Legal – Flashcard

1.The Supreme Court addressed the scope of protected interest encompassed by the Fourteen Amendment in the decision of these cases. 2. Addressed whether the infringement of liberty or property interest entitles a probationary teacher due process rights similar to the rights of tenured teachers. 3. Case involved faculty members a the postsecondary level, but the ruling are equally applicable to public elementary and secondary school teachers.

The question presented to the court was whether a nontenure teacher had a constituional right to statement of reasons and a hearing proper to nonreappointment. Roth was hired on a 1-yr. contract, and the univeristy elected not to rehire him for a second year. since Roth did not have tenure, there was no entitlement under Wisc. law to an explanation of charges or a hear. Roth challenged the nonrenewal, alleging that failure to provide notice of reasons and an opportunity for a hearing impared his due process right.

S. C. held that nonrenewal does not require procedural proteciton unless impairment of a protected liberty or poperty interest can be shown. The evidence prsented by Roth indicated that there was no such damage to his reputation or future emplyment. Court concluded, it stretches the concept too far to suggest that a person is deprived of liberty when he simply is not rehired in one job but remains a s free as before to seek another. Court also rejected Roth's claim that he had a protected preperty interest to continued emplyment. Court held that in order to establish a valid property right, an indiv. must have more than an abstract need or desire for a position, there must be a legitimate claim of entitlement.

It is a legitimate claim of entitlement to continued emplyment that is created by state law. The granting of tenure conveys such a righ to a teacher. A nontuenured employees does not have a property claim to reappointment unless state or local governmental action has clearly established such a right. Property claim interests are mpt created bu mere longevity in employment.

It encompasses fundamental constitutional guarantees such as freedom of speech. Procedural due process is always required when a termination implicates such fundamental liberties. A liberty interest is also involved when termination creates a stigma or damages an individual's reuptation in a manner that forecloses future employment opportunties. If protected liberty or property interests are implicated, the Fourteenth Amendment entitles the teacher at least to notice of the reasons for the school board's action and an opportunity for a hearing.

On the same day the Roth case was rendered, the Supreme Court explained the circumstances that might create a legitimate expectation fo reemployment for a nontenured teacher. Sindermann was a nontenured faculty member in his fourth year teaching when he was notified, without a statement of reasons or an opportunity for a hearin gthat his contract would not be renewed. He challenged the laco of procedural due process, alleging that nonrenewal deprived him of a property interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendement and violated his First Amendment right to freedom of speech. In advancing a protected property right, Sindermann claimed that the college, which laced a formal tenure system, had created an informal, or de facto, tenure system through various practices and policies. Sindermann cited a provision in the facutly guide stating that the College wihes the faculty member to feel that he has permanent tenure as long as his teaching services are satisfactory.

the Supreme Court found that Sindermann's claim, unlike Roth, might have been based on a legitimate expecation of reemployment promulaged by the college. Lack of a formal tenure system did not foreclose the possibility of an instition fostering entitlement to a postition through its personnel. In assessing Sindermann's free speech claim, the Supreme Court confirmed that a teacher's lack of tenure does not void a claim that nonrenewal was based on the exercise of constitionally proteced conduct. Procedural process must be afforded when a substantive constititional right is violated.

Court held that if a constitutional right is implicated in a nonrenewal, the teacher bears the school board's decision. Establishing an inference of a constitutional violation then shifts the burden to the school board to show that it would ahve reached the same decision in the absence of the protected activity.

Roth and Sindermann cases are the legal precedents for assessing the procedural rights of nontenured teachers.

Supreme court held that a nontenured teacher does not have a constitutionally protected propert right to employment requiring procedural due process before denial of reapppointment. Certain actions of the school boards, however, may created condtitions entitling a nontenured teacher to notice and a hearing similar to the tenured teacher. Such actions include: 1. Nonrenewal decisions damaaging an individuals reputation and intengrity. 2. Nonrenewal decisions foreclosing other employment opportunitites 3. Policies and practices creating a valid claim to reemployment and 4. Nonrenewal decisions violating fundamental constitutional guarantes (e. freedom of expression)

-Include such grounds as incompetency, immortaity, insubordination, unprofessional conduct, neglect of duty, and other good and just cause. -With the protection of tenure, a teacher an be dismissed only for auses, and only in accordance with the procedures specified by law. -Most fequently cited cuases are INCOMPETENCE, IMMORALITY, AND INSUBORDIANTION.

