Zelman v. Simmons-Harris June, 2002
TINKER v. DES MOINES SCHOOL DIST., 393 U.S. 503 (1969)
They have the right to free speech.
Sellers v. School Board of the City of Manassas, Virginia No. 97-1762 Argued Jan. 29, 1998 - April 13, 1998
The Sellers' complaint is that the school did not discover Kristopher's learning disabilities and provided him services.
-The case was dismissed from failure to make a claim. The Sellers then appeal the dismissal of their IDEA, Rehabilitations Act, and Section 1983 Claims. The IDEA claims are 1) did not evaluate and neglected his needs, and 2) Free and appropriate education.
harlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education and someone named Terry Belk.
This case, justices said that black and white school children could be bused for purposes of integration. In 2000, the CMS Board instructed the superintendent to develop a student assignment plan for 2002-2003. The CMS system was divided into four contingent zones- blue, gold, purple, and green.
--By allotting certain seats, you are discriminating
Powers and duties of Principals. Reports to superintendent; discipline ; duties ; report acts to law enforcement; budgets; SIP; action plans, ;
42 USC 1983
Civil action for deprivation of rights
DAvis v. Monroe County Board of Education (119 S.Ct. 1661)
Supreme Court rules in Davis case that schools are responsible for student-to-student sexual harassment
a civil wrong arising out of a breach of duty that is imposed by law
Hallman v. Charlotte-Mechlenberg Bd. of Education
Board not held liable if insured
Ingraham vs. Wright 430 U.S. 651 (1977)
upheld the constitutionality of corporal punishment; however, state statute and/or district policy may limit teachers and administrators in their use of corporal punishment.
Negligent supervision cases....2 questions
1. any duty to supervise students at hand?
2. what kind and degree of supervision would be reasonable?
laws that offer remedies to individuals harmed by the unreasonable actions of others.
state law and are based on the legal premise that individuals are liable for the consequences of their conduct if it results in injury to others
individual must be aware that injury will be the result of the act.
refers to an overt attempt to physically injure a person or create a feeling of fear and apprehension of injury.
results from physical contact.
(Frank v. New Orleans Parish School Board, 1967)
teacher in Louisiana was sued and lost a case for assault and battery for picking up a student and slamming him against bleachers. The teacher then dropped the student to the floor resulting in the student’s arm being broken
(Sansone v. Bechtel,1980)
In Connecticut, a student was awarded damages when a teacher slammed the student against a chalkboard and then a wall, breaking the student’s clavicle
egligence the acts leading to injury are neither expected nor intended. Students who bring negligence claims must prove that school personnel should have foreseen and prevented the injury by exercising proper care.
There are four elements that must be present for negligence to occur:
Duty to Protect
Teachers have a duty to anticipate foreseeable dangers and take necessary precautions to protect students in their care
teacher duties include: adequate supervision, maintenance of equipment and facilities, and heightened supervision of high-risk activities.
Failing to Exercise a Reasonable Standard of Care
fails to exercise reasonable care to protect students from injury,
he degree of care exercised by a "reasonable" teacher is determined by factors such as: (a) the training and experience of the teacher in charge, (b) the student’s age, (c) the environment in which the injury occurred, (d) the type of instructional activity, (e) the presence or absence of the supervising teacher, and (f) a student’s disability, if one exists
Additionally, school officials may be liable for damage claims resulting from a failure to supervise a student with disabilities when that student injures another student
Ferraro v. Board of Education of the City of New York (1961)
indicated that courts will hold school personnel liable if a student attacks and injures another student and the teacher should have known that such an attack or aggressive behavior was possible and, therefore, could have prevented the injury
Cohen v. School District (1992)
a special education student with learning disabilities, behavior problems, and known violent tendencies was mainstreamed without adequate supervision. Without provocation, the student attacked and injured a peer in his classroom. The parents of the injured student sued the school maintaining that the injured student’s rights had been violated
Grooms v. Marlboro County School District (1992),
The court reasoned that the school’s policy of allowing the student, "whose judgment was impaired by the disability," to simply leave the classroom unescorted and report to a person who "did not have the level of expertise necessary" to deal with the student may have constituted gross negligence.
McMahan v. Crutchfield (1997)
a school district paid to settle a lawsuit involving a special education student who assaulted a five-year-old girl. Allan Crutchfield, who had mild to moderate mental disabilities and had a history of behavioral problems, was participating in a job-training program when the assault occurred.
Fischer et al. (1994)
According to Fischer et al. (1994), such waivers may be useful for public relations purposes, but will not relieve teachers or school officials of possible liability for negligence.
If it can be shown that a student contributed to the injury, the teacher may use a defense of contributory negligence. If the court finds that contributory negligence was present, the teacher will not be held liable.
Garcetti v. Ceballos (04-473)
THe government cannot punish you for speaking freely, but your boss can! Public employees "citizen" and "worker" --5-4 decision public employees will not enjoy free speech rights for expressions they make to their employment duties.
Pickering v. Board of Education
In Pickering v. Board of Education , 391 U.S. 563 (1968), the Court held that, in deciding whether an employer’s action in response to a public employee’s speech violates the First Amendment, courts must consider at least two factors: (1) the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees; and (2) the interest of the employee in commenting upon matters of public concern.
In Weintraub v. Board of Education of the City of New York, No. 07-2376 (2d Cir. Jan. 27, 2010)
The case concerns a 5th grade school teacher who was dealing with a disruptive student throwing books at him on multiple occasions. When the school administrator refused to take disciplinary action against the student, the teacher filed a grievance with his union. The school allegedly responded by retaliating against the teacher and eventually, firing him.