School Related Law Case Brief

Citation: Polera v. Board of Educ. of Newburgh

Court or Commissioner: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Mark D. Fox, 479 United States Magistrate Judges

Procedural Background: Southern District of New York found the school board liable and awarded Polera a judgement of $30,000. The school board then appealed the decision.

Facts: Santina Polera, a visual impaired high school student is suing New York State for punitive damages that she alleges occurred during her high school years. Polera, through her lawsuit alleges that she did not receive the appropriate public education require by the state for disabled students. These benefits include study materials, compensation for tutoring, and proper recognition for academic achievements. Polera, is requesting relief in the form of reimbursement for education expenses, reimbursement of attorney fees, compensatory damages, and punitive damages.

The defense states that Polera never sought relief through the proper administrative channels and instead went directly to litigation within the Southern District of New York. On August 17, 2000, the district court found that Polera’s rights were indeed violated according to the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. As a result, the defendants were to pay Polera $30,000 in damages and emotional distress. The school board subsequently filed an appeal claiming the District Court did not have proper jurisdiction in ruling in favor of Polera’s claims. Polera has cross-appealed.

Legal Issues: Here, the focal point of our inquiry must be Polera's admitted failure to exhaust the administrative remedies available to her through the state education system before she filed suit in federal court. The primary issue is therefore if Polera should have brough the issue to the school board prior to filing suit to give them enough time to rectify the situation.

Decisions of the court/commissioner: The court sided with the school board, and concluded that Polera should have first notified the school board of its transgressions before bringing the claim the court. As such, it was found that the district court did not have the jurisdiction to preside over her claims. As a result, the higher-level court vacated the judgement and sent remand to the district court to dismiss the complaint.

Reasoning: Polera was required to exhaust her administrative remedies before bringing a claim in federal court. She admittedly failed to do so. Therefore, the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over her claims. We vacate the judgment and remand to the District Court with an instruction to dismiss the complaint.

Disposition: The decision was reversed and the school board did not pay the $30,000

Citation: R.T. v. Board of Education of the Southold Union Free School District

Court or Commissioner:

Procedural Background: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the suspension.

Facts: R.T., a junior at a high school in the district was attending a psychology course of the “Seven Stages of Grief.” R.T. was recently grieving over the loss of one of his fellow cross-country teammates during this class. The original instructor the course was absent that day and was instead replaced with a female substitute teacher. The teacher was teaching the seven stages of grief and was using her personal experience to describe each stage of the process. During her instruction R.T became very frustrated as he was still grieving the from the loss of his cross-country friend. He then proceeded to take a picture of the teacher and posted it on Instagram with the caption, “I’m going to kill this bitch.” Eventually, the school found out about the post and asked R.T. to confirm that he did indeed post the picture on Instagram. R.T. admitted to the post, but explained to the post was meant as a joke and not a true intention to harm the teacher. As a result, the principle suspended R.T. for 6 days. R.T. could return to school pending a superintendent’s review. The superintendent conducted their review a found R.T. guilt of disorderly conduct as the substitute teacher was fearful for her life. The superintendent thus suspended R.T. for the remainder of the 2012-2013 academic school year.

In repose R.T parents sought to have the judgement overturned as they claimed that the notice was untimely and failed to inform them of their right to request an informal conference at which petitioners could question the complaining witnesses. They also claimed that nothing in the record indicates that R.T directly the message at the substitute teacher and the at the post was intended as joke and was understood as a joke.

Legal Issues: There a multiple legal issue as it relates to this case. First, the petitioners claim the post was joke between private students and was not a threat to the substitute teacher. They also claim that the hearing record is incomplete. As the tap recording cut out, a portion of the superintendents hearing was not recorded and missing information The petitioners also claimed that they were denied the opportunity to question the substitute teacher who was not at the hearing at the time.

Decisions of the court/commissioner: The long-term suspension was upheld with the short-term suspension being expunged from the record.

