about bullying will be implemented at all grade levels within the school district.

The school district stated that it will develop a strong anti-bullying program that is aimed at preventing bullying from occurring and how to deal with it if it does occur. The school district will combine forces with staff, parents and the community in order to formulate effective programs, along with the help of legislators.

The lawsuit originally brought against the school district claimed that the district did not respond to the complaints of the student about the bullying and that the school did not do enough to punish those doing the bullying. The former student continues to deal with the emotional effects and ongoing depression related to the bullying.

Continue reading "School District Settles Bullying Case for $300,000" »

Potential sexual harassment which may have led to a teenager’s suicide, prompted the teen’s mother, Wendy Walsh to contact the American Civil Liberties Union. The mother, along with her attorney submitted a seven page letter to the Tehachapi Unified School District. The letter requests the school district to take action to respond with a satisfactory remedy for the alleged ongoing sexual harassment.

The attorney has not yet filed a lawsuit against the school district but instead is hoping for a more positive outcome. The attorney filed a complaint with the United States Department of Education Office of Civil Rights as well, asking the organization to investigate the school district.

The mother wants to understand why the school district did not take action when she complained about her son’s treatment throughout the years. Seth Walsh was 13 years old.
The Tehachapi Unified School District’s superintendent says that federal investigators have interviewed staff, teachers, principals and students on December 15th and 16th.

Walsh states that her son began reporting problems in the 5th grade. He later reported problems in middle school. Walsh filed reports to teachers and administers. In one instance, Seth asked for help to which a teacher responded, “That’s right, you do need help.” Later, the mother took the boy out of school. Her son was called “queer” by other students in front of his mother. At that incident, the mother found the student who made the comments and escorted the student to the office.

After enrolling in various programs, the student was brought back to the school where he was later pushed into lockers and ridiculed. The parent eventually pulled the boy out of school again, at which time he was enrolled in an Independent Study program, with “sexual orientation ridicule” as being the reason for his inability to remain in regular school.

The student continued to be abused by various other students, including one incident in which he was teased by three boys and a girl in a park. That day, he went home, showered and changed, then hung himself from a tree in the backyard.

The complaint filed by Walsh is, she states, in the hopes that better resources are made available to people in her son’s situation. Seth’s death was more than one day of problems at the park but was about years of abusive behavior about the child’s sexual orientation.

In Boston, a settlement has been reached having to do with a former student who allegedly received electric shocks at the school he attended. The special needs school, agreed to pay $65,000 to settle the lawsuit. The lawsuit claimed that the shock therapy was inhumane and violated the student’s civil rights.

The school known as The Judge Rotenberg Center uses a controversial form of aversive therapy. In order to control aggressive behavior, and to prevent self injury in autistic students, the device administers a shock.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Antwone Nicholson. At the time of the filing, in 2006, he was 17 years old and was enrolled at the school for the last four years. The student’s mother agreed to settle to simply move on. The school agreed to the settlement because it was minimal and far less than what it would cost to fight the case in court. The suit originally was for millions of dollars in damages.

The school is thought to be the only one in the United States that uses the therapy. Some parents of the school believe the therapy is successful and is used only as a last resort in preventing severely autistics children from injuring themselves. The settlement allows for the school to be absolved of all claims by the family. The school also says that the parents of the student were made aware of the treatment used at the time of enrolling the son.

Nicholson acknowledges that she knew of the treatment but said she thought it would be used only in situations where the boy was a threat to himself or to others. She says that was not the case. She claims that if her son simply said no to a directive or did not pay attention, the center’s administrators would shock him.

Nicholson says her son pleaded with her to remove him from the school. He still lives at home with her but has flashbacks to the treatment, she says.

Earlier, an appellate division of the New York Supreme court dismissed a claim that a Freeport, NY school district helped place the student in the school. Another lawsuit, brought against the state itself was also dismissed.

According to the school, less than 20 percent of students experience the shock therapy and only if positive reinforcement does not control behavior. The US Justice Department has begun an investigation to determine if shock therapy is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Approximately 30 advocacy groups presented a letter to the Justice Department asking for the shocks to end.

Continue reading "Special Needs School Settles Shock Therapy Lawsuit" »

A player on the football team at Simpson County (Mississippi) School District has filed a lawsuit after being kicked off the football team for wearing pink cleats. The lawsuit was filed after an agreement was made previously with the team and the player. The player agreed not to pursue damages against the team if, in return, he was reinstated to the football team out of Mendenhall High School.

However, after that agreement was reached, the student was told he was not allowed to dress out with the team for the next game. He was expecting to join and play with the team and was crushed when he was not allowed to, his attorney stated. According to the attorney, the coach reneged on the agreement made in front of the entire hometown game. This, the attorney states, is a bad faith breach of the settlement agreement. He noted that the coach was not only illegally stopping the player but also costing the district a good amount of money in damages as a result.

The school’s attorney was not able to comment. The student was originally kicked off the team when he wore a pair of brightly colored pink shoes. The shoes were a gift from his great grandmother. The cleats were worn as a way of honoring two of his family members, both of whom were cancer survivors.

The attorneys for the student and for the district did not agree on why the boy was kicked off the team. The deputy superintendent said the student was removed from the team because he did not take orders from the coach and the assistant coaches, which included taking off the cleats. They claim the booting from the team was due to failure to listen to the coaches, not about his support for the cause.

The student and the district came to an agreement prior to the most recent game which allowed the student back on the team. This was the first time in a month he was able to play and he had planned to play in the regular cleats.

Should the current lawsuit go forward, the boy states that any proceeds will go to the American Cancer Society and the Susan G. Komen for the Cure programs.

The parents of an eight year old special needs child have filed a lawsuit against the township of Voorhees’s school, in New Jersey. The parents allege that their eight year old girl was sexually harassed by a boy on the bus and at school. The suit was filed in federal court in Camden.

The lawsuit against the school states that the school district did not protect the child from the repeated occurrences, which occurred at Signal Hill School by an eleven year old student.

According to the lawsuit, the employees at the school showed deliberate indifference to the alleged harassment. The parent’s concerns, the lawsuit states, which they voiced to the teacher, received a response from the teacher indicating that the eight year old should wear a bra.

The harassment started in the spring of 2010 when the boy encouraged the girl to expose herself on the bus. The parent’s allege that the boy continued the harassment by asking to see “private parts and touching her butt.” The mother contacted the teacher and the teacher said that the boy was “such a nice boy” and stated that the girl’s statements could be a form of attention getting.

The harassment continued into the next school year. In another incident, the boy “touched breasts while asking to see them” and continued to do so on the bus ride home that day. The girl stated that because she was pressured, she pulled down her shirt to and showed him.

The lawsuit requests that adult monitors be placed on all school buses in the township, among other things. It would also require the school district to put in place methods to investigate the complaints of sexual harassment within the district.

The lawsuit alleges that the girl’s education suffered because she was continually monitoring where the student was. In response to the claims, the school moved the student to the back of the class, even though her individual education program requires her to be near the front of the class. The girl has auditory processing disorders.

The school district was unable to comment and has not responded to the lawsuit. The lawsuit seeks damages to cover medical and legal costs as well as funding for home instruction for the girl until an alternative school can be obtained, at the district’s expense.

Continue reading "Parents of 8 Year Old Sue School Over Sexual Harassment" »

A civil lawsuit brought against the Los Angeles County Office of Education was settled. The lawsuit stated that students within the district were being punished for asking for instruction and that teachers at the school in question, Camp Challenger in Lancaster, were routinely missing classes.

According to a statement released by the education office, the teaching staff will be examined and changes made. Teachers will be retrained. In addition, as part of the lawsuit settlement, career programs and new literacy programs will be put into place. The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit.

According to the ACLU, students were graduating from the school without being able to read. According to Mark Rosenbaum, who is the attorney working on behalf of the ACLU, “these kids could not fill out job applications or read basic signs.”

In the lawsuit, it is alleged that the civil rights violations occurred and deprivation of education that is legally mandated was not provided to students enrolled at the facility. As a result of the class action lawsuit, about one quarter of the teachers have been transferred or resigned. The principal and the assistant principals may face legal charges. A federal judge will need to approve the settlement.

The office of education is like to work with various professionals to improve the education of youths who attend the high school. In addition, the county’s educational program will move towards courses that include special education, instruction, literacy and other areas of specific need. Another action of the settlement forms the Challenger Reform Taskforce, which will be responsible for monitoring the reforms occurring at the school to ensure they are being taken seriously. The county will also likely pay attorney’s fees and other expenses related to the case.

Continue reading "Los Angeles County Education Lawsuit Settled" »

The National Labor Relations Board (NRLB) has filed a lawsuit against American Medical Response (AMR) of Connecticut claiming the company illegally fired an employee after the employee complained about AMR on the social media site Facebook. This may be the first case in which the board has come forward to argue for the worker, claiming that the remarks on the social networking site are protected activities. Employers, they claim, are violating law if they punish workers for such comments.

The alleged activity involves the firing of a medical technician on the grounds of violating company policy by depicting the company on Facebook.

According to NLRB acting general counsel Lafe Solomon, the employee has the right to talk about working conditions, including the supervisor, which is what occurred in this case. The law in question gives workers the right to discuss working conditions or unionization without fear of punishment by the employer. The board says that the company’s policy in regards to the Facebook page was “overly broad.”

In addition to this, the board also stated that other company policies may also be out of line, including those that stop employees from making disparaging or discriminatory comments when discussing the company, supervisors or the coworkers involved.

American Medical Response of Connecticut denies the allegations made by the labor board. It stated that the employee was discharged for multiple incidents and serious complaints. The employee, according to the company, was also fired due to repeated offenses against other employees.

The employee in question is Dawnmarie Souza. According to the allegations, the employee was required to prepare a response to a customer’s complaint about her work, and complained that the company did not allow the Teamster Union to do this for her. She then mocked the supervisor on Facebook.

Allegedly, she stated, “love how the company allows a 17 to become a supervisor” referring to a 17 as a term for a psychiatric patient. These comments drew support from coworkers on the site.

The hearing is to be held in January to determine the merits of the case. Finding the line of where employees are stepping over their protected rights is likely to be the foundation of the hearing and the ruling to come from it.

Continue reading "NLRB Faces Off With AMR of Connecticut Over Facebook Firing" »

After a student was suspended from school for wearing a nose piercing, a federal judge ruled that the North Carolina school must allow the 14 year old to return to school. The nose piercing, the student says, is a part of her religious beliefs.

The federal judge, US District Judge Malcolm Howard stated his decision which allowed the student, Ariana Iacono to return to school. The Johnston County school system dress code states that any facial piercings are not allowed. However, there are exemptions in place for religious beliefs.

The attorney for the school district declined to comment about the federal ruling.

Another hearing is scheduled for November 3rd and the student will be able to continue classes at Clayton High School until at least that time.

The student’s attorney, Jon Sasser and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the school officials stating that the student’s constitutional rights were violated when she was suspended several times since classes started. The student and her mother state that the nose piercing is not a fashion statement but part of the student’s religious beliefs.

The Iaconos are part of a small religious group called the Church of Body Modification, consisting of 3,500 worshippers, a small clergy, a statement of beliefs, and regular religious practices. The group believes that piercings and tattoos are a religious devotion. The religion was first incorporated in July of 2008 in Pennsylvania.

The school’s dress code allows for exemptions based on “sincerely held religious beliefs” and “the principal or the designees should not attempt to determine whether the religious beliefs are valid but if they are central to religious doctrine and sincerely held.”

Since the start of school Ariana Iacono has been suspended four times missing 20 days of class. The student was told that she would have to attend the South Campus Community School, which is a facility designated for those students who have disciplinary or other problems. She would still not be allowed to wear a nose piercing.

The school, the lawsuit states, stepped over the boundaries.

The parents of a student attending District 2 in Sumter, South Carolina have filed a lawsuit stating that the child was repeatedly bullied and school officials did not take action to correct the problem, resulting in gross negligence.

The parents, Tina and Brian Christmas state that their son Joshua now 13, was bullied by another student while the boys attended both High Hills Elementary School and Hillcrest Middle School. Named in the lawsuit are the bus driver and the vice principal of Hillcrest. The lawsuit states that Joshua suffers from a condition called Benign Essential Tremor Syndrome in which his hands tremor. He is also easily frightened and has difficulty dealing with stressful situations.

