Description
Each student will be given monthly Legal Updates in Modules. Each student will select a court case to report on. The following format will be used to describe the selected court case:
I. Citation
II. Topic
III. Issue
IV. Facts
V. Findings
VI. Reasoning
The report on this case should be clear and concise using at least 300 words as you describe this court case. This case will be reported both verbally as well as written in Canvas.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
June 2023 (70)
LEGAL UPDATE FOR SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS
June 2023
Johnny R. Purvis aka Doc*
West Education Law Reporter
October 27, 2022–403 Ed. Law No. 2 (Pages 377-977) – #22
November 10, 2022–404 Ed Law No. 1 (Pages 1-397) – #23
The Legal Update for School Administrators is sponsored by:
William Carey University School of Education
And
PREPS Inc., Dr. Chuck Benigno, Executive Director
The Legal Update is a monthly update of selected significant court cases in the United
States pertaining to school administration and general school district operations. It is funded and
sponsored by William Carey University’s School of Education and PREPS Inc. If you have any
questions or comments about the selected cases and their potential ramifications, please contact
Johnny R. Purvis by phone (601-310-4559) or email (jpurvis@uca.edu) or Dr. Ben Burnett,
President, William Carey University.
Topics:
Abuse and Harassment
Civil Rights
Health
Labor and Employment
Religion
Torts
1
Cases:
Abuse and Harassment
High school football coach was engaged in a state action (An action that is taken directly by the
state or bears a sufficient connection to the state to be attributed to it…football coach employed
by a school district.) when he ordered players to assault a football referee, to subject the coach
to liability under Section 1983 (civil rights). Note: The United States Court of Appeals, Fifth
Circuit, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case back to the United States
District for the Western District of Texas.
Watts v. Northside Independent School Dist. (C.A.5 [Tex.], 37 F. 4th 1094), June 27, 2022.
The United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part,
and referred the case back to the Texas court since the school district was not liable. Texas
law clearly established that the assistant football coach engaged in a “state action” when he
ordered his football players to physically assault a football referee during a high school football
game. Due to being a school district employee (under state law) the coach was subject to
liability (not the school district) under Section 1983 (federal civil rights) for the referee’s
substantive due process claim. Note #1: The coach was on the sidelines acting in his role as an
assistant football coach at a public high school, and therefore, the coach could not escape
liability by ordering his players to attack a football referee; furthermore, any reasonable football
coach would have known that he was engaged in a state action when he instructed his players
during a football game. Note #2: The two players who followed the demand of the assistant
coach to “hit the ref,” stated that they followed the coach’s direction to hit the ref, knew what
they did was wrong, but they did it anyway because of their trust in the coach. Note #3: The
assault left the referee with “a turf burns on his forehead, a cut next to his right eye, and a large
abrasion on his left arm. In addition, he received a concussion and experienced “post-concussion
syndrome and an anxiety disorder.”
Virtual learning program was a reasonable accommodation under ADA and Rehabilitation Act
with respect to school district’s reduced COVID-19 restrictions.
L.E. v. Ragsdale (N.D. Ga., 568 F. Supp. 3d 1364), October 15, 2021.
The United States Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division held that a school district
reasonably accommodated students’ disabilities with respect to reduced COVID-19
restrictions, and the accommodations adequately provided students with meaningful access
to education, and therefore students failed to demonstrate the likelihood of success on the
merits of their failure-to-accommodate claims under ADA and the Rehabilitation Act.
Therefore, evidence did not support “injunctive relief” in the form of a temporary restraining
order (TRO) or a preliminary injunction requiring the school district and school board to
reimplement COVID-19 safety measures such as mask mandates, were provided
accommodations included a robust virtual learning program, in which students were allegedly
performing reasonably well, meeting their grade level standards, and earning high marks. Note:
The plaintiffs were four students with disabilities who attended Cobb County schools. Their
disabilities varied but included acute myeloid leukemia, hypogammaglobulinemia, Duchenne
2
Muscular Dystrophy, bronchiectasis (an airway clearance impairment), chronic severe asthma,
and chronic bronchitis and pneumonia.
Parent of public-school kindergarten student stated a claim under Title IX against school
district for alleged sexual assault and harassment of student.
Moore vs. Freeport Community Unit Sch. Dist. No. 145 (N.D. Ill., 570 F. Supp. 3d 601,
November 8, 2021. Note: The court granted in part and denied in part. The case might be
appealed by one or the other “parts” in the litigation, as the case now stands (sort of like a draw
or tie).
