Grambling State University Court Case Legal Updates Paper

Each student will be given monthly Legal Updates in Modules. Each student will select a court case to report on. The following format will be used to describe the selected court case:

I. Citation

II. Topic

III. Issue

IV. Facts

V. Findings

VI. Reasoning

The report on this case should be clear and concise using at least 300 words as you describe this court case. This case will be reported both verbally as well as written in Canvas.

July 2023 (71)
LEGAL UPDATE FOR SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS
July 2023
Johnny R. Purvis aka Doc*
West Education Law Reporter
November 24, 2022–404 Ed. Law No. 2 (Pages 398-987) – #24
December 8, 2022–405 Ed Law No. 1 (Pages 1-597) – #25
The Legal Update for School Administrators is sponsored by:
William Carey University School of Education
And
PREPS Inc., Dr. Chuck Benigno, Executive Director
The Legal Update is a monthly update of selected significant court cases in the United
States pertaining to school administration and general school district operations. It is funded and
sponsored by William Carey University’s School of Education and PREPS Inc. If you have any
questions or comments about the selected cases and their potential ramifications, please contact
Johnny R. Purvis by phone (601-310-4559) or email (jpurvis@uca.edu) or Dr. Ben Burnett,
President of William Carey University.
Topics:
Abuse and Harassment
Civil Rights
Compensation and Benefits
Crimes
Injunction
Judgment
Labor and Employment
Religion
Students
School Districts
Student Discipline
Torts
1
Cases:
Abuse and Harassment
The school board did not fail to respond to bullying complaints filed by middle school students
to preclude them from statutory immunity.
Doe 1 v. Bd. of Educ. of Town of Westport (Conn. App., 277 A. 3d 164), June 7, 2022.
Note #1 (unusual case): Two (N=2) separate cases were combined into one case. (Doe 1
student’s case also includes Doe 2’s case) The Appellate Court of Connecticut combined the two
middle school students’ cases (students were alleged to have been subject to
“harassment/bullying by other students” at their middle school) into one case and received one
combined judgment from the court.
The Appellate Court of Connecticut stated that the school board and school employees
did not fail to respond to or investigate six bullying complaints filed by middle school student so
as to “preclude” them from availing themselves of statutory immunity from liability as so
pertaining to parents’ negligence claims seeking to recover damages individually and on behalf
of student for injuries allegedly sustained as result of board’s and employees’ negligence in
responding to reports of bullying. School district employees investigated the complaints to the
extent that they could present certain consent forms signed by parents, which were necessary to
protect a student’s identity and for school officials to investigate complaints. Note #2: The
record did not support the claim that Doe 1 was bullied on the basis of his sexual orientation;
however, he was called names, ridiculed about his athletic ability, subject to physical assault,
threats, mental abuse, and comments about his sexual orientation.
Civil Rights
School board policies which prohibited comments at public school board meetings which were
deemed “personally directed” at board members constituted viewpoint discrimination.
Marshall v. Amuso (E.D. Pa., 571 F. Supp. 3d 412), November 17, 2021.
The United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania held that the plaintiffs (N=4 whose
comments had been interrupted or terminated based on designated school board policy)
showed/demonstrated that they would suffer irreparable harm absent a grant of a
preliminary injunction to prevent the application of a school board policy that restricted their
speech at a public-school board meeting; although plaintiffs spoke again at meetings after their
comments were interrupted or terminated. The school board stated that it would continue to
enforce policies in future as members and representatives believed policies were necessary to
prevent undesirable use of five-minute comment periods. One of the plaintiffs testified that the
possibility of the termination of his speech “chilled his speech”, which was credible considering
the presence of armed police officers at the meeting and the threat of removal from the school
property in front of fellow community members. Note: The board meeting was held in 2020,
during the time of the COVID 19 pandemic and the school board had shifted to school board
meetings in a virtual setting. The board received written submissions from “speakers” in
advance of each virtual meeting.
2
A rational basis existed for statutory requirement for using student ID cards as voter
identification, and there was no equal protection violation.
Common Cause v. Thomsen (W.D. Wis., 574 F. Supp. 3d 634), December 9, 2021.
A United States District Court in Wisconsin held that there was a rational basis existed
for a Wisconsin statute requiring that student identification cards, to be used to meet voteridentification requirement contain at least the following information: date of issuance, signature
of individual to whom it was issued, and expiration date no later than two years after the date of
issuance. The statute did not violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The
state legislature could rationally conclude that the requirement enhanced the reliability of sudent