Reasoning: The petitioners’ responses did not have any merit. The intention of R.T. of the Instagram post being a joke was irrelevant to the case. The court also found that the missing portions of the hearing transcript were also irrelevant as R.T. already admitted to guilt and the teacher already admitted to feeling threatened.

Disposition: R.T was still suspended but the first suspensions was expunged. Affirmed.

Citation: Petitioners also appear to claim that they were denied the opportunity to question complaining witnesses because “the substitute teacher did not appear at the hearing.

Court or Commissioner:

Procedural Background:

Facts: Y.V. a freshman at Jericho High School has several adverse experiences at his high school. Y.V experienced a litany of negative actions against him including bullying and verbal abuse. The school took immediate action to help mitigate these attributes including investigating the complaints internally, conducting peer mediation, discipling peer students, and rearranging Y.V. classes. The principle even when as far as assigning a teacher aid to help monitor actions against Y.V. on a daily basis.

After assigning the teachers aid that the principle notified Y.V. that he was engaging in misconduct as he was refusing to walk in a leisurely fashion in the hallways with the teachers aid. He also stated in the presence of the monitor that the P.E. teacher threatened to beat him up. He also stated to another student that the English teacher threw a book at him. Y.V. was later charged with four additional instances of misconduct related to refusal to comply with directives related to bus seating, meeting with the teachers aid, and false accusations. Y.V was subsequently suspending for 1 day and 5 days respectively.

In response petitioners challenged that the suspensions were excessive given the charges. The challenge to remove the suspensions was dismissed. In addition, Y.V. parents removed him from the school thereby making their point moot.

Legal Issues: Petitioners first believe the suspensions were excessive. Next, they contend that the charges for misconduct are false and that they should be overturned.

Decisions of the court/commissioner: The court found that many of the accusations by Y.V. were false. The court also found a lack of evidence about the accusations. The court also found that the suspensions were reasonable given the degree of infractions.

Reasoning: The court made the decision based on testimony from witnesses. Y.V. accused the teacher of pushing him down the stairs. It was found that his bookbag was tangled up which caused him to fall down the stairs. In addition, the principle told Y.V. to sit at the front of the bus. Y.V. instead ignored this direction and sat at the back of the bus per witnesses and signed statements. In addition, the accusations Y.V. made about the teacher threatening to beat him up and the English teacher throwing a book at him were all false.

Disposition: Affirmed

Citation: McCormick ex rel v. School Dist Mamaroneck

Court or Commissioner: United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Procedural Background: United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Facts: The case is related to title IX and its relations to women’s and men’s soccer. In this case, certain aspects of men’s soccer are not occurring within the women’s soccer programs. This is resulting in unequal treatment of the women’s soccer program which excludes certain players from playing the state championship. In this case, two players, Katherine McCormick and Emily Geldwert. Both players are somewhat unique in that they qualify for the Olympic developmental program for exceptional players. They also play for other professional leagues due their ability on the soccer field. Unfortunately, the women’s soccer season conflicts with their other obligations related to professional teams which does not allow them compete for their high school state championship. This, according to the plaintiffs is a violation of title 9 as the boys’ soccer team is allowed to compete during periods in which the women’s soccer team is not.

Complicating the issue is that a survey conducted by the school found that most students preferred the current soccer schedule in the spring. They did not want to be forced to chose between soccer and another fall sport. The school districts argue that having girl’s soccer in the spring and men’s soccer in the fall does not violate title IX.

Legal Issues: The legal issue here is related to title IX and its application towards high school sports. The idea here is that men’s and women’s sports should be offered at the same time and in the same manner. By allow boys soccer in the fall disadvantages the women’s sports which are offered in the spring. As a result, the issues as per title IX is related to equality of offerings and services.

Decisions of the court/commissioner: Affirmed, Girls soccer must be rescheduled in the fall

Reasoning: The court affirmed the District Court's holding that the decisions by the School Districts of Mamaroneck and Pelham to schedule girls' high school soccer in the spring and boys' high school soccer in the fall, which deprives girls but not boys of the opportunity to compete in the New York Regional and State Championships in soccer, violates Title IX.