The folks at Online Degree have put together a relatively comprehensive list of facebook tips for teachers (and administrators, too!)
I was not involved in the creation of the list, but thought that some readers might find it interesting.
It can be found at: http://www.onlinedegree.net/50-useful-facebook-tips-for-teachers/
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Monday, July 19, 2010
African-American teacher's appeal denied
The Eight District Court of Appeals, which covers Cuyahoga County, has denied a teacher's appeal from a lawsuit claiming he was discriminated against because of his race.
The plaintiff teacher, who was an African-American, filed a complaint in the trial court against the defendant board of education alleging that it failed to promote him to the position of assistant principal and hired a less-qualified Caucasian applicant instead.
In that case, the teacher had applied for an assistant principal position. The school board, after interviewing two candidates, chose the Caucasian candidate over the African-American candidate. Believing that the school district lacked a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for taking the action that it took, the teacher filed a lawsuit. However, the trial court decided no genuine issue of material fact existed, and that the school board won as a matter of law. The teacher appealed to the Eight District Court of Appeals.
The appeals court determined that the school board had legitimate reasons for choosing the Caucasian applicant over the African-American teacher. Moreover, the school board's committee reviewed the candidates’ application materials, asked each candidate the same questions from a prepared list of questions, and considered the strengths and concerns related to each candidate. The committee believed that both men were qualified, but the Caucasian applicant was better qualified than the plaintiff because he had more leadership experience relating to building and district-wide initiatives that impacted both students and staff issues. Thus, there was no evidence in the record of a discriminatory animus. Further, having found no evidence of racial discrimination, the plaintiff's alleged claim of emotional distress resulting therefrom also failed.
Consequently, the court of appeals agreed there was no discrimination.
The plaintiff teacher, who was an African-American, filed a complaint in the trial court against the defendant board of education alleging that it failed to promote him to the position of assistant principal and hired a less-qualified Caucasian applicant instead.
In that case, the teacher had applied for an assistant principal position. The school board, after interviewing two candidates, chose the Caucasian candidate over the African-American candidate. Believing that the school district lacked a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for taking the action that it took, the teacher filed a lawsuit. However, the trial court decided no genuine issue of material fact existed, and that the school board won as a matter of law. The teacher appealed to the Eight District Court of Appeals.
The appeals court determined that the school board had legitimate reasons for choosing the Caucasian applicant over the African-American teacher. Moreover, the school board's committee reviewed the candidates’ application materials, asked each candidate the same questions from a prepared list of questions, and considered the strengths and concerns related to each candidate. The committee believed that both men were qualified, but the Caucasian applicant was better qualified than the plaintiff because he had more leadership experience relating to building and district-wide initiatives that impacted both students and staff issues. Thus, there was no evidence in the record of a discriminatory animus. Further, having found no evidence of racial discrimination, the plaintiff's alleged claim of emotional distress resulting therefrom also failed.
Consequently, the court of appeals agreed there was no discrimination.
Monday, June 28, 2010
U.S. Supreme Court sides with law school in non-discrimination case
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that a law school's non-discrimination policy does not run afoul of the U.S. Constitution by requiring all groups that are recognized and funded by a university to sign a pledge of non-discrimination.
The case before the court came as the result of a dispute between the University of California, Hastings and the Christian Legal Society. The university had a policy that all student groups had to be open to all individuals. Moreover, the university required all groups to sign a pledge that they would not discriminate based on, among others, religion and sexual orientation. The Christian Legal Society refused to sign the pledge and filed suit, alleging, among other things, a violation of their First Amendment rights of self-expression.
All lower courts that had considered the matter had sided with the university. The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the lower courts.
The case before the court came as the result of a dispute between the University of California, Hastings and the Christian Legal Society. The university had a policy that all student groups had to be open to all individuals. Moreover, the university required all groups to sign a pledge that they would not discriminate based on, among others, religion and sexual orientation. The Christian Legal Society refused to sign the pledge and filed suit, alleging, among other things, a violation of their First Amendment rights of self-expression.
All lower courts that had considered the matter had sided with the university. The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the lower courts.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Teacher reinstated, but board of education does not have to pay attorney fees, appeals court rules
The First District Court of Appeals today affirmed a decision by a trial court to reinstate a teacher who was terminated by his board of education under R.C. 3319.16 for "good and just cause" for alleging throwing a basketball at a student. That court, however, also found that the teacher was not entitled to attorney fees because his district did not act in bad faith.
The case involved a physical education/health teacher who had 20 years experience. Throughout his tenure, he had received positive reviews and had eight consecutive years of perfect attendance. In his evaluations, the teacher was specifically complimented on his (1) "strong discipline"; (2) his "professional manner"; (3) having "full control of * * * his classes"; (4) his "classroom management"; (5) his "professional manner structure and organization"; (6) the fact that "safety is stressed in both health and PE"; (7) being a "good role model"; and (8) being a "true professional who is a great role model for the students."