identification cards, made them more difficult to falsify, and made it easier for poll worders to
recognize a valid card.
School principal, teacher, and classroom assistant were entitled to qualified immunity from
claims alleging restraint of student violated the Fourth Amendment.
D.M. v. Bd. of Educ. Toledo Public Schools (N.D. Ohio, 575 F. Supp. 3d 897), December 14.
2021.
Elementary school principal, teacher, and classroom assistant were entitled to qualified
immunity from a Section 1983 (civil rights) claim by a nine-years old male student with
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and his legal guardian alleging that a “prone
restraint” of the student on the floor to prevent his ongoing violent resistance, and self-harm was
excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. There was no
U.S. Supreme Court precedent holding that employing a prone restraint violated the Fourth
Amendment or any other constitutional right. In addition, the sparse existing case law on point
suggested that subjecting a person to a prone restraint, by itself, did not violate the Fourth
Amendment.
Public school district making policies requiring masks to be worn indoors did not violate the
Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Branch-Noto v. Sisolak (D. Nev., 576 F. Supp. 3d 790), December 22, 2021.
Public school district’s making policies implementing governor’s emergency directives,
that required masks to be worn indoors rationally related to legitimate government interests
of “slowing” the spread of COVID-19. Therefore, parents of students were unable to
establish the likelihood of success on the merits of substantive due process claim under the
14th Amendment against the school district and state based on the violation of “parental right to
make decisions” concerning care, custody, and control of their children; thus, precluding the
granting of a preliminary injunction. The policies were adopted based on guidance from the
Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), American Academy of Pediatrics, and the
state health department. In addition, there was overwhelming evidence that mask-wearing in
public schools reduced the spread of COVID-19.
Compensation and Benefits
Substitute teacher had a reasonable assurance of employment after “in-person classes” were
discontinued; thus, was ineligible for unemployment befits.
Green v. Director, Arkansas Dept. of Workforce Services (Ark. App., 646 S.W. 3d 642), May
25, 2022.
3
The Court of Appeals of Arkansas, Division IV held that substantial evidence
supported the decision of the Board of Review that claimant, who had worked as a substitute
teacher on an as-needed basis before school district discontinued in-classroom instruction due to
the COVID-19 pandemic, had reasonable assurance of employment between academic terms.
Therefore, the claimant was ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits during the summer
break. The claimant had not been fired or laid off when in person instruction was discontinued.
The claimant remained on the substitute-teacher list and be eligible to return to work at the next
educational term available after the summer break ended and in-person instruction resumed.
Crimes
Evidence at preliminary hearing was sufficient to find defendant knew in making a social media
post recipients would receive and feel threatened by it.
People v. Gerhard (Mich. App., 976 N.W.2d 907), June 24, 2021.
The Court of Appeals of Michigan held that evidence examined was sufficient for the
district court to find probable cause that defendant knew at the time he made the social media
post about bringing a semi-automatic rifle with an attached bayonet to a university with a text
message (“This outta make the snowflakes melt, aye?”) that recipients who fell into a category of
persons he considered “snowflakes” would receive and feel threatened by the post. Therefore,
the district court properly bound the defendant over for trial on the charge of making a threat of
terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act. The defendant shared the post with a large group of
people, metaphor of “making the snowflakes melt” was more consistent with placing
“snowflakes” in fear, or possibly even killing them. A bayonet attached to defendant’s gun
implied its intended use was against humans.
Injunction
There was not the clear likelihood of success on the merits of school employees’ claim alleging
that vaccine mandate violated their due process rights.
Broecker v. New York City Dept. of Educ. E.D.N.Y. 573 F.Supp.3d 878), November 24, 2021.
The United States District Court, E.D. New York stated that a balance of equities and
public interest weighed in favor of denying employees request for a preliminary injunction in
their action against the department of education (DOE) and the teachers’ union, alleging that the
COVID-19 vaccination mandate, which required all DOE employees to receive the first dose of
the vaccination, violated their procedural due process rights (14th Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution) and their statutory and contractual rights under New York law. The court went on
to state that under New York law, the state had a public policy in favor of protecting children
and there was a public interest in providing “in-person schooling” for students, protecting
students, teachers, and staff. Furthermore, available scientific data supported the use of the
vaccination as a lifesaving public policy measure.