The lawsuit states that his condition is one of the reasons Joshua is continually bullied. Tina Christmas is administrative assistant to 3rd Circuit Court Judge Jeffrey Young, while his father Brian is a Sumter Police Department detective and fire department captain.

The lawsuit claims the boy was initially attacked in 2006 on a bus by a bully who bit, strangled, bruised, and kicked the child, which lead to him bleeding. Joshua did not fight back because he did not want to get in trouble. The boy faced suspension from the bus but continued to threaten Joshua and his mother’s life. Then, Tina Christmas contacted police who involved the state department of Juvenile Justice. The boy was forced to write an apology and Joshua was given a one year restraining order against the bully.

The boy moved out of the area but transferred back for the 2009 to 2010 school year. This caused the continuation of the bullying and the boy encouraging others to act out against Joshua.

Tina Christmas contacted to the school and spoke to the vice principal. According to the lawsuit, the child was threatened, frightened and bullied. According to the lawsuit, vice principal Richburg stated, “I would take a child home myself before putting him on the bus afraid.” The parent asked that she be contacted if he was afraid to ride the bus home.

On April 16th, the boy threatened Joshua throughout the day and stated he would beat him up on the bus. Joshua went to the principal and asked to call his mother. Joshua’s request was denied even after the student begged not to be put on the bus. He was taken to the bus by the vice principal and the bus driver was alerted to the situation. The boy punched Joshua in the face on the bus, and Joshua fought back. The bus driver called police but refused to stop the fight and told other children on the bus to “let them fight.”

Police were not told about threats against Joshua and both boys were removed, handcuffed and placed in patrol cars. School officials did not notify the parents but the Christmas’s learned of the arrest from other students.

The lawsuit alleges that Joshua was traumatized by the events and was physically ill due to the situation. The following school year, Joshua was in two classes with the bully, which continued his suffering including vomiting and headaches. The parents believe that the school is negligent in protecting their son against the bully.

Continue reading "Parents File Suit Against School for Bullying " »

In February and March we posted about the webcam spying lawsuits filed against the Lower Merion (PA) School District. In an effort to move on with the business of education, the school district settled the lawsuits for $610,000.

Blake Robbins, filed a lawsuit in February claiming that the school district used then 15, charged in an explosive civil-rights lawsuit filed in February that the district used its remote tracking technology to spy on him inside his home. Evidence uncovered in the case showed that he was photographed 400 times, sometimes as he slept.

A second student, Jalil Hassan also filed suit.

Federal prosecutors investigated whether the district broke any criminal wiretap laws, but declined to bring any charges.

The terms of the settlement require $175,000 to be placed in a trust for Robbins and $10,000 for the second student Hassan. Additionally, their lawyer will get $425,000 for his work on the case.

The district's insurance carrier, Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance Company has agreed to pay $1.2 million on behalf of the district toward legal and settlement costs.

The district is no longer using the remote tracking program on the 2300 laptops issued to students.

From Portland, Oregon comes a news story in which a conversation between a student teacher and a fourth grader in his class at Sexton Mountain elementary school, lead to the teacher’s dismissal. The school, in Beaverton School District, says that they do not have any anti gay discrimination occurring in the school.

The incident surrounds student teacher Seth Stambaugh. In a conversation with a fourth grade student, the student teacher was asked about his marital status by the child to which he allegedly replied that it would be illegal for him to get married because if he would, he would choose to marry a man. The student also asked if the student teacher hung out with guys, to which he answered yes. This is an accurate account according to Stambaugh’s attorney.

The student teacher is in the Master of Education program being taught through Lewis and Clark College. He has been student teaching as part of his practicum to getting his degree since the beginning of the school year. Two complaints were filed against the student teacher after the incident occurred.

In a complaint, a father of a student allegedly complained he did not believe the student teacher was dressing appropriately. The teacher was wearing pressed slacks, an oxford style shirt and a cardigan that belonged to his grandfather. That complaint was dismissed by the school itself.

On September 15th, the school district contacted Lewis and Clark to alert them that the student teacher would not be able to return to the school. The student teacher was told nothing more than that his comments were inappropriate. There is no dispute in regards to the facts in the case, but rather if this is an acceptable dismissal.

According to the school district’s spokesperson, Maureen Wheeler, the school district honors diversity and that includes sexual orientation. Although she would not speak about the case in particular, she noted that it was a fourth grader who was 9 years old that the incident revolved around. She also said that this student teacher was just one of some 250 to 350 student teachers who come into the district each year to fulfill this educational requirement.

According to Lewis and Clark, administrators did not follow the usual academic protocols in this case. Problems and “bad fits” between student teachers and districts are common, according to Lewis and Clark. Usually before a move is made, the student teacher, district and college officials discuss what occurred but that did not happen in this case. In this case, the only conversation occurred on Sept 13th, in the evening, with the principal from Sexton Mountain, followed by a series of emails and voicemails the next day. On the 15th, a voicemail stated that the student teacher was no longer allowed back.

According to Stambaugh’s attorney, the sudden change placed the student teacher in jeopardy in regards to his education and career. The student teacher was moved to another school district to complete his practicum.

In a previous post (HERE) we told of a Scranton, PA teenage girl who was suing her school, school district, the county, prosecutors and a detective for illegally searching her cell phone. The search turned up intimate photos of the teen which had never been transmitted to anyone else, or any other cell phone.

The school district has settled the lawsuit without admitting any wrongdoing for $33,000. There is still an active lawsuit against the Wyoming County District Attorney’s Office, which so far has not commented on the suit.

The Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the district attorney could not pursue felony charges against the teenage girl for "sexting".

In a statement released by the Pennsylvania ACLU the teen said "I hope this settlement will lead school officials in the future to consider whether they have valid grounds to search students' private text messages, emails and photos."

The big question remains unanswered. How far can educators go when it comes to fulfilling their obligation to keep sexually explicit images, audio and text from reaching the eyes and ears of minors on school grounds?

Since the case didn’t make it to a federal jury, school districts around the country have a challenge in creating a standard cell phone search or seizure policy that will be acceptable to the courts and privacy groups.

The ACLU recommends that districts adopt cell phone policies that permit educators to seize devices if they disrupt the learning process, but to not search them without express consent from the student or their legal guardian.

In a lawsuit filed in California federal court, the American Civil Liberties Union states that the students are being charged fees that are a violation of the state's constitutional guarantee to free public education. The class action lawsuit is not just from one school, but based on numerous schools throughout the state, including the Temecula Valley Unified School District.

The suit alleges that paying for books, extracurricular activities, uniforms and other fees is not allowed under the state's laws.

In a recent press conference, Mark Rosenbaum who is the chief counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union in Southern California said that some 50 districts within the region have some type of illegal fees mentioned on the school's website, but it is likely that more charge these fees. He stated, "There does not exist in California a true system of free public schools." He continued, "Instead what we have are pay to learn schools."

The spokesperson for Governor Schwarzenegger states that the administration is reviewing the lawsuit to determine if the fees violate a free education within the state. The spokesperson for the Department of Education in the state did not offer a comment about the lawsuit.

In San Diego, a school district rescinded the fees it charged students after the ACLU sent a letter to the school district claiming that the fees were illegally imposed on students.

In the Temecula district, the high school is charged with requiring students to pay fees to take an Advanced Placement exam if the student is enrolled in such a problem. These fees amount to $86 per test. The assistant superintendent states that there is an informal contract that the ACLU is referring to, which is designed to educate students on the demands of such classes, and that the agreement may need to be reworded.

The state's guidelines do allow for some fees, and principals are supposed to follow these guidelines, but the ACLU states that some of these fees may be pushing the limits.

A school district in West Virginia has made the decision to remove all swing sets from school playgrounds. The removal of the playgrounds from all Cabell County elementary schools is the result of a lawsuit in which the district was forced to pay a $20,000 settlement. It was the second lawsuit for the district this year over swing set injuries. The other lawsuit is still pending.

According to the school's safety manager, Tim Stewart, the removal of the swings comes after a child broke his arm after having jumped out of a swing, like "Superman."

The schools are removing the swings to reduce liability. Because of recent changes to national safety standards, it has become difficult for schools to defend against such liability claims.
These newer standards now require a rubber based padding to be added to the bottom of the swing and play area. The school district only had mulch, the previously accepted material, in place. The cost of investing in the padding is too high for the school district, at $7500 per swing set.

Some are concerned that parks in the area will also be pulling up the posts due to the inability to meet these harsher requirements in place.

The school district did say it plans to keep the monkey bars in place, as it can meet with the safety requirements for that play set.

Many school districts across the country are wrestling with the same issue. Even if the rubber based padding is installed there is no guarantee that injuries or lawsuits will stop. Some school districts made this tough choice years ago.

One such example is in Nevada, where the Clark County School District started removing swing sets from elementary schools in 1995.

Continue reading "Lawsuits Causing School Swing Sets to Disappear" »

At Oneida Middle School in Schenectady, New York, a student's rosary was labeled as gang related beads. The item was banned from the student's use. After complaints, the school dropped the ban, but a civil rights lawsuit filed against school officials rages on. The lawsuit continues because the school officials are accused of retaliating against the student for complaining about the ban.

The lawsuit was brought on by the American Center for Law and Justice. The student involved in Raymond Hoisier. The policy change, the American Center for Law and Justice says, is a victory for religious freedom. The policy, the organization stated, was discriminatory against the student's constitutional right of free speech and the free exercise of religion.

The student wore the rosary to school to express his faith and to honor the memories of an uncle and brother who died with the rosary in hand. The lawsuit states that the student is not part of any criminal gang and does not use the rosary as a way of promoting any gang related activities or belongings. The student's lawsuit states that the student did not cause any disruption to the school environment by wearing the rosary.

The lawsuit remains in effect because, allegedly, the school dean came up to the student when the student returned to school and ordered the student to detention. According to the lawsuit, the dean said, "If you want to play the insubordinate game, we can play, too." The school is also charged with writing the child up numerous times following the period after the student filed the complaint than it had in the year prior. The lawsuit claims that the school is trying to portray the student as a troublemaker.

The judge in the case, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Kahn stated that the student was allowed to continue wearing the rosary until the issue was resolved.

The organization also claims that the policy has come into question in other instances as well, including one incident in which the school required a 12 year old girl to remove the red, white and blue beaded necklace she wore as a way to support her family members serving in Iraq. The school, at that time, banished the necklace. That case was settled out of court.

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.

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.

Continue reading "Bible Ban Lawsuit In Florida School District" »

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.

Continue reading "Louisiana School Officials Sued Over Handcuffing Six Year Old" »

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.

Continue reading "Federal Trial Could Answer Question: Is Cheerleading a Sport?" »

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.

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.

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.

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.

Continue reading "Student Sues School After Sexting Incident" »

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.

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.

Continue reading "Student Suspended Over Sexting Sues School" »

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.

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.

Continue reading "ACLU Sues Over Truancy Court Practices" »

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.

Earlier this week Jacob, an openly gay teenager (identified in court documents as “J.L.”) settled his lawsuit against the Mohawk Central School District in upstate New York. The lawsuit was filed last summer claiming the school district did nothing to stop the bullying against Jacob which included throwing him down a flight of stairs.

Under the terms of the settlement filed in federal court, the district agrees to implement changes including additional staff training, to protect students from harassment. The district is also required to report its progress to the American Civil Liberties Union and federal justice officials.

The settlement also calls for the district to pay $50,000 to Jacob's family and to reimburse them for counseling services. The district did not admit to any wrongdoing under the settlement.

Mohawk Central School District superintendent Joyce Caputo said in a prepared statement that district staff would never knowingly discriminate or tolerate bullying and remain committed to fostering a culture of tolerance and respect. "We recognize there is always room to learn and improve - and we intend to do just that," she said.

Additional information on Jacob’s lawsuit may be found in our previous blog posts by clicking HERE and HERE.

Continue reading "UPDATE: Gay Student Resolves Lawsuit Against NY School District " »

Last month we wrote a post about a lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania alleging that school laptop computer cameras were being remotely activated while in students’ homes.

The most recent update in the case is that numerous parents in the school districts named in the lawsuit have filed documents in federal court opposing the lawsuit and asking to intervene.

Parents objecting to the lawsuit state that they are angry about the unauthorized use of webcams in students’ homes, but are more concerned about the financial impact of a class action lawsuit. Approximately 500 parents have signed a petition opposing the lawsuit which is seeking class action status.