The United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Western Division held that (1) Under
Title IX claims based on student-on-student harassment, schools and districts that receive federal
funding are liable in damages only where they are deliberately indifferent to the sexual
harassment, of which they have actual knowledge, that is so severe, pervasive, and objectively
offensive that it can be said to deprive the victims of access to the educational opportunities or
benefits provided by the school and (2) Parent of public school kindergarten student stated a
claim for damages against school district under Title IX with allegations that the district
subjected the student to discrimination in which the student was sexually assaulted by a
classmate and, after the assaults, was sexually harassed by the classmate and others on a daily
basis; although the school district had a safety plan, classmate was allowed to be unsupervised
with the student, and student experienced physical and psychological arm from the assaults,
which included behavioral changes, a urinary tract infection, missed days of school,
nightmares, and sleeplessness, leading student to transfer to a private school, and parent
reported continued harassment of student by the classmate, and others at school.
Civil rights
Student’s First Amendment challenge to dress/grooming code and enforcement of same is
governed by Tinker.
N.J. by Jacob v. Sonnabend (C.A.7 [Wis.], 37 F. 4th 412), November 12, 2021.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin denied the
students’ motion (The 7th grade student wore a T-shirt to school with the image of a revolver and
the inscription “Smith & Wesson made in the USA since 1852) for summary judgment and
granted defendants’ (school officials) motion, and the student appealed. The United States Court
of Appeals Seventh Circuit “vacated and remanded” the case back to the Eastern District Court
and stated that the court must rely on the Tinker’s standard for evaluating a student’s “freespeech claim “which permits restrictions on student speech claim as constitutionally justified if
school authorities can reasonably forecast that the speech in question would materially and
substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school or invade the rights of others. Thus,
the decision of school officials requires more than a mere desire to avoid discomfort and
unpleasantness that always accompanies an unpopular viewpoint, undifferentiated fear or
apprehension of a disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression.
3
Health
The student’s mother failed to show the likelihood of success on her claim that mask mandates
in response to COVID-19 was a substantive due process violation.
Doe v. Franklin Square Union Free School Dist. (E.D.N.Y., 568 F. Supp. 3d 270), October 26,
2021.
The United States District Court, E.D. New York held that the mother of a minor female
student failed to demonstrate/show a “likelihood of success” pertaining to her claim that the
school’s mask mandate was a substantive due process violation in her lawsuit seeking a
preliminary injunction barring the school district and Commissioner of the New York State
Department of Public Health from enforcing a mask mandate in schools in response to the
COVID-19 pandemic. Despite the plaintiff’s claim that masks are “inimical” (likely to cause a
disadvantage or have a harmful effect).
Labor and Employment
(Very important case for public schools) The school district violated the Free Exercise and Free
Speech Clauses by suspending a football coach for offering private prayers at midfield after
football games.
Kennedy v. Bremerton School Dist. (U.S., 142 S. Ct. 2407), June 27, 2022.
The Supreme Court of the United States held that a school district burdened a high
school coach’s right under the United States’ First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause by
suspending him for his decision to persist in praying quietly at mid field without his players after
three (N=3) football games pursuant to a school district policy that was neither neutral nor
generally applicable. The coach’s sincerely motivated religious exercise” did not involve
leading prayers with the team or before any other captive audience. Furthermore, school
officials sought to restrict the coach’s actions at least in part because of their religious character,
and the district’s recommendation against rehiring the coach for “not” supervising student
athletes after games was a “bespoke” (refer to definition) requirement specifically addressed to
his religious exercise. Bespoke: A product, service, demand, requirement, etc. specifically
made, designed, required, etc. of a person, employee, etc. The term comes from “industry” that
produces a product/service that is specifically made or designed for a particular type of customer.
The Supreme Court of the United States went on to state that the coach engaged in
“private speech,” not government speech attributable to school district employment, when he
quietly at midfield without his players after three (N=3) football games, for purposes of
determining whether his resulting suspension from his coaching position by the school district
violated the First Amendment Free Speech Clause. The coach did not “offer” his prayers while
“acting within the scope of his duties/employment” (job description); therefore, his job
description “left time for a private moment” after football games to engage in any manner of
“secular activities”. He did not speak pursuant to government policy, he did not seek to convey
a government-created message, and he did not instruct players or engage in any other speech the
school district “paid” him to produce as a coach.
4
Sufficient evidence supported the Board of Review’s conclusion that a “substitute teacher” was
not entitled to unemployment-insurance benefits during the summer break.
