A U.S. District Court Judge in northeast Ohio has dismissed a case brought against the Mentor School Board, Superintendent, high school principal, and others.
The lawsuit was brought on behalf of of a student who committed suicide, by his parents, alleging violations of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The complaint alleged that after months of persistent bullying in math class, the student shot himself. The school's failure to prevent this bullying violated the student's right to safety, and his parent's right to raise and educate their child in a safe environment, the complaint alleged.
U.S. District Court Judge Donald C. Nugent wrote "while it may seem that a
school, of all places, should provide a safe and supportive environment for the children in its care, neither party has cited any relevant law that would support a finding that the school was in a 'special relationship'" with the student to make the district liable for injury to the student. Furthermore, he wrote, "although it is
certainly reasonable for parents to expect that the school will do its best to protect their children while they are under the school’s supervision, the law does not elevate this expectation to a constitutional guarantee." Additionally, the court held, pursuant to federal precedent, that schools can only be held responsible for injury when they act affirmatively to put someone in danger, not for their failure to act.
Accordingly, the Judge dismissed the federal constitutional claims with prejudice (meaning that they cannot be brought again, absent a reversal on appeal) and dismissed the state law claims for negligence and bad faith, but left open the possibility that those claims could be brought in state court, if appropriate.
The ruling certainly has the potential to negatively impact, but not foreclose, school bullying lawsuits brought by students and their parents in Ohio. However, the court made clear that, at least as it stands now, generally, there is no special relationship between students and schools that would give rise to a constitutional right of protection to students. Whether or not the school acted affirmatively to cause the danger, however, will likely depend on the particular facts of each case.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Friday, May 6, 2011
Court sides with University in elevator injury case.
The 10th District Court of Appeals has upheld a decision of the Ohio Court of Claims in a case that pitted a construction worker against Cleveland State University.
In that case, a worker in a dormitory was injured when a faulty elevator that he was working in fell eight stories. At the time of his injury, the University had leased the dormitory to a developer. While the University admitted it owned the elevator, it denied that it did not have possession or control of the elevator at the time of the incident. Thus, ir argued, it was not liable for the injury.
The Court of Claims and the appeals court agreed.
In that case, a worker in a dormitory was injured when a faulty elevator that he was working in fell eight stories. At the time of his injury, the University had leased the dormitory to a developer. While the University admitted it owned the elevator, it denied that it did not have possession or control of the elevator at the time of the incident. Thus, ir argued, it was not liable for the injury.
The Court of Claims and the appeals court agreed.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Plain Dealer examines effect of Senate Bill 5 on school districts
The Cleveland Plain Dealer published an article this week that surveyed the effect Senate Bill 5 would have on school districts.
Among the most drastic changes for school personnel are the elimination of pension "pick ups," the elimination of binding arbitration, and the elimination of longevity pay and step increases.
Of course, opponents of SB 5 are mobilized, attempting to ensure that these changes never take effect, by putting the measure to the voters in the November 2011 general election.
That article can be accessed here: http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/04/new_collective_bargaining_law.html
Among the most drastic changes for school personnel are the elimination of pension "pick ups," the elimination of binding arbitration, and the elimination of longevity pay and step increases.
Of course, opponents of SB 5 are mobilized, attempting to ensure that these changes never take effect, by putting the measure to the voters in the November 2011 general election.
That article can be accessed here: http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/04/new_collective_bargaining_law.html
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Supreme Court of Ohio dismisses parents' bullying case; case continues in federal court
The Supreme Court of Ohio unanimously dismissed a school bullying case yesterday that had been sent to it from a federal court in Cleveland.
That suit was filed by the parents of a Mentor high school student who committed suicide. The parents allege in their complaint that their son had been bullied for months at school, including by a student who told him the day before his death, "Why don't you go home and shoot yourself? Nobody would miss you." The parents allege that the student "endured harassment and bullying at school at the hands of numerous other students." He was also, according to the complaint, forced to endure "name-calling, teasing and verbal intimidation in one particular class and constant pushing, shoving and hitting both in class and in hallways of the high school. The name-calling was usually sexually themed."
The Supreme Court's dismissal of the case does not end the suit, however, which will now proceed in federal court.
That suit was filed by the parents of a Mentor high school student who committed suicide. The parents allege in their complaint that their son had been bullied for months at school, including by a student who told him the day before his death, "Why don't you go home and shoot yourself? Nobody would miss you." The parents allege that the student "endured harassment and bullying at school at the hands of numerous other students." He was also, according to the complaint, forced to endure "name-calling, teasing and verbal intimidation in one particular class and constant pushing, shoving and hitting both in class and in hallways of the high school. The name-calling was usually sexually themed."