One parent, Larry Silver, stated "We see no benefit to the school district or to the students if a large damage award is gained by the plaintiffs. We want a positive resolution to this matter. We want them (school districts) to get back to their educational mission."

Our original post is available HERE.

An extremely detailed (lengthy) account of events leading to the lawsuit is available on Philly.com.

Continue reading "UPDATE: Parents Oppose Webcam Lawsuit Against School District" »

A class action lawsuit filed last month in federal court (San Francisco) states that the law that stops the University of California from using race as a factor when it comes to admissions of students does not meet the requirements of those who are Latinos, blacks or Native Americans. These groups, the lawsuit claims are underrepresented in the school and are unable to seek redress through the school’s governing board.

The pro affirmative action group By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) brought the lawsuit against the school against Proposition 209. That ballot measure was approved in 1996. The allow prohibits anyone from giving preferences to individuals based on race or gender in any type of employment, education or contracting position.

This law has been challenged before, and the California Supreme Court has held it strong. However, the group believes that the new class action lawsuit is ideally suited for the current times stating that the United States Supreme Court has recently provided two rulings that uphold some school desegregation programs. The lead counsel for the group, Shanta Driver, states that since the law was put into place, the number of Latino and black high school graduation rates and United of California rates have dropped.

According to the complaint, The University's Board of Regents has been unable to set admission policies that include ethnicity and race, as well as gender as factors. The complaint states that this positions parents and students at a disadvantage.

President of the school, Mark Yudof has criticized the law in the past and the university’s legal team is looking into the lawsuit, but would not provide a comment about it.

The lawsuit states that Latino, Native Americans and blacks comprise about 25 percent of the freshmen that are enrolled in UC’s nine undergraduate campuses this year. This number is higher than in 1996. However, these minorities comprise a much larger percentage of the public high school graduates from 1996, from 39 percent in 1996 to 48 percent this year. This shows that the minority students are still sharply underrepresented in the school.

In 1997, a three-judge panel upheld the measure. The measure was originally passed by 56 percent of California voters. California is not the only state with these laws, though. Washington, Michigan and Nebraska currently have similar laws. In the state of Texas and in Florida, the legislatures have since banned similar laws that banned the use of race in school admissions within those states.

Continue reading "California Race Based College Admissions Law Challenged" »

According to a claim filed against Lower Merion (suburb of Philadelphia, PA) School District in federal court, the school district used school provided laptop webcams to spy on students in their homes, leaving the families to be potentially caught in compromising positions. The webcams were activated without the students’ or parents’ knowledge.

According to plaintiffs Michael and Holly Robbins, the laptop webcams could have captured students and other members of the family in embarrassing situations, including undressing. After learning of the webcam activations, students such as Tom Halperin, 15, started placing masking tape over the top of the webcam.

Should the allegations be proven, the charges could amount to illegal electronic wiretapping, said Witold J. Walzak, who works for American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, though the union is not involved in the lawsuit. According to Walzak, who is legal director, the school is unable to enter a home electronically, just as police are not able to do so. The lawsuit seeks class action status.

The school spokesman, Doug Young states that the school is committed to the student’s privacy and could not state if the school had the ability to activate the webcams remotely. The school provided each of its 2300 students with the laptops. The city is affluent and prides itself with the technology initiatives it has taken in recent years.

The Robbins family learned of the activation of the webcams after the assistant principal at Harriton High School told the son that school officials believed he engaged in inappropriate behavior at home, though the lawsuit did not specifically state what that behavior was. There is evidence in the school’s use as a photograph taken from the webcam was made available to the student as evidence of his behavior at home. The assistant principal, Lindy Matsko confirmed to the father that the school did have the ability to activate the cameras remotely, alleges the lawsuit.

District officials confirmed that they remotely activated webcams to locate more than 40 missing laptops without notifying students or parents. Lawyers have repeatedly requested all the photographs and screenshots the district obtained.

There is precedence in similar cases, though nothing exactly the same. In 2001, the United States Supreme Court ruled that police could not permeate a home with infrared lights to determine if there were heat lamps in place to grow marijuana. Technology is unable to cross the line of a person’s home, as it violates the individual’s privacy.

Continue reading "Students Claim Laptop Cameras Spy on Families" »

In a ruling out of Pembroke Pines, Florida, a student who posted a message on her Facebook page complaining about her teacher was allowed to do so, as she was exercising her freedom of speech. Federal Magistrate Judge Barry Garber ruled that the student’s First Amendment rights allowed the student to post negative comments about her teacher.

"Evans' speech falls under the wide umbrella of protected speech," Garber wrote. "It was an opinion of a student about a teacher, that was published off-campus, did not cause any disruption on-campus, and was not lewd, vulgar, threatening, or advocating illegal or dangerous behavior."

The student, Katherine Evans, has filed a lawsuit against the principal of the school who suspended her. However, most important in the case is that the ruling by the judge sets new precedent in such cases in which the Internet and freedom of speech have yet to be defined. Around the country, courts are still trying to work out how social networking websites such as Facebook and free speech limitations interact with each other.

The Florida ACLU filed the lawsuit on the behalf of Evans. The ACLU states that it hoped that this case would do just what it has; set precedent in free speech laws for the Internet and other forms of communication.

Evans posted a message on the Facebook page staying that the teacher was “the worst teacher I’ve ever met.” However, when other students saw the message, they did not react favorably. Rather, other teachers and students defended the teacher. Evans later removed the message from the page. The principal learned of the message, then suspended Evans from the student’s Advanced Placement classes, and instead placed the student in less prestigious classes. Principal Peter Bayer also suspended the student for three days.

In 2008, Evans filed a lawsuit against the principal in the case in the hopes of having the suspension ruled unconstitutional and to have it removed from her record. As an honor student, she did not want her record tarnished. However, the principal tried to get the case dismissed and asked for immunity in the case.

The ruling by Magistrate Judge Barry Garber declined the motion to toss out the case and said that the principal may be forced to pay damages and attorney's fees if found guilty of violating the student’s rights.

Of particular concern was the fact that it was two months after Evans removed the Facebook message about the teacher that the principal decided to punish the student. The lawsuit is not yet settled and will head back to court.

In a related note, The US Supreme Court previously ruled to uphold a California Law which gives students even more Freedom of Expression rights. You may read our blog post about that case by clicking HERE.

In Dalton, Georgia, the parents of a junior who was enrolled in Murray County High School are suing the school system claiming that the school's inability to protect the child from bullying lead to the child committing suicide. The child committed suicide on Oct 17, 2009. They have filed the suit in federal court this week.

Also named in the lawsuit is the principal of the school, Gina Linder, whom the parents believe did not do enough to protect Tyler Long, who died after what his parents call a "particularly painful week of bullying at the high school." Long had Asperger's syndrome, which is a type of social anxiety disorder within the area of autism. The parents believe that the school's inability to protect the child was a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Vocational Rehabilitation Act.

According to Stan Hawkins, who represents the school district, the case has no merit. In a statement, he states that the school system is not responsible for the child taking his life. Hawkins is one of several attorneys working on behalf of the school system.

A statement released from the parent's law firm, W. Winston Briggs Law Firm states, in part that the school's administrators and employees "exhibited deliberate indifference" towards protecting the child. The statement says that the school and principal knew of the child's disability and did not do anything to protect the child from the bullying. The law firm also states that the principal knew of the bullying. The parents filed the suit in an effort to hold someone accountable for their child's death and to ensure it does not happen to someone else.

Although the case has been filed in federal court, there is likely to be a significant discovery period prior to the case going to trial. The school system has 20 days to respond to the allegations. The lawsuit is seeking punitive damages, including payment for court costs and attorney fees.

Continue reading "High School Suicide Victim's Parents Sue School" »

The San Francisco school system is in for major changes in the way that students are placed in elementary and middle schools. School officials are now planning to send students to those schools closer to their homes, rather than basing the choice of school on socioeconomic class or home language, something it has used for years.

The Board of Education of the San Francisco Unified School District met to discuss possible options. Staff presented a number of options including those that would use academic performances and the student's home location to determine where the student went to school. Board recommendations are still being submitted and a final vote is scheduled for March 3 on all the options available.

Options include:

Parent Selection
One of the options presented is to allow parents to select the school that the child attends, up until the school is full. At that time, all names of remaining students would be placed in a lottery system to determine which school the child will attend. However, the difference here is that the lottery would also take into consideration academic performance of the student to get an aggregate of low to high performing students in each school. In addition, such a lottery system would also factor in the location of the student's home.

Closest to Home
Another option is to simply send the children to the school that is closest to their home. Parents could still make a choice in which school to send their child, but they would be allowed to choose other schools outside of their closest school only if there was availability at that school. This makes the school assignment far more predictable.

Racial Diversity
The goal of the school board, however, is to create more racial diversity within their schools. Neither of the thus far proposed options offers any type of benefit to racial diversity. The school officials are hoping to find another solution that will give them more ability to reduce the number of racially isolated schools in the community.

Complexity
The Parent Advisory Council and Parents for Public Schools both came together to talk about the school assignment system. These groups will not support any system that takes the parent’s right to choose a school. The group believes that if the school district ensured that all schools offered the same benefits that people would not care as much about their child's assignments.

A history of the San Francisco Unified School District's school assignment system may be found by clicking on the following link:

Continue reading "San Francisco District Shake Up of School Assignments Starts" »

The United States Justice Department has intervened in the civil case between a former student and his school. The school, Gregory B Jarvis Junior Senior High School, part of the Mohawk Central School District, is accused of failing to stop students and teachers from bullying a 14 year old, openly gay student named Jacob. The claims are that the bullying centered around the child's sexual orientation. See previous post HERE.

The student was often the subject of verbal and physical harassment, the lawsuit states, because he was openly gay. In 2009, the student began to dye his hair and wear eye makeup, which intensified the bullying to the point of being pushed down the stairs. The parents of the student claim that the school did nothing to stop the bullying.

However, the fact that the Justice Department is involved in the case signals that there may be a broader interpretation of the federal law that prohibits gender discrimination, which in this case is being applied to the gay male. The New York Civil Liberties Union attorney states that this involvement shows a major shift under the Obama Administration.

The basis for joining the lawsuit, the government says, is Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case is being heard in US District Court in the Northern District of New York. The teen's attorney states that the case is a fight for basic human rights afforded under the US Constitution. It commends the Justice Department for its involvement in the case.

The lawsuit seeks undisclosed monetary damages. With the joining of the Justice Department, this helps provide district wide relief for all district students in the future. The assistant attorney general in Washington authorized the involvement of the Justice Department by stating that it was a matter of general public importance.

The student is no longer in the Mohawk district but attends school in a neighboring district. The school district claims it is close to a settlement with the student, but further comments were not available. The Justice Department has interviewed numerous Mohawk school officials including Superintendent Joyce Caputo.

Continue reading "U.S. Justice Department Joins Gay Teen's Lawsuit" »

The California Science Center in Los Angeles canceled its screening of the documentary, "Darwin's Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record." The documentary promotes the theory of intelligent design rather than the theory of evolution for the creation of human beings. The documentary specifically criticizes Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. Moreover, because of this cancelation, the museum is being sued.

The American Freedom Alliance says it has no position on intelligent design but does say that the filing of the lawsuit against the science center is necessary since the center is stifling debate on the topic by canceling it. The organization brought the lawsuit against the California Science Center in October, in Los Angeles Superior Court.

The science center was set to show the program in October of 2009. However, it pulls it after being pressured to do so by the Smithsonian and other scientific academies.

This is not the first time that this topic has come up in a court of law. In 2005, for example, the case of Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District resulted in a federal judge issuing a ruling that public school classes cannot present intelligent design as an argument for the creation of humans because it is a form of Creationism. It also occurred in 2005, when The Smithsonian approved auditorium space in its National Museum of Natural History to screen another intelligent design type of documentary. The scientific community opposed this, but The Smithsonian was unable to back out of the previously signed contract. It did refund the rental fee for the space and publically stated it was not endorsing the screening of the documentary.

The pretrial hearing in this case is scheduled for January 26th, 2010. The American Freedom Alliance claims that the cancelation of the screening was done under a false pretext and therefore that the science center committed contract fraud. It is seeking punitive damages.

In a move that has already stirred up tremendous controversy, Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons has released his plans for reforming Nevada's Public Education System. Some have even called it an attempt to eliminate Teachers' Unions.