Johnson v. Director, Department of Workforce Services (Arkansas App., 645 S.W.3d 352), May
11, 2022.
The Court of Appeals of Arkansas, Division III held that sufficient evidence supported
the decision of the Board of Review concluding that the substitute teacher, who was employed
by the school district had “reasonable assurance of employment” for the next school year under
Arkansas state statute, precluding an award of benefits. Therefore, the plaintiff was not
entitled to unemployment-insurance benefits during summer break. The substitute teacher
provided services to the school district on an as needed basis, and she had been placed on the
school district’s “advised substitute-teacher” list for nine years. In addition, her employment
relationship with the school district did not change during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Public school employee was not qualified for the job, and therefore could not state a
“prima facie cause” of discrimination in action against a public-school board of education.
Jones v. Bessemer Bd. of Educ. (N.D. Ala., 570 F. Supp. 3d 1099), November 4, 2021.
Female school employee was not qualified for the job as “work force coordinator,” and
therefore could not state a prima facie case (produce enough evidence) of discrimination under
ADEA (Age Discrimination in Employment Act) in her legal action against a public school
board of education, alleging that the school board discrimination against her on the basis of her
age (56) when they failed to hire her and instead promoted a younger, less qualified individual.
The plaintiff claimed her supervisor told her she was qualified for the job and could take the
required courses while she was holding the position; however, the supervisor denied ever having
the conversation with the plaintiff. In fact, a “provisional certification” did not even exist for the
position, and even if her supervisor told the plaintiff that she was qualified for the job, she still,
objectively, did not qualify.
Religion
County health department’s order requiring all persons to wear face coverings in educational
settings did not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment of the United States.
Resurrection School vs Hertel (W.D. Mich., 569 F. Supp. 3d F. Supp. 3d 658, November 3,
2021.
County health department order requiring all persons in educational settings to wear face
masks was relationally related to a legitimate government interest in controlling the spread of
COVID-19 and therefore did not violate the Free Exercise Clause (1st Amendment) of a private
religious elementary school and the parents of the students enrolled at the school. The decision
of the county health department was rational for the county health officer who issued the order.
The health department made its decision on an overwhelming body of evidence in support of
masks from state and federal agencies, despite the existence of competing scientific studies
casting doubt on the effectiveness of masks.
5
Torts
Student’s community services activities at off-school location were not school sponsored or
related, for purposes of allegedly owed duty of supervision.
Neff v. Archdiocese of Miami, Inc. (Fla. App. 3 Dist., 338 So.3d 959), January 26, 2022.
The district Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, held that a private Catholic high
school within the Catholic Archdiocese did not owe a duty of reasonable care to students with
regard to the locations of community service activating for students to participate in under
required school program, despite contention that a duty existed simply because the school
compiled a list of pre-approved service opportunities, where the school did not exert control over
students. Students could choose freely from among 45 organizations on a community service
list. And the school did not have the final say in assigning students to a particular location for
community service activities. The then-sophomore high school student selected Good Hope
Equestrian Training Center as her “community service project”. While serving at Good Hope
and under no supervision, she was injured when a horse reared up and came down on her foot
causing an injury. The District Court of Appeal of Florid, Third District held that the student’s
community service activities at the equestrian training center were not “school sponsored” or
“school related;” therefore, neither the Catholic Archdiocese nor private Catholic high school
within the Archdiocese owed the student a duty of supervision. This was even though the
“community service program” was required for graduation. Note: This case was selected
despite it being a “private religious school” and a private non-school affiliated provided for a
school required activity. This identical or almost identical situation for a public school and
provider would be both a legal, costly, and public relations nightmare!
Thanks for allowing me to serve.
Strength and honor
An Old Retired Teach-Cop
*Note: Johnny R. Purvis retired August 2003, (30.5 years) from the University of Southern
Mississippi (USM) as a professor in the Department of School Administration, Director of the
Education Service Center in the College of Education and Psychology, Executive Director of the
Southern Education Consortium, and Director of the Mississippi Safe School Center at the
University of Southern Mississippi. After retiring from USM, he was hired as a professor in the
Department of Leadership Studies at the University of Central Arkansas (UCA) in August 2003,
and retired December 31, 2013. He also served as teacher, coach, school administrator, and
member of a county school board in Mississippi. In addition, he retired as a law enforcement
officer having served in both Mississippi and Arkansas. He can be reached at the following
phone number: 601-310-4559 or e-mail: jpurvis@uca.edu.
6
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
