Description
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
March 2023 (67)
LEGAL UPDATE FOR SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS
March 2023
Johnny R. Purvis aka Doc*
West Education Law Reporter
August 4, 2022–400 Ed. Law No. 3 (Pages 885-1169) – #16
August 18, 2022–401 Ed Law No. 1 (Pages 1-687) – #17
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, Dean
of the College of Education at William Carey University.
Topics:
–
Abuse and Harassment
Athletics
Civil Right
Labor and Employment
Records
Torts
Topics:
Abuse and Harassment
Parents of female student who was killed in school by a male student plausibly alleged that
appropriate school officials were deliberately indifferent to harassment, as an element of a
Title IX claim.
Wiley v. Bd. of Educ. of St. Mary’s County (D. Md., 557 F. Supp. 3d 645), August 30, 2021.
Background: Jaelynn Willey and Austin Rollins attended Great Mills High School in St.
Mary’s County, Maryland. Beginning in 2017 they entered into a romantic relationship. Soon
thereafter, Austin began to physically and verbally pressure Jaelynn to engage in sexual activity,
which she did not want; thereafter, he became possessive, controlling, and manipulative and the
relationship quickly soured. Rollins would text Jaelynn and contact her over social media even
though she repeatedly requested that he stop contacting her In addition he repeatedly texted and
1
harassed her friends at school. Soon thereafter, Rollins’ behavior escalated. He would grab her,
push her, and yell at her outside of her classrooms. In addition, he stalked her on school property
by following her to her vehicle after school, showing up after each class, and following her
around the school’s hallways. Rollins frequently harmed Jaelynn physically, causing pain by
grabbing and squeezing her arms and wrists. In addition, he texted Jaelynn’s friends indicating
that he was planning on killing himself. Jaelynn’s parents advised school officials, including
Jaelynn’s swim coach and teacher, whom they trusted. On March 20, 2018, at the beginning of
the school day, Rollins entered Great Mills High School with a 9mm handgun, walked to
hallway F and shot Jaelynn in the head outside classroom F06. The bullet exited Jaelynn and hit
another student in the leg. Afterward, Rollins continued to walk around the school with the
pistol in hand. Eventually, Rollins was confronted by Deputy Gaskill in a school hallway and
arrested.
The United States District Court, D. Maryland, Southern Division stated the following:
(1) Parents of female high school student who was killed in school by a male student plausibly
alleged that appropriate school officials were deliberately indifferent to male student’s
harassment “as an element of claim” against the board of education and school for student-onstudent sexual harassment in violation of Title IX. Furthermore, school officials had actual
notice of harassment, took no action in response, and school officials’ “inaction” increased
the danger and made female student vulnerable to harassment. The court went on to state:
The parents of the female high school student who was killed in school by a male student
plausibly alleged that “appropriate school officials” had actual notice of the male student’s
harassment”, as an element of claim against board of education in violation of Title IX. The
parents of the deceased female student directly advised the student’s teacher that they were
concerned about the male student’s behavior and expressed concern about their daughter’s
safety. The teacher overhead conversations between female student and her friends about the
male student’s harassment and violent behavior. After hearing the aforementioned
conversations, the teacher related the information and concerns to superiors pursuant to school
reporting policy (“reasonable and prudent person standard”). Therefore, school officials knew
and had knowledge of observed harassment and stalking of the male student toward the
female student.
Athletics
High school did not voluntarily undertake an enhanced duty to supervise the varsity locker
room during summer football training camp.
Dean v. De La Salle of New Orleans, Inc. (La. App. 4 Circuit, 334 So. 3d 425), December 21,
2021.