Here is the press release:

For Immediate Release: January 6, 2010

GIBBONS EDUCATION REFORM PROPOSAL

Governor Gibbons is firmly committed to improving K-12 education in Nevada. Improvement will require new ideas and fresh resolve to replace blind allegiance to ineffectual and wasteful notions that have demonstrated no substantive gains in academic performance for the last 20 years.

Class size reduction was added to the Nevada Revised Statutes in 1989. According to the Nevada Department of Education, 613 schools served K-12 students during Fiscal Year 2009. Despite 20 years funding class size reduction, the Department recently announced 142 public schools in Nevada qualify as low-performing for the purposes of receiving federal grants for the “worst” schools in the nation. That means 23 percent of our public schools are not adequately addressing the educational needs of their students.

It’s time to stop whining that education in Nevada doesn’t work because of lack of funding. We need to quit throwing money at programs which have not accomplished their stated purposes despite two decades of funding. There are many studies which debate the issue of class size in primary grades, as many pro as con. Utah has one of the lowest per student expenditures in the nation and the highest student per teacher ratio. Utah students consistently achieve above average levels. Washington, D.C. has the lowest student per teacher ratio and the highest per student expenditures, and yet they consistently rank in the bottom for student achievement. If class size reduction is the answer for improving K-12 in Nevada, why haven’t student test scores improved dramatically in the last 20 years?

In order to improve Nevada schools for our students, we need to implement true change - real change. We need to get parents and communities involved in their local schools, and in charge of their children’s education. We need to empower local school boards to make decisions which are right for the children in their community. Local school boards are ultimately responsible to parents and voters in their community. Parents have the most vested interest in the outcome of their children’s education.

The cookie cutter approach has not worked in K-12 education. Not all schools need class size reduction programs. Not all schools need full-day kindergarten. School districts must be empowered to choose the right programs for the students in each of their local schools. Parents must be afforded the ability to choose and guide the education which works for their children.

The current fiscal crisis facing Nevada mandates that Governor Gibbons buck the status quo. If 23 percent of Nevada schools are categorized as underachieving, we need to rethink how we deliver public education in Nevada. We need to make better use of existing resources, and give local school districts the flexibility to use funding to deliver the right programs to the right kids to achieve the best results.

Governor Gibbons will call a special session of the Nevada Legislature to address the fiscal crisis facing the state of Nevada. In this session, Governor Gibbons will introduce a K-12 education reform package which will not only save Nevada taxpayer dollars, but will better utilize existing taxpayer support for schools by empowering local school districts to govern and direct how education is delivered.

Governor Gibbons’ education reform package includes:

Continue reading "Nevada Governor Releases Sweeping K-12 Reform Plans" »

The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) is being sued by the union that represents teachers within that school system. The lawsuit, filed on December 28, 2009 claims that the school district failed to comply with state requirements before converting a school to a charter campus.

According to teachers, the California Education Code requires the approval of a majority of permanent teachers before schools can be turned into charter schools. In a news conference held at Garfield High School, the teachers claimed that schools like Garfield and Esteban Torres High School fall into this category.

The lawsuit specifically wants the LAUSD to comply with the Education Code, and hopes a court order will force this to happen.

The plaintiffs in the case are UTLA, and LAUSD teachers from Garfield High School, 28th Street Elementary School, Foshay Learning Center and Pio Pico Span School.

While Esteban Torres High School (charter) should relieve some of the overcrowding from the nearby (non charter) Garfield High School, LAUSD’s position is that a vote of the teachers was not required since Esteban Torres High School is a brand new school, and not a conversion of an existing school.

The two high schools, Garfield and Torres are part of the 36 new and existing schools in the Public School Choice Resolution passed by the Board of Education for the 2010 and 2011 school year. This plan allows for operations of the school to be put out to bid by third parties. The goal of the program is to help provide options for the operation of schools considered low performing campuses. Monica Garcia, who is the president of the LAUSD Board of Education, says that no schools will automatically be converted to charters as a result of the program.

This lawsuit is expected to be just the first in a series that will be filed by the UTLA in opposition to the LAUSD's plans to reform. It is also important to note that charter schools are not required to hire union teachers.

Continue reading "Teachers Union Sues Los Angeles Unified School District" »

Here in Los Angeles, a woman who is legally blind is suing the National Conference of Bar Examiners because she believes they are unfairly restricting her from using necessary equipment to take the licensing test. The woman, Stephanie Enyart says that the agency needs to catch up with better, currently available options for its standardized testing.

When she entered law school, the Law School Admissions Test was required. UCLA, the school she was testing into, hired a human reader to read the test questions for her. The problems happened on test day. She says that the man hired was so sick that he continued to leave to get tea and blew his nose. She had a hard time understanding him through his nasally congestion, too. However, she passed the test and entered law school. She believes her score suffered because she was denied the use of a computer software program that would magnify the text of the test and convert it to speech heard through an ear bud.

The National Conference of Bar Examiners has denied her request to use a computer program to take a portion of the California bar exam that it controls. Rather, it says she must use a human reader instead.

Due to this, she has sued the national conference. She claims that the conference violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act that prohibit discrimination.

Enyart says, as reported by the LA Times, "To use a human reader or the visual accommodations they have offered just simply doesn't meet my disability needs. It would be like trying to run a race in someone else's shoes."

Mr. Enyart is not the only person who wants the national conference to catch up. A man named Michael Witwer, who will graduate from Catholic University of American's law school this year took another required test, the Multistate Professionals Responsibility Exam recently and passed though with a score he believes was reduced because he was unable to use computer programs during the test. Rather, a human reader was imposed by the administrator of the test.

He says that the reader commented on big words in the questions and struggled with pronunciation including struggling with the word constitutional.

However, there is some improvement seen within the industry. The National Conference of Bar Examiners has allowed three blind test takers to take the test in July using a pilot program that allows software to read the text aloud to the user. This was reported through Larry Paradis, an attorney who is part of the firm representing Enyart in her lawsuit. The pilot's internal report says that the pilot program has been successful. However, the program is unable to be used at this point, and will not be available in February when Enyart will take her test.

There are about 500 blind or vision impaired lawyers in practice in the United States. Most use equipment similar to what Enyart wants to use within their day-to-day practices.

University of California Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco refuses to recognize, and thereby help fund, a Christian group of students because they exclude non-Christians, lesbians and gays. The U. S. Supreme Court will determine if that is legal.

The U.S. Supreme Court, which chooses not to hear most submitted cases, has decided to hear this one as it will likely affect public universities around the country. The battle is not a new one. Conservative Christian groups believe these limitations violate their constitutional rights. They are being forced, they say, to tolerate views that violate their religious beliefs.

Christian Legal Society filed a lawsuit against the school in October of 2004. This group limits those who may join the society based on one clear statement. The student is unable to join if he or she "advocates or unrepentantly engages in sexual conduct outside of marriage between a man and a woman." The group's members must sign documentation stating they are committed evangelical Protestant or Catholics.

The school enforced its policy on barring discrimination based on race, national origin, sexual orientation or religion and refused the society. The group then took the matter to federal courts. U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White then ruled that the school was justified in its refusal and said the school could require that organizations "accept all comers as members." This was later upheld in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

However, the group appealed to the Supreme Court. Their opinion is that the school is forcing the society to abandon their identity or shut down the society altogether.

The answers to these concerns will not come soon. The case is likely to be heard in March of 2010 and a ruling may come down by June.

The argument that the society is making is that if all members had to be accepted, this would restrict the progress of the group since valuable time would be repeatedly spent discussing the fundamentals of members’ various religious beliefs. The school, however, believes the issue is whether or not universities and other public schools should subsidize discriminatory groups.

Other cases like this have been heard. In 2007, a lawsuit by Christian Legal Society against Southern Illinois University was settled in which the school said it would recognize the group. More so, the Boy Scouts of American was upheld in its decision to exclude gays and atheists from its membership roles, as a private organization's right to free association. However, the California Supreme Court upheld another incident with the Boy Scouts in 2006 in which Berkeley denied a rent subsidy to the Sea Scouts, a Boy Scout Subsidiary.

Continue reading "Can UC Hastings College of the Law Refuse Christian Student Group Based On Group's Beliefs?" »

A teacher from Dayton found not guilty of charges of having sex with a 16-year-old student is now suing the prosecutor who brought the charges. The teacher, Nicole Howell, and her attorney, Eric Deters, filed the claim in U.S. District Court against Rob Sanders, Kenton Commonwealth's attorney. Sanders released a statement saying that the lawsuit was baseless and without merit.

Sanders commented that he was simply another high profile person to be sued by Deters, a reference to the Deters suits against the New England Patriots and Chad Ochocinco. In addition, he commented on Deters radio career saying Deters was "a publicity seeking radio personality with a law license."

Under law, a prosecutor cannot be sued as they have immunity. However, Deters claims that the actions prior to the charges being filed are not included in that immunity. Although Sanders says that a judge determined there was probable cause to arrest Howell, Deters argues that "when a prosecutor violated the public trust, those destroyed in the wake of the abuse of power deserve their remedy."

In the state of Kentucky, only a judge can issue an arrest warrant. Kenton Circuit Judge Gregory Bartlett determined there was probable cause and sent the case on to the grand jury, where 12 members found that there was sufficient evidence to send the case on further, to the jury.

It took juries only 70 minutes to find Howell not guilty of first degree sexual abuse. Howell says she is suing the attorney because she doesn't want someone else to face the same level of wrongful prosecution. She claims her reputation and her teaching career are over due to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit claims that Howell's previous attorney, Patrick Moeves, was told by Sanders that he did not care about the privately administered polygraph test that Howell passed. He wanted her arrested. Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Stephanie Kastner made statements to Moeves that she did not want any part of the case, however had to act as Sanders requested. Moreover, it claims that Sanders knew numerous facts that would dispute the minor’s claims. These facts include the polygraph test passage, the minor being unable to identify a tattoo on Howell's back, rumors about the incident at school, and that the minor denied the rumors first before going forward.

Sanders, however, says that the minor did describe the layout of Howells apartment and could describe details of that apartment.

Interestingly, Howell's case was the first prosecuted under a more-stringent state law that makes it a felony for a person in authority to have even consensual sexual relations with someone under 18. In all other instances in Kentucky, the age of consent is considered to be 16.

A recent Associated Press article reveals that every lawsuit filed or threatened under a specific California law can trace back to two lawyers who worked together in the writing of that statute. The statute is in regards to electing more minorities to office. So far, there have been about $4.3 million in settlements made under this law.

Under this law, lawyers are able to sue and win judgments easier in cases from claims that minorities were shut out of local elections. In addition, the lawsuit shields attorneys from any type of liability if the claims are tossed out of court.

Seattle law professor Joaquin Avila drafted the law. Robert Rubin, a legal director for the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights offered advice for the drafting. Both, along with other attorneys working alongside these two, have been able to bill local governments more than $4.3 million in three cases that have settled. There are two additional lawsuits pending. More so, dozens of additional cities and school boards received warning that they too could be sued under the California Voting Rights Act of 2002. Each of these cases has been initiated by Rubin's committee or by Avila.

Although it may seem unjust, there is nothing illegal occurring when an attorney profits from a law they helped to author and state lawmakers approved. What is unique in this situation is that after seven years, related legal efforts continue to be extremely narrow in focus. Avila testified in 2002 that he expected other attorneys would take on cases due to these favorable incentives placed into the law.

According to Avila and Rubin, their roles should not overshadow the importance of these cases, as they work to end injustice at the polls. The number of minority officeholders was on the rise prior to the law being in place, and these two claim the lawyers are using the statute to shake down local governments.

Under the law, state courts may create smaller election districts that favor minority candidates. This was necessary, they claim, because the more commonly used "at large" elections allowed candidates to run across the entire district. Avila says this method leads to discrimination since the majority group will win out.

According to several communities in California, there are no complaints about voter discrimination until these attorneys stepped forward. Critics say the law is flawed. They believe that even when there is no discrimination, cash strapped communities are nearly forced to settle the lawsuit.

Many believe that the law and the settlements do nothing to improve the discrimination. Avila, who charges $725 an hour for services, would not disclose his earnings from the lawsuit. Rubin earns $700 an hour. In some school districts, the cost of such settlements is resulting in the inability of schools to provide textbooks to students.

With the ever-changing rules on being equal, questions are arising questioning whether it is appropriate for boys to wear girls clothing. Most schools have dress codes, such as girls having a proper length skirt. However, what if a boy was wearing the skirt, if it was the proper length, could he?

