Recent developments in the law-Primary and secondary education

Journal of Law and Education, Jul 2003

STATE COURT AND LOWER FEDERAL COURT DECISIONS

Primary and Secondary Education

Constitutional Claims and Civil Rights

Teacher sued county schools asserting race discrimination, hostile environment, and retaliation claims. Teacher brought claim against Montgomery County Schools claiming that his probationary contract was not renewed because of racial discrimination. In addition, the teacher claimed that a racially hostile environment evolved and retaliation had occurred since he filed the discrimination charge. Held: For the school board. The teacher offered nothing more than his opinion that his performance evaluations were unfair. Subjective opinion was insufficient to establish either that his job performance was satisfactory or that a hostile environment existed. Martin v. Montgomery Co. Public Schools, 223 F. Supp. 2d 742 (D. M.D. 2002).

State Department of Education (DOE) appealed lower court decision granting disabled student's parents reimbursement for private school placement. Parents of disabled student rejected the school's Individualized Education Plan (IEP) for their son and placed him in a private school. The IEP dispute was settled when the decision was made to continue the child's placement at the private school. Parents sought reimbursement for the costs incurred during the dispute. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that the DOE was responsible for the costs based on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and the DOE appealed. Held: For the parents. The court found that the DOE filed its appeal after the 30-day statute of limitations period had expired and thus affirmed the ALJ ruling. Georgia State Dept. of Educ. v. Derrick C., 314 F.3d 545 (11th Cir. 2002).

Disabled student and parents appealed Special Education Due Process Appeals Review Panel decision denying reimbursement for private school expenses. Parents enrolled their son in a private school because they were unhappy with the progress he was making in the public school. The District made efforts to address the parents' concerns, but the parents kept their son in the private school. The parents sought reimbursement for tuition costs incurred at the private school. Held: For the district. The district made substantial efforts to meet the student's needs and could have provided him the Free and Appropriate Education (FAPE) required by federal law. Therefore, reimbursement was denied. Daniel G. v. Del. Valley Sch. Dist., 813 A.2d 36 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002).

Terminated teacher sued school board and principal claiming sexual harassment, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and wrongful discharge. A teacher claimed she was subjected to repeated instances of sexual harassment by her principal. She reported the incidents to her superior who informed her that if she didn't stop pursuing sexual harassment complaints she would likely lose her job. The teacher claimed she then began encountering difficulties at work and eventually was suspended from her position. Then the district notified her that she would not be rehired for the following year. Held: For the District in part, the principal in part and the teacher in part. The evidence was insufficient to support a claim of wrongful discharge against the district or negligent infliction of emotional distress against the principal. However, the evidence supported the teacher's claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress against the district. Barbier v. Durham Co. Bd. of Educ., 225 F. Supp. 2d 617 (M.D.N.C. 2002).

Employee sued school district for sexual harassment and retaliation. An employee became the target of unwelcome advances by her supervisor. The supervisor's actions included calling her at home several times a week about personal matters, e-mailing her, and repeatedly asking her out to dinner. She made one report about the harassment that was not resolved to her satisfaction. The employee filed a complaint with the board of education and an investigation followed. She subsequently complained that the supervisor retaliated against her by lowering her work evaluations, isolating her from co-workers and increasing her work load. Held: For the employee in part and for the school district in part. The employee had alleged a continuing violation, showing that many of the harassing acts appeared to be based on the employee's gender, as they were overtly sexual in nature and were unwelcome. However, the court found that the co-worker's conduct was not severe viewing each incident separately. Nonetheless, when considered together, the harassment was frequent and offensive enough to be deemed pervasive. Lastly, the retaliation claims did not rise to the level of adverse employment action because they did not result in tangible economic loss. McDaniel v. Fulton Co. Sch. Dist., 233 F. Supp. 2d 1364 (N.D. Ga. 2002).

Employee sued school district, alleging injuries resulting from district's failure to provide bus monitor. An employee served as a special education instructor to students with serious behavioral problems. He also drove the bus that brought these students to school. After he began driving the bus, he documented frequent and serious behavioral problems on his route. Because of these problems, the employee requested the district to place a monitor on the bus to supervise the students, but these requests were denied. The employee, while driving the bus, was later attacked by a student, and he subsequently sued the district. Held: For the school district. To recover under the theory that the district created a dangerous environment, the employee needed to show both that the school board created or increased the danger to the employee and that the school board acted in such a manner as to create an opportunity that would not otherwise have existed for the student's crime to occur. The employee failed to prove the latter requirement because the employee had not shown that the district's failure to place a monitor on the bus created an opportunity for the attack to occur which would not otherwise have existed. The assault described by the employee could have occurred regardless of whether a monitor had been present. McKinney v. Irving Ind. Sch. Dist., 309 F.3d 308 (5th Cir. 2002).