On or about July 1, 2014, Roland Dean, a high school student, was attending a summer
football training camp at De La Salle High School. At some point, the student-athletes were sent
to the varsity locker room and the head coach and assistant coaches went into the coach’s room
to prepare for a team meeting. At some point the plaintiff (Roland Dean aka Roland) began
tossing a football with other students. Shortly thereafter, Clark (student) begins taunting Roland
about his skills and the two exchanged words. After a verbal exchange the two began shoving,
pushing, and Clark punched Roland in his shoulder injuring (dislocated shoulder with the
clavicle pushed dangerously close to and pressing against a major artery and blood vessels) him.
Due to the injury Roland required extensive surgery, received occupational and physical therapy
2
for many months, and remans partially and permanently disabled to this day. Parents sued the
head coach and assistant coaches seeking to recover various damages caused by the injury. The
District Court, Orleans Parish granted summary judgment for the high school and coaches.
Afterward the plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit. The
Court of Appeals stated that the high school did not voluntarily undertake an enhanced duty
to supervise varsity high school locker room at school during summer training camp held at
school, for purposes of action alleging that the school breached its duty of supervision of its
students with regard to physical altercation that occurred in varsity locker room between two
attendees of the camp. Neither the coaches nor school officials were informed of any specific
immediate threat or of any prior “animus” (hostility or ill feelings) between attendees. The fight
was a spontaneous, unforeseeable act that ended quickly, and it was unreasonable to expect
the school to constantly monitor the locker room.
Civil Rights
School district’s expulsion of a public high school student, based on posting violent song
lyrics to social media, outside school hours and off school property, violated his free speech
rights (U.S. 1st Amendment).
Appeal of G.S. by and through Snyder (Pa. Commonwealth, 269 A. 3d 718), January 7, 2022.
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania held that a school district’s decision to expel a
public high school male student (16 years of age and 11th grader) based on his act of posting
violent song lyrics to social media ((Snapchat where he had 60 to 65 followers), outside of
school hours and while not on school property, violated his free speech rights under both the
federal (U. S.) and Pennsylvania constitutions. The speech occurred off-campus, student did not
explicitly target specific students or broader school district community, speech was not distinctly
connected to school activities, student repeatedly and consistently insisted that he neither meant
nor desired to hurt anyone. Furthermore, the student had his character attested to by his parents
and psychologist, who each maintained that the student was not a violent person or a threat to
others. The student’s post: “Everyone, I despise everyone! F— you, eat s—, blackout, and the
world is a graveyard! All of you, I will f—— kill off all of you! This is me, thus is my snap!
Child consuming alcohol was not “expressive conduct” and therefore a public school
district could regulate the student’s conduct without violating the First Amendment.
Cheadle on behalf of N.C. v. North Platte R-1 School Dist. (W.D. Mo., 555 F. Supp. 3d 726),
August 16, 2021.
The United States District Court, W. D. Missouri, Saint Joseph Division held that a child
th
(8 grader on the girls basketball team) consuming alcohol was not expressive conduct, and
thus public school district could regulate the student’s conduct without violating the First
Amendment, in mother’s action on behalf of the child. Plaintiff alleged that school officials’
suspension of her youngster from participating in volleyball games due to the student posting
videos on social media of herself drinking alcohol violated her “free speech rights” under the 1st
Amendment. The “intended message” of a minor drinking alcohol was not apparent. The
child’s alcohol consumption was an illegal act and the her mother failed to identify the
particularized message the child intended to convey through her conduct.
Labor and Employment
3
Black drama teacher did not plausibly allege race-based discrimination in the lack of
second supplemental payment for staging student performances.
Tabb v. Bd. of Educ. of Durham Public Schools (C.A.4 [N.C.], 29 F.4th 148), March 2, 2022.
Black drama teacher (longtime and successful drama teacher) at a public high school with
a magnet program for arts and drama failed to plausibly allege that school board’s failure to pay
him a theater technical director supplement in addition to the theater director supplement that he
already received in connection with staging student performances constituted “race based
employment discrimination in violation of Title VII and Section 1981 (civil rights). Although
the complaint alleged that the teacher worked excessively long hours for his after-school work
with students, the complaint did not allege that the school board mandated those hours as a
requirement of the teacher’s job or that any performing arts teacher in the school district received
more than one performing arts supplement.