Cross-dressing teens are testing the boundaries around the country. For example, in Houston, a senior was sent home because his hair violated the length rules, which stated that the hair could be no longer than the bottom of a regular shirt collar. In Cobb County, Georgia, a school sent a boy home because he wore makeup, wigs and skinny jeans. Another case occurred in August in Mississippi, in which a senior’s photo was banned from the yearbook because she was wearing a tuxedo.

This is not the story everywhere, though. For example, in a Tucson high school, a freshmen girl who identifies as a male was nominated as the homecoming prince. A gay male student in Los Angeles was crowned prom queen.

Schools and the public are changing viewpoints on these types of scenarios. In many cases, the adults become the police of the dress code, and follow cultural trends. In some cases, younger generations are simply more willing to accept such changes.

Schools regularly ban things that may be gang or sex related, or promotes drug use. However, when schools try to put in place codes that limit expression of sexual orientation of gender variance, the schools are forced to consider antidiscrimination policies.

Schools will eventually need to take these matters head on with more than 4000 gay and straight alliance clubs in high schools around the country. Even elementary schools are seeing these topics come up. In some high schools, educators are stating that schools should not be the public stage for working out private identity issues. Rather, high schools are supposed to be places for academic and social training. Administrators often rely on the dress code to help keep structure in the day. Cross dressing students cause disruptions, which is counterproductive to the instructional day.

In other schools, such as those in Pima County, Arizona where anti discrimination policies have been put in place, it is not uncommon to see boys wearing makeup and girl clothing, nor is it uncommon to see girls wearing big t-shirts and basketball shorts.

At the same time, educators have to take into consideration the student’s overall safety. If a child comes to school wearing clothes of another gender, and that child is harassed, it is up to the educators to help protect the student. That is not always easy. Even using the bathroom as a transgender student can be incredibly worrisome. Defining this fine line is something that schools across the country will need to do.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana has filed a lawsuit on behalf of two students who were suspended from athletic activities after their principal found sexually suggestive photos from a slumber party. In the lawsuit, the ACLU claims that Smith Green Community School Corporation and the Churubusco High School Principal, Mr. Austin Couch violated the students' rights by suspending them for out of school activities. The photos were posted to the student's MySpace pages.

According to the lawsuit documentation, the pictures were taken during a slumber party that occurred during the summer months. The students took photos of themselves kissing and licking a novelty lollipop and pictures of themselves wearing lingerie with dollar bills stuck within the clothing. There was no identification with the photos suggesting that the students attended the high school. The lawsuit states that the students were being humorous and that the actions were "irrelevant" to school functions.

After someone accessed, copied and supplied the photos to the principal, the principal suspended the students from all extracurricular activities for the school year. After parents spoke to the principal, the principal agreed to reduce their suspensions if the students attended several counseling sessions and apologized to the athletic board.

Although the school and principal stated they are unable to comment, they did release a statement stating that the pictures "caused a disruption within our athletic teams at the beginning of this year's sessions." The school states the students did not meet extracurricular expectations.

While the parents appealed the ruling, the students attended the counseling sessions so they could participate in fall activities. They also apologized for their behavior in front of the all male athletic board. The ACLU states that this was humiliating and embarrassing.

The ACLU states that this is only one case, out of many similar cases playing out across the country. The organization claims that private moments like these should stay there and out of school administrator's hands.

The school uses a code of conduct that states that the principal "may exclude any student athlete from representing Churubusco High School if his/her conduct in or out of school reflects discredit upon Churubusco High School or the IHSAA or creates a disruptive influence on the discipline, good order, moral or educational environment at Churubusco High School."

The ACLU is hoping to classify the case as a class action suit, since many parents could be part of it. The lawsuit asks for the district to no longer be allowed to punish students for such behaviors and asks that the incident be expunged from the two student's records.

Continue reading "ACLU Files Lawsuit Over Slumber Party Photos" »

In Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia, the events occurring on September 11th spurred the public high school cheerleaders to focus on the Bible. They constructed catchy banners with inspirational messages on them and allowed the players to charge through them onto the field before each game. That all ended in September of 2009.

A parent expressed concern that the Biblical phrases may be a breach of the First Amendment rights of church and state separation. The parent was concerned that there may be a lawsuit should the school continue to allow these signs to be placed on the football field. The school board agreed and banned the banners from games.

The barring of the banners did not have a good reception but now, students and fans are filling the stadium with their own banners, filled with Biblical phrases. The town is small, with about 9,600 students in it. The town, including students, took the cause to heart. They call themselves the Warriors for Christ, a play on the school's team name, the Warriors
.
Over the course of the last few months, the group has sold more than 1600 t-shirts bearing a variety of Biblical phrases on them as well as statement such as "You Can't Silence Us" and "Living Faith Outloud."

In federal courts, the rulings have allowed public school students to promote their faith but they may not do so in school-sponsored clubs. Cheerleaders would be considered school sponsored. The woman who brought the attention on the signs, Donna Jackson, says she wanted to protect the school from possible litigation.

The separation of church and state has always been a hazy line, especially in the south where religion is on display that is more prominent. Those in this city are definitely committed. More than 16,000 people have joined a Facebook group favoring the signs to be in use in the game while only 77 have joined a group in favor of the banning.

Although many do favor allowing, the banners to be in use in the game most have stopped pushing the school board to change its mind. Simply, they know that if a lawsuit did come against the board, this already cash strapped county could be in further trouble.

Continue reading "Biblical Signs, Football Fields and Facebook" »

A mother out of Montana's North middle School in Great Falls claims that two teacher's aides severely abused the special needs children in her care. Five families have come forward to make the claims, with one mother describing the abuse of her autistic child as being "waterboarding like torture."

The teacher's aides, Kristina Marie Kallies and Julie Parish have resigned and charged with assault on a minor and endangering the welfare of children. Kallies has not been located by police and Parish has appeared in court and was released on bond. The teachers resigned after the allegations were made, although both teacher's aides claim they are false allegations.

The children involved were special education students in grades seven and eight. The mother, Tiffonie Schilling said that the aide allegedly held the child's head under a water faucet when he dozed off in class. The boy was 14 at the time. She says, "He was having waterboarding like torture done to him on a frequent basis." Another claim is that the teacher made her son, Garrett, "eat his own vomit." The child is not vocal and could not defend himself.

Ms. Schilling is not alone in her allegations. Other parents complained of including one female child being hit in the head with a pan and a male child that was locked in a closet.

A full investigation and independent probe is likely to occur by the state attorney general, although the school has conducted a full investigation and are working with police.

In Oahu, Maui and the Big Island, there are nine families fighting to keep school open for special education and other needs even though the state plans to close them for the day. Two lawsuits are currently pending on behalf of these students in an effort to keep public schools open even though the state had plans to furlough teachers on 17 Fridays over the next few months.

The parents filing the lawsuits want to keep their children in school and around their classmates during these furlough days and hope to have their case heard by Judge David Ezra in the U.S. District Court. They are hoping to get a temporary injunction in place. This lawsuit states that the state has "violated the procedural safeguards" in place through the federal law that protect and prohibit unilateral modifications for any type of special education and related services.

Another lawsuit, filed by attorney Eric A. Seitz is also scheduled to be heard and is on behalf of regular, special education and charter school students in the state. The lawsuits state that Hawaii is breaking the state's obligation to provide 180 days of education, five days per week to Hawaii students. The class action lawsuit, on behalf of all students in the state, states that the furloughs disproportionately affect some racial groups and certain classes specifically.

Although the state's Department of Education claims that they have yet to see the lawsuit, Attorney General Mark Bennett believes the lawsuits are without merit. The state Board of Education has welcomed the lawsuits because their goal is to restore educational days to the students. Through the publicity from such an action, the school board hopes that this will force the governor and the Legislature to find the necessary funding.

The new contract signed by the state Department of Education and the Hawaii State Teachers Association requires there to be 17 furlough days in the current school year and the coming school year. The amount of money these days would save has yet to be noted, however the goal is the cost savings to be put towards the $127 million cut that the department is facing after the state's budget shortfall.

Continue reading "Lawsuits May Keep Hawaii School In Session Despite Furlough Days" »

An Indianapolis teacher is accused of giving a child a peanut filled candy bar. The child's mother claims the teacher was trying to make her son sick so that he could not go on a field trip with the class. The boy is eight years old and is autistic. He is mostly nonverbal and experiences swelling by just touching peanuts.

The mother, Anita Young, has filed a lawsuit against the teacher, claiming that the special education teacher, Trinda Barocas, told an aide that the boy was likely to misbehave on the field trip and said that, "maybe he could be sick enough not to attend and we won't have to deal with it" the lawsuit states. The mother claims that the teacher knew how severe the child's allergy was. She says the child was frustrated and angry, and would fight with her about going to school, during the time of alleged abuse. The child is now in a different school and the mother claims the child is doing much better and is happy to be at school.

Officials from the school contacted the mother after aides reported that the teacher has mistreated the boy and another boy. The school is Mary Bryan Elementary School in Indianapolis.

The Department of Education and Marion County prosecutors are investigating the case. Barocas no longer works for the schools and her lawyer did not provide any feedback to the Associated Press regarding the case. The teacher told investigators that the allegations are false and that she did not try to prevent the boy from going on the field trip.

In the lawsuit, there are claims that the teacher kept the boy in a small cubicle, meant to be used for short periods. Specifically, the lawsuit states that the teacher treated the boy as a "caged animal." The teacher is also accused of pinching the boy, standing on his foot and grabbing him by the arm to drag him. The mother wants criminal charges filed.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and says that the teacher and school officials should have known of the abuse and that they failed in their obligation to protect the child. The school district claims that they filed a report with Child Protection Services as soon as they learned of the allegations and that the teacher was on administrative leave with pay three days later. She had told the school a month earlier that she would resign at the end of the school year, for reasons unrelated to the allegations. She was employed with the district since August 2008.

The Indiana Department of Child Services reviewed the complaints and found that the teacher did not want the boy to attend the field trip. The boy did attend and "did many things that he was not allowed to do." The teacher compared the child to an "18 month old" several times.

In addition to these allegations, the teacher is also accused of hitting a nine-year-old girl with Down syndrome on the lips. The teacher claims she tapped the child's lips with two fingers as a physical prompt, not to abuse the child. Another allegation stems back to 2007 when Barocas was working in Franklin Community Schools. A mother claims she saw the teacher force feed her child, slap her and restrain her improperly. The teacher stated, "I did not, will not and would not hurt a child in my care."

Continue reading "Teacher Accused of Intentionally Sickening Autistic Boy" »

The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the case, Barr V. LaFon, without comment. The lawsuit was brought on by a group of high school students in Tennessee who lost a battle with their school administrators who would not allow them to wear t-shirts to school that displayed the Confederate flag. The students' attorney tried to push the case further, though the Supreme Court declined the case.

In 2005, the school put in place a policy that banned images of the Confederate Flag at the school, William Blount High School, located in Maryville. The ban was put in place after heightened racial tension occurred at the school, after an altercation between an African American and a white student occurred. The school had racist graffiti appearing on walls and even one incident in which a noose was drawn next to the Confederate flag.

From August 2005 through March of 2006, the school had 23 incidents of dress code violation in which the Confederate flag was displayed. The students claim that the policy infringes on their rights to express their Southern heritage. The students who filed the lawsuit are Derek Barr, Chris White and Roger Craig White.

The federal judge who first heard the case agreed with the school administration. The administration claims they were simply trying to prevent disruption to the educational process by issuing the policy, especially in light of the racial tension within the school. Alvin Hord, the Director of Blount County Schools, states he did not ban the flag as a racist symbol.

With the U.S. Supreme Court declining to hear the case, this leaves in place the lower court's August 2008 ruling that upholds the school's policy. The appeals court states that the school officials could reasonably forecast that the image of the flag could "substantially and materially disrupt the school environment."

Continue reading "Supreme Court Says No To Confederate Flag T-shirt Lawsuit" »

On September 1, 2009, the ACLU filed suit against the Desoto County, Mississippi school district. The ACLU believes that the student had his civil rights violated while he was at school. The reason for this is because of a simple device that many students in high school and junior high school now carry…a cell phone.

The student, Richard, had his phone confiscated while he was at school. The punishment for using the phone while in school carries the penalty of having your parents come to get the phone and having to pay a fine for its return. The problem was that the school district office personnel went too far and started to go through the phone. While going through the phone and checking all of the intimate details that were on the phone the staff stumbled upon something that they felt posed a threat.