4
Judgment
Substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding that school defendants discriminated against
principal based on her gender, precluding judgment as a matter of law following a jury trial.
Krause v. Kelahan (N.D.N.Y., 575 F. Supp. 3d 302), December 13, 2021.
The United States District Court, N.D. New York held that substantial evidence
supported jury’s finding that the school district, school board, and superintendent
discriminated against the principal based on her gender, precluding judgment as a matter of
law following a jury trial on principal’s claims for gender discrimination under Title VII and
New York State Human Rights Law arising from her termination. The principal testified that
superintendent complained about her office being too feminine and that principal, and women
writ large, were too emotional, there was testimony at trial that superintendent questioned
principal’s fitness as a mother for taking a job at all, and it was uncontroverted that principal
firing depended in large part on recommendation of the superintendent.
Labor and Employment
The conduct of an eight-year-old student was not “imputable” to the school board in
instructional assistant’s hostile-work environment claim.
Webster v. Chesterfield County School Bd. (C.A.4 [Va.], 38 F. 4th 404), June 28, 2022.
The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit held that a school board took
appropriate action in response to the conduct of an eight-year-old male student, which included
groping, grabbing, and touching of a female instructional assistant “private area” outside of her
clothing. The student was diagnosed with Down syndrome and attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder (ADHD). The student’s conduct was not imputable (attributable, due to) to the school
board as pertaining to the instructional assistant’s “hostile work environment claim” under Title
VII. The classroom teacher separated the assistant from the student for two weeks, teaching
assistant stopped wearing dresses and switched to pants, both teacher and assistant constantly
telling the student to stop his groping, grabbing, and touching both during class session and when
the assistant escorted the student to lunch and so forth. In addition, the school board had limited
remedies available since the student had a right to a public education due to IDEA and Section
504 of the Vocational Education Act.
Substantial evidence supported finding, that board of education’s employee would have been
interviewed and promoted in absence of discrimination.
Bd. of Educ. of City of Waterbury v. Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (Conn.
App., 276 A. 3d 447), February 7, 2022.
The Appellate Court of Connecticut stated that substantial evidence supported the
finding of the state of Connecticut’s Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities that
employee would have been interviewed for and promoted to human resources assistant “in
absence of unlawful discrimination” by the city’s board of education based on employee’s partial
hearing loss, such that award of back pay was not unduly speculative, although employee may
not have been selected if she had been interviewed. The retiring assistant supervised employee
encouraged employee to apply for the position and trained her on duties she did not already
perform. Retiring assistant and personnel department’s interim director felt that employee was
5
more than qualified for the position, and the employee held a preferred undergraduate degree
specified in original job posting before the posting was revised by a generalist.
The bus driver’s reasons for leaving employment were unrelated to a disability, rendering her
ineligible for disability retirement benefits under PERS.
Rooth v. Bd. of Trustees, Public Employment Retirement System (N.J. Super. A.D., 277 A.3d
26), June 3, 2022.
The school bus driver for a school district left public service after 24 years of
employment for reasons unrelated to a disability, rendering her ineligible for disability retirement
benefits under the Public Employees’ Retirement System’s (PERS) benefits statutes. The driver
had submitted an irrevocable letter after causing a rearend collision with another school bus in
the school parking lot, which resulted with her being charged with driving while intoxicated and
reckless driving.
Public school principal was a pedagogical employee due to her administrative duties and was
thus not eligible for workers’ compensation.
Cunningham v. Dept of Educ. (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept., 169 N.Y.S. 3d 715), May 26, 2022.
The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York held that
substantial evidence supported Workers’ Compensation Board’s conclusion that claimant’s
employment responsibilities as a public-school principal were principally pedagogical in
nature; therefore, she was not engaged in the instruction of any qualifying subject matter,
and thus, she was not eligible for workers’ compensation benefits. The duties of the claimant’s
role included direction and oversight of teaching staff, teaching methods, professional
development, as well as the development of curriculum, and the selection of textbooks. The
claimant filed three separate workers’ compensation claims alleging that she sustained multiple
work related physical and psychological injuries related to incidents occurring in 2017and 2019.
Note: An odd case and much depends on the school district’s job description and related