-A teacher is entitled to procedural due process if termination of employment impairs a property or liberty interest. -Is emboddied in the Fourteenth amendment which guarantees that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."

a legitimate claim of entitlement to continued employment that is created by state law. -a nontenured employee does not have a property claim to reappointment unless state or local governmental action has clearly established such a right.

encompass fundamental constitutional guarantees, such as freedom of speech. -involved when termination creates a stigma or damages an individual's reputation in a manner that forecloses future emplyment opportunities.

1. notification of charges 2. opportunity for a hearing 3. adequate time to prepare a rebuttal to the charges 4. Access to evidence and name of witnesses 5. Hearning before an impartial tribunal 6. Opportunity to present evidence and witnesses 7. Opportunity to cross-examine adverse witnesses 8. Decision based on evidence and findings of the hearing 9. Transcripts or recording of the hearing 10. Opportunity to appeal an adverse decision.

The question presented to the court was whether a nontenure teacher had a constitutiona right to statement of reason and a hearing proper to nonreappointment. Roth was hired on a one-year contract, and the univeristy elected not to rehire him for a second year. Since Roth did not have tenure, there was no entitlement uder Wisconsin law to an explanation of charges or a hearing. to the challenged the nonrenewal, alleging that failure to provide notice of reasons and an opportunity for hearing impaired his due process rights. The Supreme Court held that nonrenewal doesnot require procedural protection unless impairment of protected liberty or property interest can be shown.

That nonrenewal ... 1. Resulted in damage to his or her reputation and standing in the community or 2. Imposed a stigma that foreclosed other employment opportunities.

Sindermann was a nontenured faculty member in his fourth year of teaching when he was notified, without a statement of reasons or an opportunity for a hearing that his contract would not be renewed. He challenged the lack of procedural due process, alleging that nonrenewal deprived him of a property interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment and violated his First Amendment right to freedom of speech. In advancing a protected property right, he claimed that the college, which lacked a formal tenure system, had created an informal, or de facto, tenure system through various practices and policies. He specifically cited a provsion in the faculty guide stating that "the college whishes the faculty member to feel that he has permanent tenure as long as his teaching services are satisfactory. The Supreme Court found that Sindermann's claim, unlike Roth's, might have been based on a lack of a formal tenure system and did not foreclose the possibility of an institution fostering entitlement to position through its personnel policies.

-Age discrimination in Employment Act: States that persons age 40 and over may clim age discrimination in employment; they may not, however, claim age discrimination when the criterica used to make the adverse decision are only correlated with age. (e.g., senirority, vesting in retirement). -The purpose of ADEA is to promote employment of older persons based on their abiity, to prohibit arbitrary age discrimination in emplyment, and to find ways of addressing problems ariging from the impact of age employment. -Applies to most employers with 20 or more employees for 20 or more weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.

-An employee's religion may not be used as a basis for negative employment decisions; however, neither may it be used by the employee to acquire benefits or opportunities that are rightfully determined by seniority or negotiated agreement.

-Sex generally may not be used as a basis in determining whom to hire, what salary to provide, or any other term or condition of employment. -Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the fourteenth amendment, and other federal and state law have played significant roles in allowing victims o sex discrimination to vindiate their rights in court. -Does not apply to persons who are transsexual, homosexual or transvestite, or falls within other "sex" categories. -Title VII prohibits arbitrary removal of employees and the denial of tenure if asked on sex or other prohibits bases.

-Prohibits employers with 15 or more employees from dscriminating onthe basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and covers hring, promotion, and compensation practices as well as fringe benefits and other terms and conditions of employment. -Enforced by the Equal Emplyment Opportunity Commission.

-Sanctions cannot be imposed soley because school officials disapprove of teachers' private conduct, but restrictions can be placed on unconventional behavior that is detrimental to job performance or harmful to students. (e.g. Marriage, contraception, procreation, and family relations.) - Litigation covered under this section focuses on constitional privacy claims initiated under the Fourth Amendment (protected against unreasonable searches and seizures), the Ninth Amendment, (personal privacy as an unenumerated right reserved to the people), and the fourteenth Amendment (protection agaisnt state action impairing personal liberies without due process of law).

School officials can place constraints on educators' personal appearance if there is a rational basis for such restriction.