The item that the personnel came across was a picture of Richard holding a BB gun and posing with it in his bathroom. The staff felt as though it had bad implications and that they had the need to turn the phone over to the police. The local police force then came to the conclusion that the picture on the phone indicated gang involvement by the honor student. The problem was that neither the police, nor the staff of the school had the right to go through the phone or anything that was on it.

This is what got the ACLU involved. Because not only did the student receive a three day suspension because of the personal picture on his camera, but he ended up being removed from school for the remainder of the year.

The lawsuit is claiming that the student has rights even when in school and has been filed against the principal, football coach, police and the city as well. The hope of this case is to aid in the preservation of the rights of the students to allow for the privacy and the chance of the students to not feel as though they are in a prison environment while they are there.

A school district is trying to move past an incident in which a teacher is accused of burning an image of a cross into the arm of an eighth grade student by settling the lawsuit his family filed. The case, out of Mount Vernon, Ohio, was settled by $121,000 settlement that the family agreed to. The child has not been identified and is identified only as James Doe.

In the agreement with the Mount Vernon school board, the family will be awarded $5,500 and the attorneys for the family would be awarded the rest, some $115,500. The settlement award, which was approved by the school board on Wednesday, August 26th, 2009, prevents the lawsuit from going to trial, which it was scheduled to do in May.

Another lawsuit is still pending against the same teacher, a man named John Freshwater. After an internal investigation was done on Mr. Freshwater, the school district voted to have him removed. The investigation found that he had preached his Christian beliefs to the students and that he had in fact used a high frequency generator to burn the student. The cross burned into the boy lasted for several weeks. Freshwater has in return filed his own lawsuit against the Mount Vernon school district. He claims that the firing was a violation of his free speech rights and his civil rights.

The lawsuit has been highly controversial in the area, and because of this, the family is currently moving out of the Mount Vernon school district, into a new district.

The entire incident has left the school district battling for funds. The ongoing hearing has lasted more than a year and has cost $300,000.

At a board meeting, after Mr. Freshwater was fired, he made a statement saying he never branded or burned any student. More than a dozen teachers have testified on behalf of Freshwater saying they never heard any complaints from his students. Two science teachers also testified saying that the same scientific device was used on students to demonstrate electrical current. Mr. Freshwater's case is still pending.

Continue reading "Cross Burned Student Settles Lawsuit With School District" »

A 14-year-old gay student who is attending the Gregory B. Jarvis Junior, Senior High School in Herkimer, New York, has worked out an agreement with the school to ensure that administrators provide him with protection. The student has filed a lawsuit against the school district and the administrators for failing to provide him with adequate protection in the past. This is according to the New York Civil Liberties Union.

The lawsuit alleges that the student has been relentlessly abused through verbal and physical abuse, which reached even higher levels when another student brought a knife to school and made a death threat to the student during the final quarter of the school year.

A federal judge is requiring the Mohawk Central School District, to provide emergency relief to the student's need for safety within the school district. The lawsuit is still ongoing, and this measure to provide emergency relief does not in any way stop the pending suit. The lawsuit is seeking punitive damages to be paid by the school district as well as changes to the schools anti harassment policies.

According to the school district, many of the demanded safety changes requested by the student and federal judge were already being provided the following year and were being done so because they were warranted.

The specific safety measures being put in place are not being fully disclosed. There were exceptions to some school policies such as allowing the student to keep his cell phone on him to call home if there was a reason to feel unsafe. There was also a safe room established for the student to use if he felt threatened. The student claims that at least ten times he was forbidden from texting his father and two times from using the safe room when he felt threatened, last year.

The lawsuit charges that the school district failed to provide adequate measures for the student's needs, and that the school district failed to provide proper investigation of the harassment, and failed to discipline students or inform parents of their rights to fight complaints.

Continue reading "New York School District To Protect Gay Student" »

A cell phone video depicts the scene of an eleven-year-old autistic boy being struck by a teacher. The child’s mother has filed a lawsuit against the Pittsburgh Public Schools because of the slap, and other allegations of assault on the boy.

The teacher, Lori Davis, was fired from her job by the school district because of the incident at Conroy School, located in Manchester. The video, posted on YouTube.com, is mentioned in the lawsuit. The lawsuit states that the teacher hit the child on the side of the head and then said, “Stop moving your chair back. Move it! And you stay back there! I’ve had it with you!”

One of the claims in the lawsuit is the school’s alleged poor background checking that allowed the teacher to be placed in the school.

The incident was not the first time that the boy was assaulted, according to a teacher’s aide named Andre Burrell. Burrell personally witnessed the teacher both verbally and physically abuse the child on multiple occasions before the March 14th video release in 2008. In addition, the child was also assaulted by a bus aide, who the school district also fired.

The teacher was fired in June of 2008, a full three months after the incident. The state also revoked the teacher’s teaching certificate after the incident was reported to them.

Experts in special education state that this is really the exception to the rule and that most special education teachers are in fact very good with students. Still, this incident could cause parents to step back and wonder what is happening with their own children both in the classroom and on the bus.

A federal judge appointed the monitor who will oversee the Milwaukee Public Schools process of locating and compensating students who were denied special education services between 2000 and 2005. The process requires locating thousands of students, potentially. Elise T. Baach was appointed as independent monitor of the class action lawsuit.

In addition to the appointment, the judge, U.S. Magistrate Judge Aaron Goodstein, also provided documents on when the search for these individuals would be conducted. The schools must track down any student who missed being identified as eligible to receive special education services between that timeframe. Both current and former students would be sought.

The search and compensation is required after a court found that the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act, a federal law, was violated. That lawsuit, Jamie S. Vs. Milwaukee Public Schools was ruled on in the same court district.

Not only do the schools need to locate these students but they must also determine what is fair compensatory services to provide to those whose rights were violated. Notices must be posted starting September 1st, 2009 in all public schools in the district and must remain there until Jan 4th, 2010. Anyone who could have had their rights violated is encouraged to sign the class action lawsuit to receive the required compensatory requirements. Students who were suspended during for more than ten days in that period must also be identified, and the schools must determine which students could have qualified.

The original lawsuit claims that the school did not make required payments to allow the special education students to attend private schools for the services that the public schools could not provide. The school district has appealed the ruling.

Continue reading "Special Monitor Appointed For Milwaukee Public School Special Education Lawsuit" »

A lawsuit has been filed by the parents of a 5 year old autistic boy against the Columbia (Illinois) School District for forbidding their son’s service dog from accompanying the boy to classes. A Monroe County judge is expected to rule this week on whether the dog is allowed to attend class with the autistic child. The Monroe County Circuit Court Judge, Dennis Doyle, promised he would make a decision before the first day of class, August 24, 2009.

Five year old Carter Kalbfleisch was only 18 months old when diagnosed with Autism. Carter experiences acute outbursts, often eats inappropriate things like grass and rocks, and runs away from his parents and teachers.

Doctors at Cardinal Glennon Children's Medical Center recommended a specially trained service dog for Carter. The dog and training have cost the family about $10,000.

(Photo of Carter & Corbin courtesy of STLTODAY.COM)

Carter's parents have noticed many positive changes since working with Corbin, a one year old Bouvier. Carter bonded instantly with the dog and now has minimal outbursts while in public. The boy’s parents have even noticed Carter is interacting with people.

School officials did not provide a reason for banning Corbin, but rumors indicated there were concerns of other students with allergies and that there may be students who fear dogs. Carter’s parents acknowledged they would have argued the decision within the school, but a decision would have taken nine months.

Children and adults with disabilities often use service dogs like Corbin and such dogs are becoming increasingly popular with people with Autism. Studies show children and adults who suffer from autism relax and open up more easily when a service dog is near. People with autism are known to have severe emotional and sensory overload, which makes it harder for them to deal with everyday surroundings and social interactions.

United States federal law protects the rights of the disabled to use service dogs. Illinois law permits the use and presence of a service dog in school, which is the law the Kalbfeisches’ are depending on. The disability laws have plenty of gray area. For example, small companies can forbid service animals if they are too disruptive, and school environments are also subject to such interpretation.

Continue reading "Banning of Autistic Child’s Service Aid Dog Leads to Lawsuit Against School District " »

In the city of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, a school district is suing a mother. The Bethlehem Area School District has filed suit against Diana Zhou. The school district alleges that the woman "deliberately abused special education laws" in an effort to encourage the school to send her child to a private school. The school states that the child was a "gifted" student.

The lawsuit is rare and was filed under a very specialized portion of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (I.D.E.A.). This federal law allows for school districts to try and recoup costs lost when legal actions had an "improper purpose." The school district is able to try and collect the costs of attorney fees from lawyers and from parents who push these improper claims. In this particular case, the school district has spent more than $100,000 on legal fees on the claims made by the woman.

The lawsuit stems around a series of incidents in which Ms. Zhou requested meetings to develop plans to be used to educate her two children. Each time, she refused the services that the school district offered to her. More than 20 hearings were held over a period of eight years. The hearings were designed to determine if the two children were getting appropriate services. In each of the hearings, the district won.

Under federal law, the school must provide specialized educational resources for children who are gifted, which both of Ms. Zhou's children tested as. The federal laws also provide that parents have the right to special hearings if they cannot agree on what the best plan for the child is. The lawsuit further states that the conflict worsened in the 2008 to 2009 school year. During that time, the lawsuit alleges Ms. Zhou told a mediator that she did not want to come to an agreement with the district regarding one of the child's education plans.

A New York college is being sued because one of its graduate degree students has been unable to find a job. The student, Trina Thompson, states that the school, Monroe College, did not help her with job placement which ultimately has lead to her inability to find a job. She is seeking $70,000 to cover the costs of her tuition from the school and another $2000 as compensation for her stress in the job search.

This is just one example of what is happening around the country where jobs are scarce in many fields. Some college career centers no longer call themselves "job placement" centers or services, but rather offer more training on obtaining a job. Career counseling and linking students with potential employers is as far as they will go.

Is this what students expect when they go to a college in the hopes of finding a job? According to Johns Hopkins University's career office director, Mr. Mark Presnell, students do not expect a guaranteed job found for them by the school. He is quoted by the Baltimore Sun as saying, "I think our students understand that we're here to guide them through the different kinds of career choices they have. What we're here to do is to educate and empower students to build a foundation for the development of their careers."

Other schools state something similar, that their job is not so much to find the job for the student, but to give them an education and then train the student how to market themselves and their skills to employers.

Continue reading "Grad Student Sues School Because She Can't Find A Job" »

In Jackson, Mississippi, a former high school cheerleader has filed a lawsuit against her former coach as well as the school district in a fight over Facebook. The lawsuit is to the tune of $100 million, which Mandi Jackson and her family filed based on the coach reading the student's personal emails.

Miss Jackson states that the coach got into her Facebook account and read personal messages from her to other students, some of which contained profanity. Because of reading the messages, the coach, Tommie Hill suspended Jackson from cheering. The student was not allowed to cheer at football games or pep rallies.

The student believes she had her personal privacy violated. Her mother, Missy Jackson states that the coach tried to take over her role. She claims it is up to her to police her child's Facebook account and handle disciplinary actions herself. The mother also states that she tried to work with the school for two years to resolve the situation to no avail.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court. Courtesy of WAPT it may be viewed HERE.

Mandi Jackson dreads going back to school as a junior this year because she says that the other girls on the cheerleading squad no longer socialize with her. Although she was once friends with many of them, they no longer talk to her after the incident.

The school, on the other hand, states that all cheerleaders were warned that the coaches would be monitoring their activity online on social networking websites. The school officials have also filed a motion requesting that the case be dismissed.

School achievement tests, required under the country's No Child Left Behind Act, do not have to be provided in any language other than English, a state appeals court ruled. In Coachella Valley, California, where many of the student's are considered English language learners, this has severely limited the school's performance.

Coachella Valley Unified and other school districts alleging that students should be provided with achievement tests in other languages filed a lawsuit. The district is currently under state sanctions and an academic trustee for poor performance on these tests. The attorneys representing the school district state that the school is being treated unjustly since teachers are performing well.

The case appealed a ruling in 2007 by the San Francisco City and County Superior Court. In the case, nine school districts and bilingual education groups came together to sue the state of California over the English only tests. The lawsuit states that the state was failing to meet federal laws, which stipulate the English learners be tested in a method that is considered a "valid and reliable manner."

