The U.S. Supreme Court agreed yesterday to decide whether a state-funded university violates the United States Constitution by requiring student groups to be open to all.
The lawsuit was filed by the Christian Legal Society after the student group refused to admit gay and lesbian students at the University of California at Hastings School of Law. The law school, citing a policy that all student groups have to be open to all students, said that the group would lose its status as an official student group. The group also forbids membership to others not following its biblical interpretation.
Although the dispute arose in the law school context, the decision could have much further reaching implications.
Similar disputes have been going on across the country for the last decade. The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law faced a similar dispute in Fall 2003. Rather than wait for a court ruling, the administration voluntarily changed its policy to exempt religious organizations from the rules that require groups to be open to all students.
The appeal from the Supreme Court was from a decision upholding the actions of the law school.
Stay tuned.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
U.S. Supreme Court rejects two school law appeals
In two separate cases, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear appeals dealing with constitutional school law questions.
The first case involved an appeal from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals from Henderson, Nevada. In that case, high school officials turned off the student's microphone during her graduation speech because it was religion-tinged. The justices denial of the case means that the appeals court opinion, with no liability on the part of the school officials, stands.
The second case involved an appeal from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. In that case, the ACLU of Florida had sought review of a school board's decision to remove the book "A Visit to Cuba." Parents of school children, as well as the ACLU, sued the district, alleging violations of the First Amendment. The District Court granted the parent's request. However, the court of appeals found that the school board had not acted because it disliked the ideas in the book, but because the book contained factual inaccuracies, something a school board is allowed to act on. The ACLU requested the Supreme Court reviewed the decision; however, the Supreme Court allowed the decision of the 11th Circuit to stand.
The first case involved an appeal from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals from Henderson, Nevada. In that case, high school officials turned off the student's microphone during her graduation speech because it was religion-tinged. The justices denial of the case means that the appeals court opinion, with no liability on the part of the school officials, stands.
The second case involved an appeal from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. In that case, the ACLU of Florida had sought review of a school board's decision to remove the book "A Visit to Cuba." Parents of school children, as well as the ACLU, sued the district, alleging violations of the First Amendment. The District Court granted the parent's request. However, the court of appeals found that the school board had not acted because it disliked the ideas in the book, but because the book contained factual inaccuracies, something a school board is allowed to act on. The ACLU requested the Supreme Court reviewed the decision; however, the Supreme Court allowed the decision of the 11th Circuit to stand.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Federal Appeals Court sides with school board in First Amendment dispute
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit this morning sided with a school board in a dispute between parents of student football players on one side and the school district and football coach on the other.
In Lowery v. Jefferson County Board of Education, the high school football coach dismissed the plaintiffs' children from the team for questioning his leadership. The parents of the students made appeals to various school officials. Unsatisfied, the parents requested to speak to the board of education about the incident. In particular, one of the parents asked the board to speak at the next board meeting.
The Board of Education had a policy allowing individual members of the public to address the board for up five minutes so long as the address was not frivolous, harassing, or repetitive.
The Board granted the request of the parent. An attorney representing the parents addressed the board and apparently criticized Board staff and threatened legal action, among other things. The parents' request was still not granted.
Undeterred, the parents requested another meeting with the board of education. This time, the Board denied the request--finding it to be repetitive and harassing.
The parents sued, claiming that the district, acting under color of state law, deprived the students and the parents of their First Amendment rights by dismissing the students from the team and for refusing to allow the parents to speak at the second Board meeting.
The District Court found the Board not liable, and ordered the parents to pay the Board's attorney fees. The parents appealed.
The appellate court upheld the District Court, holding that the school board meeting was a limited public forum and that the Board's denial of the parent's opportunity to speak at second Board meeting was a time, place and manner
manner restriction that was content-neutral, narrowly tailored to serve a
significant governmental interest, left open ample alternative channels for
communication of the information.
The appeals court did, however, reverse the award of attorney fees to the Board, finding that this case did not warrant such an award.
In Lowery v. Jefferson County Board of Education, the high school football coach dismissed the plaintiffs' children from the team for questioning his leadership. The parents of the students made appeals to various school officials. Unsatisfied, the parents requested to speak to the board of education about the incident. In particular, one of the parents asked the board to speak at the next board meeting.
The Board of Education had a policy allowing individual members of the public to address the board for up five minutes so long as the address was not frivolous, harassing, or repetitive.
The Board granted the request of the parent. An attorney representing the parents addressed the board and apparently criticized Board staff and threatened legal action, among other things. The parents' request was still not granted.
Undeterred, the parents requested another meeting with the board of education. This time, the Board denied the request--finding it to be repetitive and harassing.
The parents sued, claiming that the district, acting under color of state law, deprived the students and the parents of their First Amendment rights by dismissing the students from the team and for refusing to allow the parents to speak at the second Board meeting.