The Supreme Court's dismissal of the case does not end the suit, however, which will now proceed in federal court.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
"School Day Security and Anti-Bullying Act" introduced in Ohio House
Representative John Barnes, Jr. has introduced House Bill 116, or the "School Day Security and Anti-Bullying Act" for consideration by the Ohio House of Representatives. The proposed Act would require school districts to be more aggressive with their education efforts on anti-bullying policies.
Under current Ohio law, school districts are required to publish their bullying policy in the student handbook and include the policy in school employee training handbooks. Under this proposal, districts would be required to, twice in every school year, provide each student with age-appropriate instruction on the board's policies prohibiting harassment, intimidation, and bullying. The first instruction must be given toward the beginning of the school year and the second offered during the second semester. Additionally, the consequences for violations must be taught and an acknowledgment of receipt must be signed by the parent or guardian and returned to the school.
The bill does not change the definition of bullying under Ohio law, which defines that intimidation, harassment, or bullying as any of the following "(1) Any intentional written, verbal, or physical act that a student has exhibited toward another particular student more than once and the behavior both:
(a) Causes mental or physical harm to the other student;
(b) Is sufficiently severe, persistent, or pervasive that it creates an intimidating, threatening, or abusive educational environment for the other student.
(2) Violence within a dating relationship." R.C. 3313.666
Under current Ohio law, school districts are required to publish their bullying policy in the student handbook and include the policy in school employee training handbooks. Under this proposal, districts would be required to, twice in every school year, provide each student with age-appropriate instruction on the board's policies prohibiting harassment, intimidation, and bullying. The first instruction must be given toward the beginning of the school year and the second offered during the second semester. Additionally, the consequences for violations must be taught and an acknowledgment of receipt must be signed by the parent or guardian and returned to the school.
The bill does not change the definition of bullying under Ohio law, which defines that intimidation, harassment, or bullying as any of the following "(1) Any intentional written, verbal, or physical act that a student has exhibited toward another particular student more than once and the behavior both:
(a) Causes mental or physical harm to the other student;
(b) Is sufficiently severe, persistent, or pervasive that it creates an intimidating, threatening, or abusive educational environment for the other student.
(2) Violence within a dating relationship." R.C. 3313.666
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Court upholds Board's decision to permanently revoke teacher's license
The Franklin County Court of Appeals this week upheld the State Board of Education's permanent revocation of a teacher's license.
In that case, two teachers had held a Christmas party in an area of a school buidling was not authorized to by the principal. Two students began boxing, with the knowledge of the teacher. One of the students was struck, was severely injured, and nearly died. The two teachers then allegedly concocted a story that they thought would keep them out of trouble. The teachers allegedly told students to lie to the principal if asked.
The principal then began an investigation. He interviewed students who were present during the Christmas party. The students stuck to the teachers' allegedly concocted story. Later, however, one of the teachers confessed the true story. However, the other teacher stuck to the original story. Both teachers later resigned, and an investigator in the Department's Office of Professional Conduct, Kelly Beall, was assigned to investigate the matter. As a result of Beall's investigation, the Board issued the teacher a notice of its intent to determine whether to limit, suspend, or revoke his teaching license.
Pursuant to R.C. 119.07, the State Board of Education must hold a hearing if a party requests it within 30 days of the mailing of a notice of intent. The notice of intent informed the teacher of his right to request a hearing, and it warned the teacher that if he did not exercise this right, the Board could suspend, limit, or revoke his teaching license in his absence.
After the hearing, the hearing officer determined that the inadequate supervision of students, among other things, amounted to conduct unbecoming to the teacher's position, and that the Board had grounds to sanction the teacher under R.C. 3319.31(B)(1) and Ohio Adm. Code 3301-73-22. The hearing examiner recommended that the Board revoke the teacher's teaching license and render him permanently ineligible to apply for any license issued by the Board. The Board adopted the hearing officer's recommendation. The teacher then appealed both to the Court of Common Pleas, and to the appeals court, both of which upheld the revocation.
In that case, two teachers had held a Christmas party in an area of a school buidling was not authorized to by the principal. Two students began boxing, with the knowledge of the teacher. One of the students was struck, was severely injured, and nearly died. The two teachers then allegedly concocted a story that they thought would keep them out of trouble. The teachers allegedly told students to lie to the principal if asked.
The principal then began an investigation. He interviewed students who were present during the Christmas party. The students stuck to the teachers' allegedly concocted story. Later, however, one of the teachers confessed the true story. However, the other teacher stuck to the original story. Both teachers later resigned, and an investigator in the Department's Office of Professional Conduct, Kelly Beall, was assigned to investigate the matter. As a result of Beall's investigation, the Board issued the teacher a notice of its intent to determine whether to limit, suspend, or revoke his teaching license.