The school districts claim that even if the child understands the concept, they may be unable to demonstrate the answer since they cannot understand the question being posed to them.

The court's ruling (available HERE) was based on several factors including the court's unwillingness to not second guess the California State Board of Education. In addition, a state proposition that requires the majority of teaching to be done in English also was a factor. The ruling in the case was unanimous. The court stated that it would be confusing to teach in English and then to test in another language.

Federal law states only that reasonable accommodations are necessary to be made to accommodate students. The school districts have yet to determine if they will further pursue the case. They said that they will determine whether or not to move forward once the new administration in Washington D.C. determined how it would proceed with the No Child Left Behind Act.

Continue reading "Appeals Court Rules English is the Only Language for California School Achievement Tests" »

The Clark County School District in Las Vegas, is now facing a lawsuit in which they are charged with failing to protect a parent from a teacher, one of the school district's employees.

The teacher in question, Ken McFate, has been found to have an extensive history of harassing women and stalking. The claim filed against the school district claims that the school district knew of the problems with McFate but did nothing about it.

In a court of law, attorney Dan O'Brien, Clark County School District Assistant General Counsel, made the statement, "This is a case about a parent who decided to have an affair with a teacher and then it didn't go well." According to Las Vegas Now, he continued with, "She now wants the district to give dating advice to married parents." The statement was seen as surprising.

The judge in the case, Judge Kathleen Delaney, stated that the comment was disturbing and then denied the school board's motion to have the case dismissed.

What Actually Happened?

The lawsuit stems from an incident involving McFate and Andreana Leonard, who was a classroom volunteer at Bilbray Elementary School. During her time working there, she developed a relationship with the teacher. When a fall out between the two occurred, Leonard states she was forced to get a restraining order to keep McFate away from her. In doing so, she learned she was not the first person to do so.

According to records, there have been several people to file restraining orders against McFate, and many of the occurrences happened at the school. Leonard's attorney, Richard Segerbloom made a statement stating that what is truly disturbing is that the school knew about the charges and problems, allegedly, and did nothing about it, nor does the school have a policy on how to deal with such incidents.

Leonard is seeking monetary damages and the requirement of policies to be put in place to protect individuals in circumstances like this. McFate retired in 2008.

A mother may find herself in front of the U.S. Supreme court, fighting for free speech and the separation of church and state. The mother, Donna Kay Busch, must make a decision about the case by August 31st.

The woman has filed a lawsuit against the Marple Newton School District and its officials. The case stems back to 2005 when her child was in Kindergarten. At the time, the children in the class were enjoying an activity called "All About Me Week." Part of the assignment was to have a parent read from the child's favorite book to the class. Busch's son, Wesley, selected the Bible as his favorite book. When Busch went to read from it to the class, she was asked to not do so by the principal, citing the need for separation of church and state.

The case has been ruled on twice. In U.S. District Court in Philadelphia, the court ruled in favor of the school district. In June of 2009, an appeals court upheld the original court's ruling. They called the classroom a nonpublic setting that, in turn, merited unique consideration of the free speech considerations.

In the ruling, Chief Judge Anthony Scirica stated it was necessary to "create the structured environment in which the school imparts basic social, behavioral and academic lessons." In particular, the statement pointed out, with children this young, the speech could be interpreted as promotion of religion.

Busch, on the other hand, believes that by taking away her child's freedom of speech, the school is in violation of the laws of freedom of speech. She will need to make her decision whether or not to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, and further her pursuit of what she call's Wesley's fight.

In addition to revamping school district anti-discrimination policies, Vallejo City USD has agreed to pay student Rochelle Hamilton $25,000. The agreement was made in response to Ms. Hamilton’s complaints, prior to any lawsuit being filed.

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.

When US citizen Mostafa Tabatabainejad, then a 23 year old senior at UCLA, went to the library in November 2006, he didn’t expect any of the following to take place: He didn’t expect to be asked for his ID by campus police. He didn’t expect campus police to Taser him (allegedly 3 times) for failing to provide his ID. And, he didn’t expect video of the altercation to end up on YouTube.com.

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.

The Los Angeles Unified School District has been ordered to pay some $1.6 million to families of three girls who were molested by a teacher's aide, a man named Ricardo Guevara. The man is now incarcerated and will spend the next 15 years in jail for lewd acts with a child.

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.

In Pensacola, Florida, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), has won a case that has been in the courts for several months now. The case was filed on behalf of two students at Pace High School.

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.

A group of parents and students have sued the Elmbrook School District in Waukesha County Wisconsin to stop the district from holding graduation ceremonies in a Christian church. The school district has hosted the graduations of both Brookfield Central High School and Brookfield East High School in the Elmbrook Church for some time. The group claims, that forcing non-Christians to be in the church is a violation of their constitutional rights. They claim it creates an atmosphere that makes them uncomfortable.

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.

In Jersey City, New Jersey, the New Jersey Supreme Court informed a teacher that she could not take action against the school officials who called police on her and sent her for psychiatric evaluations for using the word "kill" in reference to the amount of stress she was under.

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.

Two parents found out weeks after the incident that their children were being abused emotionally and potentially physically by another student in their special needs class. The parents, told only of the incident by a classroom aide are furious that the teachers and school officials failed to tell them what actually had happened to their children while in the care of teachers. The events occurred at Plain City Elementary in Utah.

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.

The American Civil Liberties Union has been called on by a school librarian and two high school students in Tennessee. The students believe that the school's blocking of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (commonly called LGBT) issues is particularly troublesome because it does not allow students to gain information from both sides of issues, as well as limits their rights to obtain needed information.

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.

In this session of the Supreme Court, there will be several cases heard in the educational field. One of which is based on the English language learners, or ELL, courses available in the state of Arizona. The case, Horne vs. Flores is a disagreement by several groups, often split along political party lines. The case involves the amount of funding for such courses and the legal requirements of the state to provide for such courses.

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.

A boy named Jarron Draper started his education like any other child, but fell behind as a seven-year-old child. At that age, he was doing poorly and needed the school to provide him with help. Although his teacher recommended that the child be tested to determine what was causing his academic problems, nothing was done. Teachers requested this help in 1995, 1996, and twice in 1997. Throughout this time, the school continued to provide basic education and often isolated the child from functional exercises that could have improved his education.

Then, in 1998, Draper was tested and the test revealed that he was failing because of a specific learning disability. At that time, it was evident he had clear signs of dyslexia but these were not addressed by the school system. He was placed in a restrictive classroom from 1998 through 2003. When he entered high school, he had not improved and in fact was struggling at early elementary levels. How does a boy at the age of 13 have only a third grade education?

Later, he was determined that Draper suffered from a low average range of intelligence, a far upper level compared to that of which he was diagnosed in 1998. This means that he did have the ability to learn and he could have been taught, if the school system would have taken steps to test for the disability and provided appropriate education for him.

Unfortunately, although parents recommended aid several times from the school, it would take the courts to intervene before the boy would be given the help he needed. By the time he was in the 12th grade, he still struggled with elementary level education (although the school had thrown him back into the same classes as other high school kids.) The courts ruled that Draper was not provided an effective education under state law by the Atlanta Independent School System. And, although the school tried to appeal the case, it was determined that the school must give him extensive private aid or pay for a private school.

Up to 20 percent of students drop out because they do not have legal representation to help them fight school failures. Draper did have this, but it is worrisome to think of what would happen to students who do fall through the cracks.

In 2006, Foothill High School graduate Brittany McComb took to the podium to recite her valedictorian speech. During the speech to her Henderson Nevada classmates, she made several comments that administrators state strayed from her preapproved speech. Due to the content of that portion of her speech, Miss McComb believed she was being censored unfairly and that her First Amendment Rights were being violated. And that, took her to court.

McComb learned this month that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals would no longer hear her case. The panel of three judges issued a memo reversing a federal judge decision from 2007 not to grant a district motion to dismiss the case. While they can approve, McComb's attorney did not believe their chances were good. The panel stated that they did not believe the school violated her right to free speech by not allowing the "proselytizing graduation speech" to continue.

Cyperbullying is the act of threatening individuals in some manner through electronic means. Bullying in general is something that many students have faced over their school life and now, it has moved to the Internet. A good example of what is happening is with the website Facebook, a very popular, social network geared towards connected people.

Facebook users can create "hate groups" in which some students are using to mock, harass or otherwise harm users. This has lead to situations in which students are bullying other students not on school grounds, but through the Interent. The problem here is that there is no one group that is considered ultimately responsible for fixing this form of bullying.

The State of California passed Assembly Bill 86, which defines cyberbullying, but some believe it does not go far enough. Should police be involved in the situation, to handle these types of situations? Or, should the school be responsible? In some cases expressing cyberbullying, schools are often unable to monitor children off school grounds and yet try to stop cyberbullying anyway.

Some parents disagree with this. They do not want schools monitoring their children's computers or interacting with children outside of the classroom atmosphere. Parents themselves are often unable to monitor children close enough due to groups like Facebook, which makes it very easy for kids to come together online without their parent's knowing. Take this a step farther and some could blame social groups like Facebook, which does not have stricter requirements. Should the website stop kids from cyberbullying? They often do not realize such groups exist until it is brought to their attention, which rarely happens soon enough.

An example of this happened in California's Palo Alto school where a group of kids created a Facebook group that was called "I Hate Tyler" which was specifically targeted towards a student at Jordan Middle School. Over 100 members joined the group, which was created after the boy posted a video of himself singing on another popular site YouTube.

The question remains. Who is responsible for policing children who participate in cyberbullying?

Continue reading "Cyberbullying: Schools, Websites, and Parents Go Head To Head" »

Parents in St. Augustine, Florida, have filed a lawsuit against Webster Elementary School. The parents are upset about a recent incident in which their third grade children were made to sing a religious themed song. The song was part of the school's end of the year program.

The children began singing the song, "In God We Still Trust" by country group Diamond Rio a month prior to the lawsuit being filed. The group of parents believe that the song interferes with the parent's rights to raise children according to their own beliefs.

When one parent complained about the song, St. John’s County School District Superintendent Dr. Joseph Joyner pulled the song from the program. Hours before the filing of the lawsuit, the entire program was cancelled. Parents filing the suit claim that they are still entitled to damages due to the fact that their children were forced to learn the religious song. They claim that the school should not have provided the children with the song, because they feel the district should bar any religious instruction during school time, which they claim the song represents.

Some of the song's lyrics appear in the image above: (copyright Diamond Rio):

The lawsuit claims that the song's message is that God is part of American history and therefore individuals should fight attempts that try to secularize society.

The attorney for the school board states that singing a song that is like this is different than praying in school. In the past, schools have been allowed to sing religious songs. He claims that just singing a song does not mean that the school is endorsing the religion.

On an average school day in 2007, a high school junior named Eric Mohat decided he would come home and follow the advice given to him by a classmate. He shot himself, committing suicide because of the bullying that tormented him in the months and years prior. His parents have filed a lawsuit against the school.

The school, located in Mentor, Ohio, allegedly knew of the bullying and did little to nothing to stop it, his parents claim. William and Janis Mohat filed the lawsuit against Jacqueline A. Hoynes, Joseph Spiccia (school officials) and Thomas Horvath (a math teacher) who they believe knew that their son was being bullied.

Mr. and Mrs. Mohat state that their son was very gentle and was the type of child to enjoy theater and music. He was tormented by bullies, in particular there were several in his math class, which was taught by Mr. Horvath. The teacher was also a sports coach at the school. These bullies called him various inflammatory names, and the teacher did nothing to stop the behavior. One day, one of the students told Eric to go home and shoot himself. That is just what he did.

The parents are not looking for money in this case but want the school to establish an anti bully program that would stop such bullying from happening. The school needed it, as in the same year as Eric's suicide, three other classmates committed suicide. All of those deaths were brought on by bullying as well.

Corona del Mar High School was recently put in the national spotlight when the school's cancellation of the musical "Rent" was reversed. Things have gotten a bit worse as the Newport Mesa Unified School District is now facing a lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union. The lawsuit states that the school allowed a "sexist and homophobic environment" for students on campus.

Corona del Mar High School administrators are at the center of the lawsuit. The lawsuit specifically states that the atmosphere created at the school was hostile to "female, lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgender students in general, and has led to despicable threats of violence against one student in particular."

The school district does not believe all claims in the lawsuit and is said to be working on resolving the issues involved.

