|
Welcome to the the August issue of our monthly newsletter dedicated to keeping you current on Education Law and related issues. We hope you enjoy our letter and find the contents valuable to you and your clientele.
|
|
Harden v. Caravel Academy, Inc., (Del.Super.)
July 24, 2007
A private school that owned a batting cage was an "owner" of the land at issue in an injured baseball coach's personal injury suit, as defined by Delaware's Public Recreational Use Act. The school was thus required to establish immunity from the suit under the Act, even though the school did not own the property on which the cage was situated. The cage was attached to the property, and the school exercised control over the property. Moreover, the land on which the baseball field and batting cages were located was not open to the public, as required for an owner to receive immunity under the Act, even though the land was made available to the baseball coach and team free of charge. Neither the land nor the batting cages were open for public access, the field was surrounded by a fence that was generally kept locked, and the baseball team's use was conditioned on certain permits and insurance arrangements. | |
Kutasi v. Las Virgenes Unified School Dist., (C.A.9 (Cal.))
July 27, 2007
The parents of a public school student were required to exhaust their administrative remedies under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) before bringing an action against the school district and other defendants under 1983 and the Rehabilitation Act, alleging discrimination based on the student's disability, since the parents were seeking relief that was also available under the IDEA. The parents sought damages to remedy the defendants' refusal to allow the student to attend a middle school after he had been assigned classes and had already attended school, and the parents complained of hostile bureaucratic acts by the defendants relating the scheduling of the student's individualized education program (IEP) conferences that could have been remedied in administrative proceedings. | |
|
Booth v. Martinez, (W.D.Tex.)
July 29, 2007
A Texas student who claimed she and other students were subjected to sexual harassment by a former teacher and coach could not impute the actions of teachers, principals and superintendents to the school district for purposes of 1983 liability. The student had not identified a formal policy statement of ignoring or condoning sexual harassment or abuse of students that was officially adopted and promulgated by the board of trustees. Even if an informal custom of ignoring or condoning sexual harassment or abuse of students existed, there was no evidence the board had actual or constructive knowledge of its existence. Furthermore, the board president's conduct was not "moving force" behind the violations alleged. The board president had encouraged the student to pursue available administrative remedies addressing sexual harassment and abuse claims, but the student's family moved out of the district and withdrew her from school before her grievance was ever heard by the board. The board's president in no way obstructed or impeded the student's access to the established grievance process. | |
|
I am committed to providing individualized service to our clients while dealing with large and complex consultations quickly and professionally whether it involves expert testimony, school reviews in custody matters, risk analysis, presentations or working with parents or schools to ensure children receive the appropriate education. I take pride in the fact that we respond to our client's needs personally and promptly. We continue to strive to combine the resources of a large firm with the personal consultant-client rapport of a small practice.
Sincerely,
Edward F. Dragan, Ed.D.
Founder and Principal Consultant
Education Management Consulting, LLC |
| Quick Links |
| Learn more about us and how our education and school liability expertise can help.
web: www.edmgt.com
phone:609.397.8989 | |
|
|
|
| August Feature Article |
 |
|
Disability Harassment
A Seattle student with cerebral palsy was awarded $300,000 in damages from her school after years of harassment by another student was allowed to take place. Her harasser regularly called her names, blocked her wheelchair's path with furniture and manipulated her chair's electronic controls so it rammed into walls.
The parent of the disabled student filed a lawsuit against the harasser and his family, which was settled out of court. She filed another against school officials for negligent supervision, claiming her daughter suffered emotional distress and physical harm because school personnel failed to protect her child from harassment. The U.S. District Court agreed.
The Seattle case is significant in several ways. First, it shines light on a growing problem in schools and colleges-harassment based on
disabilities. Second, it sends a message that this problem will no longer be tolerated. Third, it gives encouragement to disabled students who might want to legally challenge their harassers and school personnel who tolerate such mistreatment.
As the liability and education expert who provided consultation on the Seattle case and similar lawsuits, I have seen the emotional and academic damage to students facing verbal and physical harassment because of their disabilities, sexual orientation, ethnicity or appearance.
Everyone in the school community needs to be dedicated to providing a welcoming environment for all students. Not only is this the right thing to do; it's the law. Disability harassment breaks federal laws including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. Harassment also has the potential to break state and local civil rights, anti-discrimination, child abuse, and criminal laws.
The resulting lawsuits have the potential to cost schools and taxpayers considerably in legal fees and settlements. Litigation also causes teachers and students to lose valuable class time.
By protecting disabled students, schools will send a message of acceptance for all students, no matter what their differences. In essence, when we protect the liberties of one group, we protect the liberties of all.
Full Text
Other relevant articles are available on our website.
|
|
|