In this case the Supreme Court established a bright-line rule that expression related to official job responsibilities is not protected. Thus, whether the employee is speaking as a private citizen or as an employee pursuant to job duties is the first consideration because if speaking as an employee, there is not further Constitutional assessment. The Court ruled that the district attorney's office did not impair the free speech rights of Ceballos by allegedly retaliating against him for writing a memorandum indicating that the arresting deputy sheriff may have lied in a search warrant affidavit. Ceballos also informed the defense counsel of his concerns, and the defense subpoeneaed Ceballos to testify at the hearing in which the warrent was unsuccessfully challenged. ceballos alleged he subsequently was mistreated by superior, denied a promotion, given an undesirable transfer, and retaliated against inother ways. The Supreme Court reasoned Ceballos was speaking about a task he was paid to perform and concluded that "when public employees make statements pursuant to their offical duties, the Constitution does not insulate their communication from employer discipline.

-The Supreme Court Recongized that teachers have a first Amendment right to air their views on matters of public concern. -The School Board Dismissed Pickering for writing a letter to a local newspaper in which he criticized the school board's fiscal policies. the Illinois courts upheld Pickering's dismissal for the letter, which included false statements allegedly damaging the reputations of school board member's district administrators. **AN ACTION CONTITUTES EXPRESSION FOR FIRST AMENDMENT PURPOSES ONLY IF IT ATTEMPTS TO CONVEY A PARTICULARIZED MESSAGE THAT WILL LIELY BE UNDERSTOOD BY THOSE RECIEVEING THE MESSAGE.

-All states have laws requiring teachers to report suspected child abuse and granting them immunity from liability if reports are made in good faith. -Penalities for not reporting suspected child abuse my include infes ranging from $500 to $5,000, prison terms up to one year, and/or public servic. Civil suits also may be intitiated against teachers for negligence in failing to make such reports. School systems may impose disciplinary measures against a teacher who does not follow the mandates of the law. The Seventh Circuit upheld the suspension and demotion of a teacher-psychologist for not propmptly reporting suspected abuse. The cour rejected the teacher's claim to a federal right of confientiality noting the state's compelling interest to protect children from mistreatment. *The federal Child Abuse Prevetion and Treament Act (CAPTA) indentify child abuse and neglect as the physical or mental injury, sexual abuse or exploitation, negligent treatment, or maltreatment of a child under the age of eighteen, or the age specified by the child protection law of the state in question, by a person who is reposnible for the child's welfare under the circumstances which indicate tha the child's health or welfare is harmed or threatened thereby. -The laws mandate that certain professionals such as doctors, nurses, and educators reprot suspected abuse. Stuatues do not require that reporters have absolute knowledge, but rather "reasonable cause to believe" or reason to believe" that the child has been abused or neglected. -Once abuse is suspected, the report must be made immediately to the designated child protection agency, department of welfare, or law enforcement unit as specified in state law. -All states grant immunity from civil and ccriminal liability to individulas if reports are made in good faith. School districts often establish reporting procedures that require teachers to report suspected abue to their principla or school social worker. However, if statutory provisions specify that teachers must promptly report susspected abuse to another agency or to law enforcement, teachers are not relieved of their individual obligation to report to state authorities.

-A school board's broad authority to determine teacher performance standards may be restricted by state-imposed evaluation requirement. States have the ultimate power. -Results of evaluations may be used in a variety of emplyment decisions, including retention, tenure, dismissal, promotion, salary, reassignment, and reduction-in-force. -Florida requires the superintendent of schools to establish criteria and procedures for appraisal, including evaluation at least once a year, a written record of assessment, prior notice to teachers of criteria and procuders, and a meeting with the evaluator to discuss the results of the evaluation.

Teacher contracts must satisfy the general principles of contract law as well as conform to any additional specifications contained I state law. Basic elements of a legal contract: (1) offer and acceptance, (2) competent parties, (3) consideration, (4) legal subject matter, and (5) proper form.

The state establishes minimum qualifications for licensure, which may include professional preparation as well as other prerquisites. *Ohio's Patriot Act requires applicants for public employment to swear they are not terrorist and have no involvement with terrorist grpups" refusal to sign the oath can result in exclusion from employment consideration. *Liscensure does not give teacher an absolute right to acquire a position. * The state is empowered not only to license teachers but also to suspend or revoke licensure.