policies.
A school employee, a substitute teacher, failed to plausibly allege a sufficiently adverse
employment action to trigger the protections of Title VII.
Cloutier v. Ledyard Bd. of Educ. (D. Conn., 575 F. Supp. 3d 276), December 17, 2021.
A school employee (cisgender, heterosexual male substitute teacher) failed to state a
plausible claim for a wrongful termination in violation of Title VII or the Connecticut Fair
Employment Practices Act (CFEPA). The employee claimed that he was terminated “for vague
reasons” at the culmination of the harassment he alleged he endured, but his allegation did not
speak to his performance as a substitute teacher. In fact, he alleged that he showed children a
concededly inappropriate video before he was terminated and the employee never argued that his
termination was the result of animus toward his protected status, but instead he appeared to rely
on the temporal proximity between the alleged harassment and his termination, stating that the
termination was at the culmination of the hostility.
6
Religion
Employees of city department of education were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claim
that vaccination mandate violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
Kane v. de Blasio (S.D.N.Y., 575 F. Supp. 3d 435), December 14, 2021.
The United States District Court, S.D. New York held that the employees of the city
department of education (DOE) failed to demonstrate that the enforcement of the city’s health
commissioner’s COVID-19 vaccination mandate would cause them irreparable harm, as
necessary for employees to be entitled to preliminary injunction pending the resolution of the
merits of their claim that mandate violated the Free Exercise Clause. The enforcement of the
mandate would not result in employees’ vaccination against their will and despite their religious
beliefs, but, rather, could only cause employees economic harm through adverse employment
consequences, including suspension without pay, which could be remedied through reinstatement
and money damages.
School Districts
A student was not a resident of the school district during the school year.
Gwozdz v. Bd. of Educ. of Park Ridge-Niles School Dist. No. 64 (Ill. App. 1 Dist.,189 N.E. 3d
487)
The court held that the student was not a legal resident of the school district during the
school year, although the student’s parents leased an apartment in the school district, received
some mail there, family spent time in the apartment, and the father stated that the student spent
all her nights at the apartment. Surveillances of the house owned by the parents outside of the
school district demonstrated the student entering and leaving the house throughout the day. On
the three nights that the house was observed, the family was seen entering the house and
remaining there late into the evening. When the apartment was “spot-checked” none of the
family vehicles were found there, and the parents had enrolled their daughter at the school where
their house was located through the 2015-16 school year, even though they testified that they
moved to the apartment in 2012.
Student Discipline
The student failed to allege that she was deprived of procedural due process in the suspension
hearing.
A. R. v. City of New York (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept. A.D. 2 Dept., 170 N.Y.S.3d 180), June 8, 2022.
Minor student and parent, alleged that the plaintiff student was subject to a suspension
hearing, failed to allege that they feared for their own safety or that any acts of board of
education endangered their physical safety regarding youngster’s suspension hearing. Therefore,
the plaintiff failed to state their negligent infliction of emotional distress claim.
Torts
A student who was struck by a vehicle while walking on the school’s service road with his back
to the traffic while listening to music was contributorily negligent.
Archie v. Durham Public Schools Bd. of Educ. (N.C. App., 874 S.E. 2d 616), June 7, 2022.
A high school male student failed to maintain a safe lookout while walking on the
school’s vehicular service road to the school’s football field house to change for football practice
7
and thus was contributorily negligent, barring recovery against the board of education in
negligence action arising from the incident in which the student was struck by an automobile that
was driven by another student on the road. The injured student was walking with his back to
oncoming traffic while listening to music via headphones and dancing in the road.
Thanks for allowing me to serve.
Strength and honor
An Old Retired Teach-Cop
*Note: Johnny R. Purvis retired August 2003, (30.5 years) from the University of Southern
Mississippi (USM) as a professor in the Department of School Administration, Director of the
Education Service Center in the College of Education and Psychology, Executive Director of the
Southern Education Consortium, and Director of the Mississippi Safe School Center at the
University of Southern Mississippi. After retiring from USM, he was hired as a professor in the
Department of Leadership Studies at the University of Central Arkansas (UCA) in August 2003,
and retired December 31, 2013. He also served as teacher, coach, school administrator, and
member of a county school board in Mississippi. In addition, he retired as a law enforcement
officer having served in both Mississippi and Arkansas. He can be reached at the following
phone number: 601-310-4559 or e-mail: jpurvis@uca.edu.
8