Pursuant to R.C. 119.07, the State Board of Education must hold a hearing if a party requests it within 30 days of the mailing of a notice of intent. The notice of intent informed the teacher of his right to request a hearing, and it warned the teacher that if he did not exercise this right, the Board could suspend, limit, or revoke his teaching license in his absence.
After the hearing, the hearing officer determined that the inadequate supervision of students, among other things, amounted to conduct unbecoming to the teacher's position, and that the Board had grounds to sanction the teacher under R.C. 3319.31(B)(1) and Ohio Adm. Code 3301-73-22. The hearing examiner recommended that the Board revoke the teacher's teaching license and render him permanently ineligible to apply for any license issued by the Board. The Board adopted the hearing officer's recommendation. The teacher then appealed both to the Court of Common Pleas, and to the appeals court, both of which upheld the revocation.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Ohio school district to require students to undergo breathalyzer before entering school dance. Is it constitutional?
The Columbus Dispatch today is reporting that students at Medina High School, in Medina, Ohio, will have to take a breathalzyer test before attending the school's sweatheart dance. http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/01/27/27-Ohio-school-requires-breathalyzer-test-at-dances.html?sid=101
The new rule takes effect as a result of two students showing up drunk to the school's homecoming dance.
But is the school district permitted to take such a step under the U.S. Constitution? Maybe. Almost thirty years ago, the Ohio Attorney General issued an opinion that school boards may administer breath tests when students are suspected of having consumed alcoholic beverages. The board has to have found that such rules and regulations are ncessary to the effective management of their schools. 1983 OAG No. 012.
Nonetheless, such a policy must still conform to constitutional mandates, no matter what the Attorney General believes. If a particular student is reasonably believed to be under the influence, there seems to be not much doubt that a student could be required to undergo a breathalyzer. The odor of alcohol and impaired behavior may be enough to reach the "reasonable" standard in this context. See e.g. Martinez v. School Dist. No. 60, 852 P.2d
The more difficult question is can the test be required to ALL students before entering the school dance. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld random, suspicionless drug testing of all students engaged in competitive extracurricular activities. However, courts generally require such testing policies set forth adequate safeguards to ensure reliability, privacy during testing, and confidentiality of results. See e.g. Crager v. Bd. of Educ., 313 F. Supp. 2d 690 (6th Cir. 2004). It seems likely that the breath-testing will be done in front of a number of people, including other students, and that the results will not remain private (students would be denied admission at the door). Furthermore, since high school students are not allowed to legally consume alcohol, the threat of prosecution may face those who test positive. However, the argument exists that extracurricular activities like school dances are voluntary affairs, and that the student's interests to be free from search and seizure are diminished.
In the end, there is no clear answer as to whether or not all students can be forced to undergo breath tests before entering the school dance. On a whole, when viewed in light of existing precedent, the case law seems to be on the side of the school district.
The new rule takes effect as a result of two students showing up drunk to the school's homecoming dance.
But is the school district permitted to take such a step under the U.S. Constitution? Maybe. Almost thirty years ago, the Ohio Attorney General issued an opinion that school boards may administer breath tests when students are suspected of having consumed alcoholic beverages. The board has to have found that such rules and regulations are ncessary to the effective management of their schools. 1983 OAG No. 012.
Nonetheless, such a policy must still conform to constitutional mandates, no matter what the Attorney General believes. If a particular student is reasonably believed to be under the influence, there seems to be not much doubt that a student could be required to undergo a breathalyzer. The odor of alcohol and impaired behavior may be enough to reach the "reasonable" standard in this context. See e.g. Martinez v. School Dist. No. 60, 852 P.2d
The more difficult question is can the test be required to ALL students before entering the school dance. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld random, suspicionless drug testing of all students engaged in competitive extracurricular activities. However, courts generally require such testing policies set forth adequate safeguards to ensure reliability, privacy during testing, and confidentiality of results. See e.g. Crager v. Bd. of Educ., 313 F. Supp. 2d 690 (6th Cir. 2004). It seems likely that the breath-testing will be done in front of a number of people, including other students, and that the results will not remain private (students would be denied admission at the door). Furthermore, since high school students are not allowed to legally consume alcohol, the threat of prosecution may face those who test positive. However, the argument exists that extracurricular activities like school dances are voluntary affairs, and that the student's interests to be free from search and seizure are diminished.
In the end, there is no clear answer as to whether or not all students can be forced to undergo breath tests before entering the school dance. On a whole, when viewed in light of existing precedent, the case law seems to be on the side of the school district.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