In 1955 the Court upheld a school district's drug policy authorizing random urinalysis drug testing of students participating in athletic programs. Emphasizing the district's "custodial and tutelary" reponsiblitiy for children, the Court recognized that school personnel can exercise a degree of supervision and control over children that would not be permitted over adults. this relationship was hel to be pivotal in assessing the reasonableness of teh district's drugh policy -- a policy undertaken "in furtherance of the governemnt's responsibilities, under public shcool system, as guardian and tutor of children entrusted to his car." Addressing students' legitimate privacy expectations, the court noted that the lower privacy expcetations within the school enviornment are reduced even further when a student elects to participate in sports. In 1989, the Supreme court held that urinalysis, the most frequently used means for drug testing, is a search under the Fourth Amendment.

The Court again reviewed a drug-testing policy but one that applied to students in all extracurricular activities, including athletics. The plicy required students to take a drug test prior to participatation, to submit to random drug testing while involved in the activity, and to agree to be tested at any time when reasonable suspicion existed. Acknowledging that athletes' lower expectation of privacy was noted in Vernonia, the Court emphasized that the critical element in upholding the earlier policy was the school context. In sustainin ghte drug-testing policy in Earls, the Court reasoned that the collection procedures, like Vernonia, were minimally intrusive, information was kept in confidential files with limited access, and test results were not given to law enforment authorities. Based on these factors, the Court concluded that the drug-testing plicy was not significant invasion of students' privacy rights. Moreover, in light of the widespread use of drugs nationally and some evidence of increased us in this school, the court found it entirely reasoned to enact this specific drug-testing policy.

A teacher had reported a student for smoking in the restroom. Upon questioning by the assistant principal, the student denied smoking and in fact, denied that she even smoked. The assistant principal them opned the student's purse seeking evidence o substantiate that she did smoke. In the process of removing a package of cigarettes, he spotted rolling papers and subsequently found marijuana and other evidence implicating her drug dealing. Using the "reasonable suspicion" test, the supreme Court found that the search was reasonable. The Supreme Court finally ruled that school officilas are state agents, and al governmental actions-not merely those of law enforcement officers come within the constraints of the Fourth Amendment. * The Court held that the legality of a search should depend "simply on the reasonableness, under all the circumstances, of the search. *Reasonable grounds for a search includes: (1) child's age, history and record in the school; prevalence and seriousnessof the problem in the school to which the search is directed.

1. What constitues a search? 2. What types of searches are reasonable?

In 1977, the Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of corporal punishment that resulted in the severe injury of two students. The court held that the use of corporal punishment in public schools does not violate either the Eighth amendment's prohibition against the government's infliction of cruel and unusual punishment or the Fourteenth Amendment's procedural due process guarantees. • The ruling does not foreclose a successful constitutional challenge to the use of unreasonable corporal punishment. • The fourth Circuit concluded that although Ingraham bars federal litigation on procedural due process issues, excessive or cruel corporal punishment may violate students' substantive due process rights, which protect individuals from arbitrary and unreasonable governmental action.

The Court held that minimum due process must be provided before a student is suspended for even a brief period of time. Recognizing that a student's state-created property right to an education is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court ruled that such a right cannot be impaired unless the student is afforded notice of the charges and an opportunity to refute them before an impartial decision maker. It was also emphasized that suspensions implicate students' constitutionally protected liberty interests because of the potentially damaging effects that the disciplinary process can have on a student's reputation and permanent record. • Applied to all short-term suspensions, including those of only one class period • The Supreme Court's Gross decision established the rudimentary procedural requirements for short-term suspensions. • Procedural Due Process for Student Suspensions o Oral or written notification of the nature of the violation and the intended punishment o An opportunity to refute the charges before an objective decision maker (such a discussion may immediately follow the alleged rule infraction) o An explanation of the evidence on which the disciplinarian is relying • In-school suspensions or isolation may entitle students to minimal due process procedures if they are deprived of instruction or the opportunity to learn.

held that an indefinite suspension of students (with disabilities) pending the outcome of expulsion proceedings was a prohibited change in placement and violated the stay-put provision of the IDEA. Schools may use range of normal procedures (e.g., suspension of up to 10days, detention, time-out). If the student still continues to pose a threat the schools may seek injunctive relief if the parents refuse to agree to a change in placement.