In June 2007, a male student athlete who stood six feet seven inches left the teacher's class without permission and began "shooting hoops" in the gymnasium. The teacher found the student and instructed him to go to the locker room to change clothes and then to attend his next class. The teacher had to instruct this student three times before the student complied. The student changed in the locker room, but instead of going to his next class, he went back to the gym to play basketball. The teacher again instructed the student, at least five or six times, not to shoot the basketball and to leave the court. When the student refused to comply with the instructions, the teacher, "with a two-hand push" of his own basketball, knocked the basketball the student was holding out of the student's hands in an effort to get him to leave the court. The student was angry and approached the teacher, but another teacher escorted the student from the gymnasium. The student was not injured.
Although the student claimed that he had been hit in the stomach, another student who had witnessed the incident stated that the ball that the teacher had thrown hit the basketball in the student's hands. The teacher was suspended indefinitely without pay.
The male student's mother initiated criminal proceedings against the teacher. The state charged him with assault, but he was acquitted following the presentation of the state's case due to the failure to prove that he had knowingly caused or attempted to cause physical harm to the student. The student had testified that the teacher had not thrown the ball "very hard" at him and that he had not believed that the teacher intended to harm him. He further testified that he had not been injured.
As a result of this incident, the Board initiated termination proceedings against the teacher. After hearing evidence, a referee determined that the teacher had not intended to throw a basketball at the student and that there was a difference between throwing a ball at a student and throwing a ball at an object the student was holding. The referee recommended reinstatement.
The Board of Education, however, terminated the teacher's contract, not agreeing with the referee's distinction between throwing a ball at a student and throwing a ball at an object a student was holding. The teacher appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, who agreed with the referee, that the incident was not a "fairly serious matter." The Court also awarded the teacher all of his attorney fees.
The Board of Education appealed. The Court of Appeals agreed that the incident was not a "fairly serious matter" but disagreed with the trial court that the board acted in bad faith. Thus, it upheld the teacher's reinstatement, but denied his attorney fees.
The case is Stalder v. St. Bernard-Elmwood Place City School District, 2010-Ohio-2363.
The case involved a physical education/health teacher who had 20 years experience. Throughout his tenure, he had received positive reviews and had eight consecutive years of perfect attendance. In his evaluations, the teacher was specifically complimented on his (1) "strong discipline"; (2) his "professional manner"; (3) having "full control of * * * his classes"; (4) his "classroom management"; (5) his "professional manner structure and organization"; (6) the fact that "safety is stressed in both health and PE"; (7) being a "good role model"; and (8) being a "true professional who is a great role model for the students."
In June 2007, a male student athlete who stood six feet seven inches left the teacher's class without permission and began "shooting hoops" in the gymnasium. The teacher found the student and instructed him to go to the locker room to change clothes and then to attend his next class. The teacher had to instruct this student three times before the student complied. The student changed in the locker room, but instead of going to his next class, he went back to the gym to play basketball. The teacher again instructed the student, at least five or six times, not to shoot the basketball and to leave the court. When the student refused to comply with the instructions, the teacher, "with a two-hand push" of his own basketball, knocked the basketball the student was holding out of the student's hands in an effort to get him to leave the court. The student was angry and approached the teacher, but another teacher escorted the student from the gymnasium. The student was not injured.
Although the student claimed that he had been hit in the stomach, another student who had witnessed the incident stated that the ball that the teacher had thrown hit the basketball in the student's hands. The teacher was suspended indefinitely without pay.
The male student's mother initiated criminal proceedings against the teacher. The state charged him with assault, but he was acquitted following the presentation of the state's case due to the failure to prove that he had knowingly caused or attempted to cause physical harm to the student. The student had testified that the teacher had not thrown the ball "very hard" at him and that he had not believed that the teacher intended to harm him. He further testified that he had not been injured.
As a result of this incident, the Board initiated termination proceedings against the teacher. After hearing evidence, a referee determined that the teacher had not intended to throw a basketball at the student and that there was a difference between throwing a ball at a student and throwing a ball at an object the student was holding. The referee recommended reinstatement.
The Board of Education, however, terminated the teacher's contract, not agreeing with the referee's distinction between throwing a ball at a student and throwing a ball at an object a student was holding. The teacher appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, who agreed with the referee, that the incident was not a "fairly serious matter." The Court also awarded the teacher all of his attorney fees.
The Board of Education appealed. The Court of Appeals agreed that the incident was not a "fairly serious matter" but disagreed with the trial court that the board acted in bad faith. Thus, it upheld the teacher's reinstatement, but denied his attorney fees.