The District Court found the Board not liable, and ordered the parents to pay the Board's attorney fees. The parents appealed.
The appellate court upheld the District Court, holding that the school board meeting was a limited public forum and that the Board's denial of the parent's opportunity to speak at second Board meeting was a time, place and manner
manner restriction that was content-neutral, narrowly tailored to serve a
significant governmental interest, left open ample alternative channels for
communication of the information.
The appeals court did, however, reverse the award of attorney fees to the Board, finding that this case did not warrant such an award.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Columbus Dispatch article highlights ODE's notification system
The Columbus Dispatch ran a story today about the Ohio Department of Education's new system that scours Ohio arrest reports for licensed educators. The article is located at http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/10/21/teacherarrests.ART_ART_10-21-09_A1_S2FEB0D.html?sid=101
The system, in place since August of this year, sends a notification to the Ohio Department of Education who, in turn, notifies the educator's school district that there has been an arrest.
The article does not go into detail regarding the accuracy of the system or if any educators have been falsely flagged as offenders by the new system. Similarly, it does not go into any detail about whether licensed educators have been charged with crimes that the system did not pick up.
Pursuant to Ohio Revised Code 3319.31, ODE can among other things, suspend, limit, or revoke licenses for criminal offenses listed in that statute or for "conduct unbecoming" of the teaching profession. Educators who have been arrested for any crime, even those not specifically listed in the statute, should contact an attorney familiar with school and education law in order to assess the situation and whether further action is needed.
The system, in place since August of this year, sends a notification to the Ohio Department of Education who, in turn, notifies the educator's school district that there has been an arrest.
The article does not go into detail regarding the accuracy of the system or if any educators have been falsely flagged as offenders by the new system. Similarly, it does not go into any detail about whether licensed educators have been charged with crimes that the system did not pick up.
Pursuant to Ohio Revised Code 3319.31, ODE can among other things, suspend, limit, or revoke licenses for criminal offenses listed in that statute or for "conduct unbecoming" of the teaching profession. Educators who have been arrested for any crime, even those not specifically listed in the statute, should contact an attorney familiar with school and education law in order to assess the situation and whether further action is needed.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Supreme Court rules that questions in semester examinations are not public records
The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled last week that the questions used in semester examinations administered to all ninth-grade students in the Cincinnati Public School District are not “public records” subject to disclosure under the state’s Public Records Act because they fall within a statutory exception for trade secrets. The Court’s 5-2 majority decision was authored by Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger
Friday, September 11, 2009
Charter Schools win case brought by Attorney General
In a case that vetted public school organizations such as the Ohio Educational Association, the Ohio Association of School Business Officials, and the Buckeye Association of School Administrators against those like National Alliance for Public Charter Schools and the Ohio Alliance for Public Charter Schools, the charter schools win, at least for now.
In a decision by the Second District Court of Appeals, the appeals court upheld a decision by the trial court finding that charter schools are political subdivisions, rather than charitable trusts. The case arose when then Attorney General Nancy Rogers attempted to use her regulatory powers over charitable trusts against an allegedly failing charter school. The charter school alleged that, because it was a political subdivision and not a charitable trust, the Attorney General could not regulate it.
The trial court agreed, as did the appeals court.
The case can be found at http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/2/2009/2009-ohio-4608.pdf
In a decision by the Second District Court of Appeals, the appeals court upheld a decision by the trial court finding that charter schools are political subdivisions, rather than charitable trusts. The case arose when then Attorney General Nancy Rogers attempted to use her regulatory powers over charitable trusts against an allegedly failing charter school. The charter school alleged that, because it was a political subdivision and not a charitable trust, the Attorney General could not regulate it.
The trial court agreed, as did the appeals court.
The case can be found at http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/2/2009/2009-ohio-4608.pdf
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reverses trial court on school custodian's firing
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed last week a decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio regarding the placement of a school custodian on involuntary leave in the Valley View School District. The school custodian claimed that the school district violated the Family and Medical Leave Act when it placed her on leave due to her taking leaves of absence after a car accident, on the advice of her physician.
The superintendent admitted that the school had used the custodian's leaves of absence as a factor against her in placing her on leave. The court reiterated that an employer is prohibited from “us[ing] the taking of FMLA leave as a negative factor in employment actions.” Thus, the Court found that the lower court was incorrect in its finding for the school district.
The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has appellate jurisdiction over district courts in Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Michigan.
The superintendent admitted that the school had used the custodian's leaves of absence as a factor against her in placing her on leave. The court reiterated that an employer is prohibited from “us[ing] the taking of FMLA leave as a negative factor in employment actions.” Thus, the Court found that the lower court was incorrect in its finding for the school district.
The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has appellate jurisdiction over district courts in Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Michigan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)