Board of Education v. Rowley

1982

Parents had requested that the school district provide a sign-language interpreter for their daughter in her academic classes, given her minimal residual hearing. IEP specified a general first grade placement w/ instruction from tutor 1 hr. per day. Interpreter was provided during a 2 wk. period during Kinder. Services discont. based on recommendations by interpreter and other ed working w/ child. Parent unsatisfied w/ IEP; filed lawsuit after unsuccessful Admin. review. Court held Plantiff was receiving an approp. edu. in that she was incurring edu. benefits from individualized instruct. and related services.

Supreme Court rejected the standard proposed by the lower court (i.e. Maximization of the potential of children w/ dis. commenusrate w/ the opportunity provided to other children) and reasoned that the intent of the act was more to open the door of public ed. to children w/ dis. on appropriate terms than to guarantee any particular level of edu. once inside.IDEA was found to guarantee a basic floor of opportunity, consisting of access to eductional benefit. Applying these principles, the Court held that the planitiff was receiving an appropriate edu. in that she was incurring educational benefit from indiv. instruct. and related services, as evidence by her better-than-avg. perform. in class, promotion from grade to grade, and pos. interpersonal relationships w/ educators and peers.

1. Has the state complied with the procedures indentified in the IDEA? 2. Is the IEP developed through these procedures reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefit?

LRE stands for Least Restricted Enviornment. Children with disabilities are to be educated with children who are not disabled to the maximum extent appropriate. In making LRE decisions, school personnel should determine the types of placements for delivery of the IEP along the continuum of alternative placements and then select the option that is least restrictive.

Two years after the passage of the Rehabilitation Act, and 15 years before the passage of the ADA, Part B of the Education of the Handicapped Act was amended by Public Law 94-142. This law, is now know as IDEA and is enforced by the Office of Special Education Programs. To qualify for services a child must be mentally retarded, hard of hearing, deaf, speech or language impaired, visually impaired, blind, emotionally disturbed, orthopedically impaired, autistic, other health impaired, learning disabled or suffer from a traumatic brain injury and needs special education and related services. IDEA remains the primary law under which a free appropriate public education (FAPE) is challenged and as a result generates most of the student-disability case law. IDEA is enforced by the Office of Special Education Programs. States, but not local school districts, have the option of declining IDEA funds, thereby avoiding the myriad compliance requirements.

• Educational recipients of federal and financial assistance are prohibited from discriminating, excluding, or denying benefits because of sex. • Has been interpreted to prohibit retaliation against both students and staff who themselves are not the target of intentional discrimination but are adversely treated due to their advocacy roles.

De Jure Segregation is racial separation that is required by law. (e.g., intentional acts of the school board in the selection of a new school location) The most imfamouse case suporting the "separte but equal" standard resulting in the segregation of the races in public schools was Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, in which the Supreme Court upheld racial segregation of passengers in railroad coaches as required by Louisiana law.

Separation of the the races that exists but does not result from action of the state or its agents, but rather from members in the community.

Brown I: Chief Justice Warren repudiated the separate but equal doctrine, stipulating that racially segregated public schools were "inherently unequal." Brown II: (1955) The Court concluded that the conversion from dual to unitary must occur "with all deliberate speed"

The most infamous case supporting the "Separate but Equal" standard resulting in the segregation of the races in public schools. •(1896) Supreme Court upheld racial segregation of passengers in railroad coaches as required by Louisiana law.

Restrictions placed on student grooming and attire if based on legitimate educational and safety objectives and not intended to suppress expression. * Student appearance encompasses ... •Hairstyle: regulation cannot be arbitrary or devoid of an educational rationale. •Attire: attire can be regulated if immodest, disruptive, unsanitary, or if it promotes illegal behavior for minors. •Dress Codes: Indecent attire can be curtailed applying Fraser, regardless of whether the attire would meet the Tinker test of threatening a disruption. o School authorities must have an educational rationale for attire restrictions, such as preventing class disruptions, curtailing gang behavior, and/or advancing educational objectives. o Dress codes must not discriminate based on the content of students' messages or be discriminatorily enforced.

[Protected Private Expression] Student expression that does not fall within one of the categories of unprotected expression or represent the school is governed by this landmark Supreme Court decision. • Three students were suspended from school for wearing armbands to protest the Vietnam War. School officials did not attempt to prohibit the wearing of all symbols, instead prohibited only one type of anti-war expression. Concluding that school authorities punished the students for expression that was not accompanied by any disorder or disturbance, the Supreme Court ruled that "undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression. • Blatant viewpoint discrimination, even in a nonpublic forum, abridges the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court rendered this case holding that school authorities can censor student expression to school publications and other school-related activities as long as the censorship decisions are based on legitimate pedagogical concerns.

