California Business Litigation Blog

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" »

Although Twitter may have started out as a social networking tool, more and more businesses are using it as a marketing tool. A lot of people have Twitter accounts that they think of as a tool to promote their own careers. Sometimes, in the process of promoting their careers, they may do a little cross-promotion for their employer. After all, if it’s good for the company, it’s good for the employee, usually. “A rising tide lifts all boats,” to quote John F. Kennedy. But if you use your Twitter account to promote your company as well as yourself, then who owns the account?

A current legal case filed with the US District Court in the Northern District of California involving a private individual who used his Twitter account to boost his employer seeks to answer this question. PhoneDog, a mobile products website, is suing its former employee, Noah Kravitz, for $340,000.

PhoneDog says that Kravitz was “given use of” a Twitter account while he worked there, and that he continued to use the account after he left the firm, constituting theft of trade secrets and damage to the PhoneDog’s “business, goodwill, and reputation.”

PhoneDog says that the Twitter account @PhoneDog_Noah was used by Kravitz to “disseminate information and promote PhoneDog's services on behalf of PhoneDog." Kravitz counters that he created the account, linked it to his email address and used it to tweet the things that mattered to him personally, including tweets related to his career and PhoneDog, as well as sports and food, among other subjects.

In fact, says Kravitz, the account wouldn’t work as well if it didn’t combine both personal and career elements. "It's this melding of personal and professional which is why I've gained a modest following," he said in an interview, "Because it's not just the dry headline and link to something."

PhoneDog claims in the lawsuit that it asked Kravitz to drop the account when he left the company. Instead, it claims, he kept the account but changed the handle. Kravitz tells a different story. He says PhoneDog didn’t ask any such thing. Instead, he says, it gave him a green light to keep using the account and even to mention the company. "At no point until July of this year, a good 8 months after we parted ways, did they ask for the twitter account or claim in was their property."

In the lawsuit, PhoneDog claims that Kravitz’ post-employment use of the account is an attempt “…to discredit PhoneDog and destroy the confidence that PhoneDog's users have in PhoneDog."

According to Henry J. Cittone, an intellectual property attorney, the crucial question is going to be whether Kravitz was paid to create the account and to send Tweets. “They said they hired him to create this feed for them. That is the way the company could dislodge a Twitter feed from its owner."

Continue reading "Who Owns Your Twitter Account?" »

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.

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.

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" »

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.

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.