The lawsuit in part stems from the threats of violence found in a video posted online in which three students from the school were allegedly making slurs towards gays. Another student was allegedly threatened, and left the campus out of fear.

The problems originated when the school pulled an edited version of the rock opera "Rent" from the musical department. The musical portrays gay characters that battle AIDS and do drugs. Originally, the musical was pulled by the principal until the script could be reviewed, after which it was put back on.

The lawsuit states that those students were not punished harshly enough for their actions and therefore the school is being discriminatory. It claims that when students use anti gay slurs in front of teachers, students go unpunished. The ACLU is seeking damages on the behalf of the students, training for students and the schoolteachers and administrators and a statement stating that the school violated the civil rights laws in place.

In a recent ruling on the method used to send children in the Berkeley Unified School District to school, the school system was found not to be discriminating. The American Civil Rights Foundation who believed the method of selecting children for schools was unfair challenged the system.

States have implemented affirmative policies that help to foster diversity within the school systems. Courts are often faced with making decisions on whether these policies have gone too far and in themselves are now discriminatory based on race.

The policy in question was one, which had the goals of achieving social diversity. The school system uses a unique process to determine the location of the child's school. They base this on the neighborhood demographics. The policy in no way considers race, the court found, and therefore is not doing anything illegal by working to promote diversity in the system.

The assignment policy for the school district takes into fact a variety of components. This includes the student's residential neighborhood, the average household income in that neighborhood, the average education level of the adults living there, and the racial composition of the entire neighborhood, but not the student. When the demographics of a neighborhood are in use rather than the student's race itself, there is no case of discrimination against the student nor is the student receiving preferential treatment.

For those of you in school district management, whether or not you are a Sylvester, Oppenheim & Linde client, you will find the court’s opinion very educational. We invite you to read or download it by clicking on the following link: Court of Appeal Opinion A121137.

Where does the fine line of the law stop and the responsibilities of parents begin? Throughout the country, interesting laws are being considered that would greatly affect parents.

One example is in North Dakota where the legislature is reading a vote that would install a $500 fine for parents if their children skipped school. When children continue to skip school, parents can be sent to jail, for up to 30 day and a hefty fine. Another example is in Minnesota. There, it may become illegal to smoke in the car with your child. Doing so is a secondary offense meaning that a ticket would be issued only if you were stopped for another violation first.

Another side of the coin affects employers. In Colorado, a new law under consideration would make it a requirement for all businesses with fifty or more employees to allow parents time off from work to attend parent teacher conferences, interventions, drop out preventions disciplinary issues and other situations in regards to their child's behavior and educational needs. Parents would get three-hour spans of time, up to 18 hour a year, to attend these all-important functions for their children.

Those pushing these laws believe they are essential for protecting children. Others say that the government is overstretching its hand and that parents should be making these decisions themselves. The fine line of legislating good parenting skills is struggling to be defined.

How far should the law go? To what point does the government have responsibility to parent children? More so, are these laws intrusive? These are all questions to carefully consider especially as new laws are discussed and often pushed through the legislature.

Under federal law, children with disabilities receive specific rights. These are defined under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (called IDEA for short). The laws require that each child with special educational requirements receive an Individualized Education Plan, or IEP. A team is assembled including professionals and the parents to work out the child's goals, needs, and to choose a placement in the proper class. This, some parents claim, is not what is happening in the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD).

Students are placed in a lottery there, where a computer will select the proper placement for them. The problem is, this is a general education lottery system, and while the children do have an IEP in place, the parents have no ability to participate in the process of selecting their educational goals and teachers. This is against federal law, some say.

One instance that can help to shed some light on the problem happened recently to a parent who receives her child's information regarding teacher and class placement for their child. They went to see the teacher and classroom to discuss the child's needs. Little did they know when they arrived that the school just learned of the upcoming class and that no teacher had even been hired for it? Parents are allowed to request teacher qualifications and determine if the placement is acceptable for their child. This parent would have to wait until fall to determine this and, even worse, the child would likely remain in the class for a full year, even if there were an ill fit.

While the lottery method is still in use, parents have challenged it in the past. In both instances, the SFUSD lost at the “due process” hearing. If you are interested (especially if you are in school district administration) in reading the California DOE Special Education Hearing Office decisions, we have linked them HERE-1 and HERE-2 for your convenience.

The lottery system may work for standard elementary students, but for those with special education needs, current law illustrates that it falls short.

Steve Rocco, an Orange Unified School District trustee filed suit in 2006 claiming that his first amendment rights were violated when he believes he was wrongfully censured by fellow trustees when he commented on the move of a principal within the district. He also claims that his rights were violated when the cable television channel allegedly edited a videotape message. The case was defeated by the courts and an appeal was shot down.

Citizens are angry for several reasons, not to mention the man's notable behavior during school board meetings. Still, what angers them more so is the local media's handling of the case. They claim that the media fought for Rocco to the point of allowing the rights of Rocco's to be more important than the rights of all the children in the Orange Unified School District, where the incident took place. Their claim stems from the funds used to pay for such lawsuits.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled that the Rocco group now owes Orange Unified District some $37,000. Rocco claims that the money is covered by a bond and as such none of that money will come out of his pocket. In short, he along with other controversial board members are no longer on the hook to pay these costs.

Justice prevailed here. With the Court decision, funds expended on this lawsuit by the school district will NOT be taken from funds used to pay for students’ educational needs.

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court held intact a ruling that said Novato school district officials violated a student's freedom of expression when they confiscated a high school newspaper because of an editorial criticizing immigration. The case is Novato Unified School District vs. Smith, 07-783.

A California appeals court in San Francisco ruled last May, upholding a California law that protects freedom of the press in public schools even more strongly than the constitutional rights guaranteed under the First Amendment.

Tuesday's Supreme Court order, which also denied a hearing sought by the Novato Unified School District, means that students in California "will be able to publish very controversial political opinions without fearing retribution," said Paul Beard of the Pacific Legal Foundation, a lawyer for the student who wrote the editorial.

After some students and parents protested High school senior Andrew Smith’s editorial, school district officials pulled remaining copies of the newspaper out of circulation and sent a letter to parents saying the editorial shouldn't have been published.

Along with his father, Smith sued in Marin County Superior Court, claiming that the district had illegally censored the piece and subjected him to public reprimand for expressing unpopular positions.

A judge dismissed the suit, noting that the editorial had been published and that the student hadn't been disciplined. But the First District Court of Appeal said the district had violated Smith's rights by confiscating the paper and sending the message to parents.

The appeals court said state law guarantees freedom of the press on campus unless an article is obscene or libelous, or unless it creates a clear and present danger of lawbreaking or disorder on campus.

The school district "succumbed to the fear of disruption and discontent" when it removed the newspaper from circulation, the state court said. Smith was awarded $1 and a declaration that his rights had been violated.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1988 that public school officials could censor student newspapers and remove sensitive topics without violating the First Amendment. California, however, is one of about a half-dozen states with laws that explicitly protect student expression even if it is controversial.

Continue reading "US Supreme Court Protects California Student’s Freedom of Expression" »

The American Diabetes Association and the California Department of Education have settled a lawsuit that reinforces laws to protect diabetic students. In the settlement the students must have access on their campus to diabetes-related services, such as blood testing and insulin injections.

If a school nurse or family member is unavailable, then a volunteer can be trained to administer the insulin injection. A shortage of California school nurses and liability concerns about training non medical staff could stall the effects of the settlement.

According to a recent article in the Press Enterprise, “… the California School Nurses Organization sent a letter advising school nurses to seek guidance from district lawyers before proceeding. Executive Director Nancy Spradling said nurses were concerned about losing their licenses should they train non-medical staff.”

The Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund reports that the settlement includes the following provisions:
• Districts cannot centralize diabetes-related services at one school. They must be
available at every school.
• Districts must identify and evaluate diabetic students.
• Financial burden is no defense for not providing services.
• If no school nurse or authorized personnel is available, a volunteer with adequate
training can administer insulin.

The question remains: Will the California School Nurses Organization assist in the implementation of this settlement of choose another path?

Corinthian Schools Inc. and Titan Schools Inc., subsidiaries of Santa Ana-based Corinthian Colleges Inc have reached a settlement with California Attorney General Jerry Brown to refund $4.3 million to former students, and pay $1.5 million for student debt cancellation. Additionally, Corinthian will pay $700,000 in civil penalties.

According to Hoovers.com (a D&B company), Corinthian had sales of $966.7 Million with net income of $41.5 Million in 2006. Their website states that they have 94 schools in 24 states with 65,000 students.

Corinthian is also required to cease offering 11 courses for 18 months, including the Pharmacy Technician program in Anaheim.

Here is Corinthian’s statement: "We disagree with the Attorney General's conclusions, but we are pleased to have this matter behind us. The agreement is not evidence of wrongdoing, and the company specifically denied any wrongdoing as part of the settlement. We are fully committed to providing quality education and job placement services for students and to being in compliance with state law and regulation."

Sometimes, it can be better to create a settlement which will allow your company to just get back to business. Would prolonged litigation have brought about a better result for Corinthian? We’ll never know. And considering that $6.5 Million is equal to about 2 months of Corinthian’s 2006 profit, this settlement was likely to be the best scenario in that it allows the school to focus on its business which can easily accommodate this “bump in the road.”

Trying to operate a business embroiled in litigation is like trying to play tennis in handcuffs. You may win a few points but you’re likely to lose the match.

Read more about the Value of Time and the true cost of business litigation.

In Madden vs. Del Taco, Patrick Madden claimed he fell from his wheelchair and was injured when he attempted to pass a concrete trash barrel on a ramp leading to an entrance to a Del Taco restaurant. The obstruction had forced him to navigate his wheelchair to enter the restaurant. Unfortunately, the walkway was too narrow with the addition of the trash barrel and Plaintiff’s wheelchair went off the curb. Madden fell over and out of the chair, injuring himself as a result. Del Taco moved for summary judgment and, in so doing, claimed that the trash barrel was merely a temporary obstruction which was moved to a wider portion of the ramp immediately following the incident. In addition, the store had another entrance which presented no obstructions. Based upon this showing, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Del Taco.

The Court of Appeal reversed. It found the presence of the trash container to be a prima facie violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) which provides that no individual may be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations of any place of public accommodation. Such a violation was also a violation of the Unruh Act (Civil Code § 54) which guarantees individuals with disabilities to have the same right as the general public to the full and free use of public places.

The Court of Appeal observed the requirements of ADA extend beyond the initial construction or alterations of existing structures. Indeed, it imposes a duty to remove any barrier to access, where removal is readily achievable. The ADA does not make any distinction between temporary or permanent obstructions to access hence, the placement of a concrete trash barrel, even if temporary, is a prima facie violation of ADA and the Unruh Act where a disabled person is hindered in his or her access to the premises.

Continue reading "As Del Taco and Other Public Establishments Have Learned Obstructions, Even Temporary Ones May Give Rise to ADA and Unruh Act Liabliity" »

Rebekah Rice sought damages after being disciplined, then ridiculed, for using the phrase "that's so gay" at Maria Carillo High School in Santa Rosa. Superior Court Judge Elaine Rushing ruled that school administrators did not single Rebekah Rice out for punishment, nor did they break any laws when they disciplined her for using the phrase "that's so gay" in response to students who were teasing her about her Mormon upbringing.

Superior Court Judge Elaine Rushing: "All of us have probably felt at some time that we were unfairly punished by a callous teacher, or picked on and teased by boorish and uncaring bullies. Unfortunately, this is part of what teenagers endure in becoming adults. The law, with all its majesty and might, is simply too crude and imprecise an instrument to satisfactorily soothe deeply hurt feelings."

Additionally, Judge Rushing also rejected the claim that the school refused to protect Rebekah from teasing about her Mormon religion. In an unusual move, Judge Rushing admonished the family for aggravating Rebekah’s situation, stating "If the Rice family had not told everyone that Rebekah had been given a referral for saying 'That's so gay' then no one else would have know it either, and she would not have been referred to as the 'That's so gay girl.'"

It’s good to see the judiciary rule in favor of the rules and laws which California school districts must follow. It is outstanding to see a judge hold parents accountable for exacerbating a minor school discipline issue and escalating it to a lawsuit.

As a law firm that deals in school district litigation and lawsuits regularly, this was truly a notable ruling.

Continue reading "California Student Loses “That’s So Gay” Lawsuit" »