The Supreme Court in 1986 granted school authorities considerable latitude in censoring offensively lewd and indecent student expression that would undermine the school's basic educational mission. • Obscene, Lewd, or Vulgar Expression: The judiciary has held that individuals cannot claim a First Amendment right to voice or publish obscenities.

(Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act): Was enacted due to widespread dissatisfaction with educators' efforts to ameliorate abuses associated with student record-keeping practices.Stipulates that federal funds may be withdrawn from any educational agency or institution that (1) fails to provide parents access to their child's educational records or (2) disseminates such information (with some exceptions) to third parties without parental permission. • In Gonzaga Univeristy v. Doe the Supreme Court held that individuals cannot bring damages suits for FERPA violations, because the law does not create privately enforceable rights. The Supreme Court further held that since FERPA contains no rights-creating language, the law cannot be enforced through suits under 42 U.S.C. • Under FERPA, certain public directory information-such as student's names, addresses, dates and places of birth, major fields of study, e-mail addresses, pictures and degrees and awards received-can be released without parental consent. * Upon reaching the age of majority, students may exercise the rights previously guaranteed to thier parents. Education officials should assume that a parent is entitled to exercise rights under FERPA unless state law or a court order bars a parent's access to his or her child's records under specific circumstances and the education agency has been instructed accordingly. * The remedy for FERPA violations is the withdrawal of federal funds.

The fifth court in 1981 recognized that by making schooling mandatory, Florida created a property interest—a valid expectation that students would receive diplomas if they pass required coursed. This state-created property right to an education requires sufficient notice of conditions attached to high school graduation and a fair opportunity to satisfy them before a diploma can be with-held. • Student Proficiency Testing: High-stakes assessments shape the instructional program, and states increasingly are evaluating educators' performance based on their students' test scores.

Historically was applied to postsecondary education and embodied the principle that faculty member should be free from governmental controls in conduction research and imparting knowledge to students. Public school teachers have asserted a similar right to academic freedom, but courts have not extended the protections found in higher education to public elementary and secondary schools.

Attempts to remove books from classrooms and libraries and to tailor curricular offerings and methodologies to particular religious and philosophical values have led to substantial litigation.

(a)It shall be unlawful for any public school which receives federal financial assistnce and which has limited open forum to deny equal access or a fair opportunity to or discriminate against, any students who wish to conduct a meeting within that limited open forum on the basis of the religious, political, philosophical, or other content of the speech as such. (b) A public secondary school has a limited open forum whenever such school grants an offering to or opportunity for one or more noncurriculum related student groups to meet on school permises during nonintructional time. (c) Schools shall be deemed to offer a fiar opportunity to students who wish conduct a meeting within its limited open forum if such school uniformly provides that (1) the meeting is vountary and studnet-initiated; (2) there is not sponsorhip of the meeting by the school, the governemnt, or its agents or employees; (3) emplyees or agents of the school or government are present at religious meetings only in a nonparticipatory capcity; (4) the meeting does not materially and subtantially interfere with the orderly conduct of educational activites within the school; and (5) nonschool persons may not direect, conduct, control, or regularly attend activities of student groups.

The Free Speech Clause was augmented at the secondary level by the Equal Access Act. -In 1990, the Supreme Court in Board of Ed v. Mergens held that the EAA does not abridege the Establishment Clause by allowing student religious groups to meet. The Court recognized the law's clear secular pupose of preventing discrimination against religious and other types of private expression. the Court distinguished government speech promoting religion that is prohibited by the Establishment Clause from private religious expression protected by the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses.

It applies ONLY to secondary students, so community religious groups desiring public school access during noninstructional time cannot use this law; they must instead reely solely on First Amendment protections. * School districts annot enforce policies governing facility use during nonschool time that entail viewpoint discriminiation against a religious group's message. ** Under Miford, if a public school establishes a limited forum for community mettings, it cannot bar relgious groups, even those involved in whorship activities that target students attending the school.