Records
Teacher effectuated (made happen) a “prohibited disclosure” under Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and board policy by transferring confidential education
records to herself.
Ferry v. Bd. of Educ. of Jefferson City Public School Dist. (Mo., 641 S.W.3d 203), January 11,
2022.
The Supreme Court of Missouri, en banc. held competent and substantial evidence
supported school district board of education finding that tenured teacher effectuated a
“prohibited disclosure” within the meaning of The Family Educational Rights and Privacy
Act (FERPA) and school board policies that imposed a duty to keep educational records secure
and confidential when she transferred filed containing confidential student information to her
personal online storage account. In order for the teacher to be terminated under the Teacher
Tenure Act the school district had to demonstrate that the teacher had no legitimate
education interest in accessing and transferring the confidential student information to her
personal online storage account. The plaintiff performed the aforenoted act in an effort to use
them in her discrimination suit against the school district.
Torts
Teacher’s evidence to show (demonstrate) that department had actual notice of hazard was
“insufficient” to demonstrate (show) a “prima facie” (a party’s production of enough
evidence to allow the fact-trier to infer the fact at issue and rule in the party’s favor)
entitlement for summary judgment.
Marazita v. City of New York (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept., 163 N.Y.S.3d 219), February 16, 2022.
The Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division held that on a motion for summary
judgment in a personal injury action, evidence submitted by a teacher regarding whether the city
department of education had actual notice of hazardous condition was insufficient to establish
her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in action against the city
department of education. The teacher (plaintiff) alleged that when she was assisting students
during school dismissal, she was struck by falling ice on the exterior grounds of the school
building. Evidence “merely” demonstrated (showed) that the department of education “had a
4
general awareness that snow and ice “may” accumulate on the exposed surface of the school
building and air conditioning units during the winter months and did not demonstrate that it was
aware of snow or ice ever previously falling from those surfaces.
A school could not claim enforcement immunity under the Indiana Tort Claims Act (ITCA)
for its “failure” to comply with its own general school dismissal procedures.
Hopkins v. Indianapolis Public Schools (Ind. App., 183 N.E.3d 308), January 31, 2022.
Note: The Court of Appeals of Indiana reversed and remanded this case back to the lower
court. Therefore, the outcome is probably forthcoming at some point in the future.
The writer wanted to include the case due to the nature and importance of the topic.
On August 7, 2018, seven year old DeShawn Yarbrough attended his second day of first
grade at Waldo Emerson School 58 in the Indianapolis Public School District. DeShawn had
ridden the school bus to his school that morning, and at the end of the school day he got in line to
go home on the bus just as he had done the previous day. As he was waiting in line to get on the
bus, a teacher removed DeShawn from the line and informed him that he was designated as a
“walker” and that he should not ride the school bus home. Please note: DeShawn had a “blue
tag” attached to his book bag to identify him as a bus rider. Despite DeShawn showing the
teacher his “blue tag”, he was mistakenly directed to leave the school bus line and go to the area
where designated walkers congregated before walking home. DeShawn home was
approximately 1.2 miles away from his elementary school with many very busy streets in
between his home and the school. The young fellow walked at least a mile in the wrong
direction, approached by a homeless man, chased by dogs which caused him to fall, and crossed
major thoroughfare alone at rush hour. Eventually, a stranger found DeShawn, called the school
and the police to inform them of his whereabouts, and took him to her home. The stranger then
messaged DeShawn’s mother on Facebook to tell her that she had found him.
DeShawn’s parents filed a complaint against the school district and school officials
alleging that the school breached its “duty” of reasonable care, supervision, and wrongful
releasing him to walk home alone.
Note: The local court (The Supreme Court of Marion County, Jason Reyome, Magistrate)
granted summary judgment in favor of the school. Parents appealed to the Court of Appeals of
Indiana.
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.
5
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
