Nevada Teacher Law Court Cases Essays

Nevada Teacher Law Court Cases Essays Nevada Teacher Law Court Cases Paper Nevada Teacher Law Court Cases Paper Hortonville Joint school District No. 1 v. Horton ville Education Association et al. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of striking treachers employed in a state (Wisconsin) in which such strikes were prohibited.   Nevada also prohibits teacher strikes. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Protects employees against sexual harassment in the workplace Unlawful employment practice to discriminate becasue of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin TitleVII of the Civil Rights Act of 1954 AND Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 Title IX, Education Amendments of 1972, Section 901 provides: No person in the US be excluded from participation in or benefits of or discriminated under any ed program or activity receiving Federal Financial assistance on  the basis of sex. Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX Education Amendments ENFORCEMENT Title VII Enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission EEOC Title IX enforced by US Department of Ed Office of Civil Rights OCR quid pro quo and non quid pro quo something for something and actions or verbal messages creating an offensive, hostile, or intimidating work environment Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57(1986) Meritor standard Sexual conduct constitutes prohibited sexual harassment, whether or not it is directly linked to the grant or denial of an economic quid pro quo, where such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an indivuduals work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. Franklin v. Gwinett County Public Schools 1992.   USS Court held that the recovery of monetary damages was available under Title IX for sexual harassment of a student by a school teacher when school officials intentinally took no action to halt it. Harris v. Forklift Systems Ruled under Title VII by the USS Court roving abusive work environment harassment no longer requires evidence of serious psychological damage, but may be ascertained by considering all of the circumstances involved in the situation. Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District USS Court held that under Title IX a student sexually harassed by a teacher could recover damages against a school district only if a school official was deliberately indifferent.   In this case, sexual misconduct was off sdhool property and the school was ruled as not deliberately indifferent. Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education Involves tudent perpetrator and student victim (peer harassment) 1999.   USSC reversed lower courts, ruling that damages for peer harassment may be awareded under Title IX 1) school deliberately indifferent 2)the plaintiff must show that the harrassment is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, and it detracts from the educational experience, such that the victim is effectively denied equal access to education. NRS Chapter 392 1999 Nevada legislature requires every school to develop a plan for the progresssive descipline of students.; Includes remove student from the class for up to 3 days, then conference with pupil, parent, principal, and teacher.; alternative placement or back in class; suspended, or expelled. NRS Chapters 193 ; 200 NV legislature deals with acts of terrorism on school campuses by increasing penalties for felonies committed on school grounds, shcool functions, school buses, etc,.; Additional NV law regarding suspension and expulsion of pupils causing bodily injury or posesstion of dangerous weapons or firearms Copyright Act of 1976 Fair use provides judicially created exceptions to absolute control of material, the privilege in others than the owner fo the copyright to use the copyrighted material in a reasonable manner without his consent, notwithstanding the monopoly granted the owner. Wagenblast v. Odessa SD, Supreme Court of Washington, 1988 School Liability Resleas Forms Releases required to be signed by parents as a condition of engaging in school activities, which hold school districts blameless from liability for negligence, are commonly ruled to be invalid.; NO decision have been rendered with jurisdiction over Vebada.; The court suggested that school districts may require parental consent, but should use straightforward school forms for such use. Peter W. v. San Francisco USD Concerns malpractice cases involving medical profession applied to allegations of school district personnel.; Galileo High School in San Francisco.;;; Peter W. was fired after graduation becasue he could not perform simple arithemetic.; Peters lawyer maintained that eductors failed to act reasonably in administering to his education needs. Claim Denied Absence of workable rule inherent uncertainly in cause and nature of damages extreme burden on public school system resources A 21 Point Defensive Plan for Lawsuit Conscious Coaches warn players about injury possibilities supervise, supervise, supervise proper instruction proper conditioning proper equiment and facilities proper first aid. records, training rules, safety letters, emergency procedures, follow doctors orders, no injured players, equal competition, take care of injured player. Tinker v DeMoines School Board 1969 The right of the public school students to freedom of expression was confirmed in 199 when the USSC held it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their consitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.;; Schhols arenot totalitrian, possess absolute authority over students.; Students are persons possessed of fundamental inalienable rights.; Right is not unlimited.; Students can not be disruptive.; Bethel v Fraser and Hazelwood School District v Kuhlmeier Reinforced the rights of school administrators to provide positive school environment.; Bethel v. Fraser 1986 Matthew Fraswers speech of sexaul innuendo to 400 students. The court reasoned that according to the FCC v Pacifica Foundation (Carlin) case, expression rising to the level ofobscene would contain one or more of the seven filthy words,.   Frasers speech was indecent, but not FCC case worthy. ; USSC rejected the ruling and reliance on specific language and 7 words.; USSC ruled tha free speech may be limited when speech is sexually explicit, the audience is children, or audience is captive. Haxelwoodv Kuhlmeier 1988 USSC School administrators have broad discretion to regulate the content of school sponsored publications, that students, parents, and public might reasonably perceive to bear the sanction or approval (imprimatour) of the school. Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth ; Perry V Sindermann Buaranteeing reasonable procedural safeguards to individual citizens has long been valued in our national heritage, dating from the English Magna Carta in 12 15.; USSC in these cases, determined that postprobationary or tenured teachers are entitled to due process of law under the 14th Amerndement before being terminated. Pickering v. Board of Education Teacherws enjoy a limited Frist Amendment right to express opinions criticizing the actions of the school administration when such expression is found to relate to matters of publicinterest or concern.; ; Marvin Pickering published an article critical of the board and superintendents handling of a school bond issue. The Church of the Holy Trinity v The U.S. 1891 Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of ecuation shall forever be encouraged. People v. Stanley 1927 One cannot each morality without teaching womething out of that book. Teh Bible is not sectarian, and is not inimical to the welfare of the child, but on the contrary contains lessons in good citizenship. haha Pierce v. Society of Sisters 1920s  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The Oregon Socialization Law Oregon bill was passed in 1926 mandating that all children between the ages of 8 and 18 in the state of Oregon attend public schools Challenged by Society of Sisters of te Holy Names of Jesus and Mary challenged this.   USSC ruled that the state may reasonabley regulate schools and attendance, but the state may not deny the right to attend adequate private schools, nor force them to attend public schools.   Parental rights: states can not standardize children, chilren not creatures of the state; and Parents have more power than the tate. separation of church and state 3 landmark decisions Everson v. Board of Education 1947 Abington Township v. Schempp 1963 Lemon v. Kurtzman 1971 Everson v. Board of Education 1947 Building a Wall of SeparationEverson was a case about spending publicmonies to pay bus for parochial schools. Justice Hugo Black Requries the state to be neutral in its relations with groups of religious believers and non -believers, it does not require the state to be their adversary.   State power is no more to be used so as to handicap religions, than it is to favor them. The First Amendment has erected a wall between chruch and state.   That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightests breach. Arbington Township v Schempp The Bible may not be taught devotionallly may be used as a historical context may be used as literature Lemon v Kurtzman 1971 The Constitution decrees that religion must be aprivatematter. Outlawed government involvement in activities which did not have a secular pupose advanced or inhibited religion fostered an excessive government entanglement with religion Bowen v. Kendrick 1988 Public Funds for Religiously oriented Teen sexuality program. USSC allowed this because it did not specify a certain religion. Lee v Weisman The USSC ruled that schoolsponsored benedictions or invocations at public school graduation ceremonies violate the first Amendment because:   Religious beliefs and religious expression are too precious to either be proscribed or prescribed by the State.   The design of the Constitution is that preservation and transmission of religious beliefs and worship is a responsibility and a choice committed to the private sphere. Lambs Chapel v Center Moriches Union Free SD Its a ok to show religious films at public buildings after school hours. Nevada AG responded Nevada Constitution does not prohibit use of school facilities by sectarian groups for occasional worship services outside of normal school hours if board to trustees of school district has created limited public forum and cost associated with use is reimbursed to school district.   However, board of trustees is not required to create limited public forum or permit sectarian activity. Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School Dist., 1993 Allowed for a sign language interpreter for a private school kid paid for by the public school district; because it did not violate the first amendment. Agostini v. Felton 1997 Title I Services at Private or Private Religious School Sites USSC overturned their own 1985 ruling.   In 1985 Aguilar v Felton barred NYC Bof Ed from sending public school teachers to parochial school sites to provide the reuired remedial education services. Services had to be on neutral sites. In 1997   the USSC becasue of Zobriest (hearing impaired kid) overturned its own 1985 ruling, provding Title I services at parochial school sites and said they did not violate the Establishement Clasue.   Services from public school teachers did NOT have to be given on neutral sites.   Saved money. Mergens v. Bd of Ed. of the West side Comm. Schools 1990 Official Recognition for Bible Clubs? Bible Clubs were ruled by the USSC to be on par with chess clubs and other non school/academic activites. as long as meetings are held during noninstruction time. Students have the right to organize their own groups in public schools, whether they are religious, political, or philosophical. Brown v Woodland Joint USD 1994 Using Lee v Weisman, the USD ruled that no such message of endorsement existed of witchcraft or disapproval of Christianity in the Impressions series, whichis about Wicca. Nevada period of silence 1997 Every school district shall set aside a period at the beginning of each school day, during which all persons must be silent, for voluntary individual meditation, prayer or reflection by pupils.  Ã‚  Ã‚   NV AG the statue was enacted with a secular legislative purpose and does not advance or inhibit religion.   Florey v. Sioux Falls SD Relilgious Holidays and theatre and music allowed in public schools as long as it is not presented as indoctrination and presented in a prudent and objective manner and as a traditional part of the cultural and religious heritage of a particular holiday. Bauchman v West High School 1997 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the inclusion of religious music in public school choir selections may have a secular purpose becaseue it is recognized that a significant percentage of seriousl choral music is based on religious theses or text.   A music director is not actually proselytizeing when selecting music. Special Education Cases Mills v Board of Education of the District of Columbia P.A.R.C. v. Common wealth of Pennsylvania of early 1970s successfully challenged segregated, inconsistent, or nonexistent programs for educating children with disabilities. Rowley v Bd of Ed of Hendrick Hudson Central SD 1982 Interpreting Appropriate Education provide a floor of opportunity not guarantee a particular level of service or guarantee to maximize the potential of each child. Daniel RR V State Bd of Ed 1989 Least Restrictive Environtment Sacramento City USD v Rachel H 1994 Clyde K and Sheila K v Puyllap Sch. Dist 1994 Poolaw v Bishop 1995 Seattle Schoool Dist no. 1 v B.S. 1996 Discipline and procedural safeguards 2004 the Individuals with Disabilities ed Act amended and is called Individuals with Disabilities ed Improvement Act. Compaint notification Resolution sesion Mediation Due process hearing compare IDEA Section 504 and ADA ADA includes students with drug addictions or alcoholism that are not eligible ofr IDEA ADD or ADHD may be covered under 502 of Vocaitonal Rehabilitation Act More inclusive Rehabilitation Act of 1973 No exclusion from  participation in any program or activity receiving Federal Financial assistance. AIDs and Section 504 No discrimination allowed No serious risk notification required