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.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Court of Appeals sides with teacher, against school district, in termination case
The case involved a teacher with several years of teaching experience. For a senior class project in his sociology class, the teacher required students to make a 20 year class reunion prediction regarding other students in the class. The results were to be read out loud in class, aftering being reviewed for appropriateness. However, after some students complained that some predictions were embarassing, the Board suspended the teacher.
The teacher exercised his constitutional right to a hearing under R.C. 3319.16 before a referee. After a two day hearing, the hearing officer recommended that the teacher be reprimanded, but not terminated. The School Board rejected the hearing officer's determination. The Court of Common Pleas reversed the decision of the school board and reinstated the teacher, finding that the Board's decision was not
supported by the weight of the evidence. The Court of Appeals also sided with the teacher. In making its decisions, both courts reviewed several factors, including the fact that the teacher had been described as outstanding, had done this very assignment for 12 years, and never had other incidents, and had a minor disciplinary record.
The teacher exercised his constitutional right to a hearing under R.C. 3319.16 before a referee. After a two day hearing, the hearing officer recommended that the teacher be reprimanded, but not terminated. The School Board rejected the hearing officer's determination. The Court of Common Pleas reversed the decision of the school board and reinstated the teacher, finding that the Board's decision was not
supported by the weight of the evidence. The Court of Appeals also sided with the teacher. In making its decisions, both courts reviewed several factors, including the fact that the teacher had been described as outstanding, had done this very assignment for 12 years, and never had other incidents, and had a minor disciplinary record.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Court of Appeals sides with School District in public records dispute
The Ninth District Court of Appeals for Ohio sided today with a school district today in a public records dispute.
The case, State ex rel. Johnson v. Oberlin City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2009-Ohio-3526, stems from a denial of a public records request to the Oberlin School District Board of Education. The bylaws and policies of the Oberlin City School District provide that each year, the school board must evaluate the Superintendent and provide teh Superintendent with a written copy of the evaluation. The board then relies upon the evaluation in determining whether or not to renew the Superintendent's contract.
This process requires individual board members to evaluate the Superintendent and then give their results on the Board President, who uses the evaluations to compile the Superintendent’s composite evaluation. In her public records request, Johnson requested the evaluations submitted by the individual members of the Board. Johnson’s request was denied on the basis that individual evaluations are not public records as defined by R.C. 149.43.
The court affirmed the decision of the trial court, finding that only the final evaluation is a public record under R.C. 149.43.
The case, State ex rel. Johnson v. Oberlin City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2009-Ohio-3526, stems from a denial of a public records request to the Oberlin School District Board of Education. The bylaws and policies of the Oberlin City School District provide that each year, the school board must evaluate the Superintendent and provide teh Superintendent with a written copy of the evaluation. The board then relies upon the evaluation in determining whether or not to renew the Superintendent's contract.
This process requires individual board members to evaluate the Superintendent and then give their results on the Board President, who uses the evaluations to compile the Superintendent’s composite evaluation. In her public records request, Johnson requested the evaluations submitted by the individual members of the Board. Johnson’s request was denied on the basis that individual evaluations are not public records as defined by R.C. 149.43.
The court affirmed the decision of the trial court, finding that only the final evaluation is a public record under R.C. 149.43.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Court of Appeals upholds trial court's narrow interpretation of "salary" in R.C. 3319.12 for teacher with continuing contract
The Twelfth District Court of Appeals held today that a school board does not violate R.C. 3319.12 when it fails to pay a continuing contract teacher the entire amount her contract requires when that teacher does not work the amount of days required in the contract.
At issue in the case was Carla A. Varasso, an art teacher with a continuing contract. That contract required her to work 183 days of the year
for an annual salary of $56,422.16, or $308.32 per day. However, in May 2004, Ms. Varasso was severely injured in an accident that left her unable to teach again until Fall 2005. By the time she returned, she had missed 58 days of the school year, only nine of which had been covered by sick leave.
Thus, Ms. Varasso had her compensation reduced for the time that she was off of work without sick leave. She thus filed suit, alleging a violation of R.C. 3319.12 which prohibits reducing teacher's salaries from the amount that they made the year before, unless the reduction is part of a uniform plan adopted by the school district.
The 12th District found that "salary" meant "rate of pay" and as long as the teacher was paid the same rate of pay for the days she worked, there was no violation of the statute.
The case is Varasso v. Williamsburg Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2009-Ohio-3419.
At issue in the case was Carla A. Varasso, an art teacher with a continuing contract. That contract required her to work 183 days of the year
for an annual salary of $56,422.16, or $308.32 per day. However, in May 2004, Ms. Varasso was severely injured in an accident that left her unable to teach again until Fall 2005. By the time she returned, she had missed 58 days of the school year, only nine of which had been covered by sick leave.
Thus, Ms. Varasso had her compensation reduced for the time that she was off of work without sick leave. She thus filed suit, alleging a violation of R.C. 3319.12 which prohibits reducing teacher's salaries from the amount that they made the year before, unless the reduction is part of a uniform plan adopted by the school district.
The 12th District found that "salary" meant "rate of pay" and as long as the teacher was paid the same rate of pay for the days she worked, there was no violation of the statute.
The case is Varasso v. Williamsburg Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2009-Ohio-3419.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Strip search violated student's rights, Court finds, but no administrator liability
A fractured Supreme Court found today that a student's constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure was violated when administrators strip searched her in search of ibuprofen, but that those administrators were not personally liable because the law was not "clearly established" at the time of the search.
The Court's opinion reiterated that the legal standard for student searches put forward by the Court in the TLO case still applies in public schools. That standard requires less than the probable cause normally required when the government conducts a search. However, school searches must be reasonable under the circumstances and proportional to the suspicion that gave rise to the search.
While the Court found that the search of the student's backpack and outer clothing was reasonable under the circumstances of this case, the Court held that the strip search went too far (the administrators made the girl partially remove her bra and required her to fan out her underwear). But because the law was not "clearly established" at the time of the search, the administrators were immune from liability.
This case is significant for a few reasons, one of them being that courts (and the Supreme Court) have increasingly deferred to judgment of school administrators in such matters, particularly where drugs are concerned, as was the case in Morse v. Frederick (that case, admittedly, was about speech and not intimate strip searches).
Parents, students, and administrators should take note of the facts in this case. While the law may not have been "clearly established" at the time of this particular search, this case will help to more clearly establish the factors in an unreasonable search where administrator liability may lie.
The Court's opinion reiterated that the legal standard for student searches put forward by the Court in the TLO case still applies in public schools. That standard requires less than the probable cause normally required when the government conducts a search. However, school searches must be reasonable under the circumstances and proportional to the suspicion that gave rise to the search.
While the Court found that the search of the student's backpack and outer clothing was reasonable under the circumstances of this case, the Court held that the strip search went too far (the administrators made the girl partially remove her bra and required her to fan out her underwear). But because the law was not "clearly established" at the time of the search, the administrators were immune from liability.
This case is significant for a few reasons, one of them being that courts (and the Supreme Court) have increasingly deferred to judgment of school administrators in such matters, particularly where drugs are concerned, as was the case in Morse v. Frederick (that case, admittedly, was about speech and not intimate strip searches).
Parents, students, and administrators should take note of the facts in this case. While the law may not have been "clearly established" at the time of this particular search, this case will help to more clearly establish the factors in an unreasonable search where administrator liability may lie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)