Courts onsistently hae ruled that school personnel cannot give students Bibles or other religious materials. Most courts have prohibited religious sects, such as the Gideon Society, from visiting the school to distribute materials to captive public school audiences. *School districts cannot place a blanket ban on students' distribution of religious literature.

In 2000, the Supreme Court found an Establishment Clause violation in a Texas school district's policy authorizing student-led devotionals before public school football games. The Supreme Court declared that student-led expression at a school event on school property and representing the student body under the supervision of school personnel could not be considered private speech. Only state sponsorship devotionals violate the Est. Clause; nothing in the Constitution prohibits public school students from voluntarily praying at school.

In this case the Supreme Court applied a three-part test to assess Establishment Clause claims. This test has come to be known as the Lemon test. It was used consistently in Establishment Clause cases involving school issues until 1992. • To withstand scrutiny under this test, the government action must have (1) a secular purpose, (2) a primary effect that neither advances nor impose religion, and (3) avoid excessive governmental entanglement with religion.

The first major Establishment clause decision. In 1947, the Supreme Court concluded that the Establishment clause (and its fourteenth amendment application to states) means: Neither a state nor the Federal Gov. can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another... the clause against establishment of religion by law intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and state."

A teacher that has good sense and special skills and training associated with that role.

results when physical action verbal command or intimidation is used to restrain and/or detain persons against their will (p. 33). a. Anytime children are unjustifiably restrained against their will, tied or taped to chairs, or bound and gagged, the tort of false imprisonment may be claimed. b. Gray v. Bostic: The handcuffing of a complaint 9 year old girl for the sole purpose of punishing her.

-To determine whether an educator is negligent in a given situation, couerts determine if a reasonably prudent teacher (with the special skills and training associated with that role) would have acted in a similar manner under like conditions. -Negligence is a breach of one's legal duty to protect others from unreasonable risks of harm (p.19). -To establish negligence, an injury must be avoidable by the exercise of reasonable care. b. Four elements that must be present to support a successful claim: i. The defendant has a duty to protect the plaintiff ii. The duty is breached by the failure to exercise an appropriate standard of care iii. The negligent conduct is the proximate or legal cause of the injury iv. An actual injury occurs. c. Four possible defenses: i. Governmental immunity-This defense is available to emplyees only when state law specifcally confers such immunity for acts within the scope of emplyent, or courts interpret the law to do so. ii. Contributory Negligence-in states that recognize contributory negligence as a defense, plantiffs are denied recovery if their actions are sown to hae been substantially responsible for injury. In assessing whether contributory negligence exists, children arenot necessarily held to the stame standard of care as adults. Rather, their actions must be reasonable for persons of similar age, maturity, intelligence, and experience. iii. Comparative Negligence-The plaintiff and/or one or more defendants bear responsibility in proportion to fault. (e.g. a Louisiana school bus driver permitted two girls to exit his bus even though he knew on had threatned to injure the other. He initially exited with them, held them apart, and told a teacher to summon the principal. Instead of wqaiting for the principal or a teacher to arrive, however, he reentered the bus to move it, because he was blocking traffic. When he pulled away, one student proceeded to stopm the other student's ankle; the injury was so serve that it required three screws to aligh the broken bones. The court reasoned that the driver should not have left the students unsupervised undre the circumstances and assessed 15% liability against him and 85% liability to the student responnsible for the attack iv. Assumption of Risk-This defense and either express or implied. - Express assumption occurs when the plaintiff consents in advance to take his or her chances of injury given a known danger. (e.g. signing an agreement to assume the risks associated with participating in high school football.) -Implied assumption occurs without an express written or oral agreement, yet is logically assumed, given he plaintiff's conduct. (e.g. when spectators at a baseball game elect to sit in unscreened seats; such persons assume the risk of possible injury even if they failed to sign an agreement)

A civil wrong, independent of breach of contract, for which a court will provide relief in the form of damages (p. 19). a. Three categories of tort actions: i. Negligence ii. Intentional torts iii. Defamation

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the "free exercise" thereof.

It places restrictions on state action impairing personal rights. The concept of liberty incorporates first amendment guarantees and safeguards them against state interference.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 at the federal level will apply. Title VI forbids race discrimination, but applies only to those schools that receive federal financial assistance.

Title VII (p. 253): Prohibits employers with 15 or more employees from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and covers hiring, promotion, and compensation practices as well as fringe benefits and other terms and conditions of employment.

No state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.