The case is Stalder v. St. Bernard-Elmwood Place City School District, 2010-Ohio-2363.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Appeals Court Upholds Grant of Unemployment to Special Education Teacher
The Ninth District Court of Appeals has upheld the decision of a trial court finding that a special education teacher was terminated without just cause.
In that case, the special education teacher was discharged by her board of education for allegedly abusing a student in her care. She was initially denied unemployment benefits, after there was a finding that she was discharged for just cause. However, the teacher continued her appeals, and the decision was subsequently reversed by the review commission.
The review commission's decision was appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, which upheld the decision of the review commission. That decision was affirmed by the Ninth District. In reaching its decision that the trial court's decision was not unlawful, unreasonable, or against the manifest weight of the evidence, the appeals court relied on the facts that a county children services did not reveal bruising on the child's wrist or neck. Also, the children services’ final determination was that the claim of abuse was unsubstantiated and the Center for the Teaching Profession after conducting an investigation determined there was no abuse and renewed the appellee individual's teaching certificate. Furthermore, the state Department of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities did not place the appellee individual on its registry of those who had abused students.
Accordingly, the teacher was able to collect her unemployment benefits.
In that case, the special education teacher was discharged by her board of education for allegedly abusing a student in her care. She was initially denied unemployment benefits, after there was a finding that she was discharged for just cause. However, the teacher continued her appeals, and the decision was subsequently reversed by the review commission.
The review commission's decision was appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, which upheld the decision of the review commission. That decision was affirmed by the Ninth District. In reaching its decision that the trial court's decision was not unlawful, unreasonable, or against the manifest weight of the evidence, the appeals court relied on the facts that a county children services did not reveal bruising on the child's wrist or neck. Also, the children services’ final determination was that the claim of abuse was unsubstantiated and the Center for the Teaching Profession after conducting an investigation determined there was no abuse and renewed the appellee individual's teaching certificate. Furthermore, the state Department of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities did not place the appellee individual on its registry of those who had abused students.
Accordingly, the teacher was able to collect her unemployment benefits.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Supreme Court of Ohio sets oral arguments in school background check case
The Supreme Court of Ohio has set oral arguments for June 8, 2010 in a dispute over the constitutionality of a law requiring the termination of all school employees with certain convictions.
In that case, the plaintiff was terminated his contract from his position of 11 years with the Cincinnati Public Schools after it was found out that he had been convicted of selling narcotics in 1976. The conviction had been expunged from his record and the plaintiff had been rehabilitated and not committed any other crimes.
The lawsuit alleges violations of both state and federal law. The federal court asked the Supreme Court of Ohio to clarify whether the statute violated two provisions of the Ohio Constitution, namely, (1) whether the statute was impermissibly retroactive under Article II, Section 28 and (2) whether the statute violated the Contracts Clause of the Ohio Constitution.
After the Supreme Court makes its determination, the lawsuit will likely be sent back to the federal court for determination of the federal issues.
In that case, the plaintiff was terminated his contract from his position of 11 years with the Cincinnati Public Schools after it was found out that he had been convicted of selling narcotics in 1976. The conviction had been expunged from his record and the plaintiff had been rehabilitated and not committed any other crimes.
The lawsuit alleges violations of both state and federal law. The federal court asked the Supreme Court of Ohio to clarify whether the statute violated two provisions of the Ohio Constitution, namely, (1) whether the statute was impermissibly retroactive under Article II, Section 28 and (2) whether the statute violated the Contracts Clause of the Ohio Constitution.
After the Supreme Court makes its determination, the lawsuit will likely be sent back to the federal court for determination of the federal issues.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Immunity applies when office holder is sued in his official capacity
The Supreme Court of Ohio today ruled, 6-1, that public officeholders, sued in their official capacity, are immune from liability pursuant to R.C. 2774.02, (political subdivision immunity analysis) rather than the “political subdivision employee” immunity standards set forth in R.C. 2744.03(A)(6).
In that case, the plaintiff sued the Hamilton County Clerk of Courts for publishing her private information online after receiving a traffic citation.
The First District Court of Appeals found that political subdivision employee analysis applied. However, the Supreme Court found that political subdivision analysis applied and that the Clerk of Courts was immune from such suit because it occurred in his official capacity.
The same analysis would be applicable to school board members when sued in their official capacity.
In that case, the plaintiff sued the Hamilton County Clerk of Courts for publishing her private information online after receiving a traffic citation.
The First District Court of Appeals found that political subdivision employee analysis applied. However, the Supreme Court found that political subdivision analysis applied and that the Clerk of Courts was immune from such suit because it occurred in his official capacity.
The same analysis would be applicable to school board members when sued in their official capacity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)