by Hollie Reedy | Jul 9, 2021 | General
The Gabbard decision was announced on June 23, 2021 by the Ohio Supreme Court. (Gabbard v. Madison Local Sch. Dist. Bd. Of Edn., Slip Op. No 2021-Ohio-2067)
After a 2016 school shooting in the district in which a student emptied a gun in school injuring several students, the school board acted in 2018 to adopt a “firearm authorization policy,” which allowed the superintendent to designate up to ten teachers to carry concealed weapons while in the course of their duties. The Board also required the designated employees to possess a concealed handgun license, twenty-four hours of training in active shooter response, training on mental preparation to respond to active killers, and a handgun-qualification recertification every year. However, none of the employees had the training required by R.C. 109.78.
Parents sued the school district alleging that it did not comply with Ohio law. The case required the court to analyze the interaction between two Ohio statutes. One statute allows school boards to designate in writing persons authorized to carry concealed weapons on school property, exempting them from criminal penalties for doing so (R.C. 2923.122). The other statute (R.C. 109.78) stated that persons employed as school security officers, special police officers, or other employee goes armed while on duty requires either twenty years’ experience as a police officer or completion of Ohio peace officer training (over 700 hours of training.)
The court analyzed plain terms of both statutes independently. The court found that the language of R.C. 109.78(D) requires any school employee authorized by a board of education to go armed while on duty must meet training-or-experience requirements of that statute. The court rejected the attorney general’s argument (in an amicus brief on the case) that the phrase “other position” in the statute was limited to a position that is a law enforcement or school security function, stating:
While school employees may volunteer to be designated to carry a weapon pursuant to the resolution, the application of R.C. 109.78(d) is not dependent upon an employee being hired particularly for the purpose of carrying a weapon. As we have already stated, the statute does not tie application of the training-or-experience requirement to the duties of an employee’s position. That an employee might have been hired to teach, to coach, or to perform other primarily nonsecurity functions does not alter the fact that an employee who carries a weapon while performing his or her job “goes armed while on duty. (Slip Op., at ¶21)
The court also found that the ability of school boards to authorize people (including school employees) to carry concealed weapons without criminal liability (R.C. 2923.122) was not an exception to the requirements of the training-or-experience requirements of R.C. 109.78. The court found that the statute simply excludes certain people as designated by a board of education from criminal liability, and does not allow a board to disregard other statutory provisions that apply. The court held:
We conclude that R.C. 2923.122(D)(1)(a) does not clearly constitute a legislative grant of power for school boards to authorize their employees to go armed so long as the employees undergo whatever training a board might deem advisable.” (Slip Op., at ¶33)
The court held the statutes were not incompatible, noting that the training-or-experience statute had been in effect for more than 20 years when the newer written authorization statute was enacted in 1992. The court also noted that policy decisions and the desire or need to amend or reconcile the statutes is within the purview of the General Assembly, not the Ohio Supreme Court. The court went on to state that, “…we bear in mind that the General Assembly likely did not contemplate at the time of those statutes’ respective enactments in 1969 and 1992 that they would address a board of education’s authority to arm its teachers and other school staff for protection against a school shooting.” (Slip Op., at ¶40).
What this means for your district:
First, if your district has authorized any school employee to carry concealed at school, this should immediately cease, unless they meet the training-or-experience requirements of being a police office or having completed the 700+ hours of Ohio peace officer training. Contact us if you have questions about this. Second, the opinion mentions several times the role of the General Assembly in making policy decision or reconciling the statutes’ application. There has been a bill introduced that would do this, HB 99: however, it was introduced in February of this past year, was referred to the House Criminal Justice Committee, and has received no hearings. HB 99 would allow school districts to arm school employees with minimum training requirements, the same as obtaining a concealed handgun license. It is unlikely that this bill will see immediate action.
by Hollie Reedy | Jun 28, 2021 | General
ESSER/GEER guidance highlights
In late May, The U.S. Department of Education released guidance to states and school districts about the use of the multiple federal funds authorized for pandemic response and relief. A review of this guidance clarifies some questions about use of the funds. The guidance itself is not law, but it outlines USDOE interpretation of the laws and how funds may be used.
ESSER and GEER funds may be used for a wide range of allowable activities, a full list of which is available in the guidance on pages 10-12. One clarification states that where funds are authorized to be used for “children with disabilities,” this means children eligible under IDEA and Section 504.
The last listed item on allowable uses of funds is, “Other activities that are necessary to maintain the operation of and continuity of services in the LEA and continuing to employ existing staff of the LEA.” A footnote explains this includes using ESSER funds to avoid layoffs.
The Department goes into more detail that both ESSER and GEER funds may be used to pay teacher salaries and prevent layoffs. This includes other supportable activities in Question D-1 (p.46). The next question, D-2, states that health support staff, such as “…counselors, nurses, social workers, and other health support staff” are included.
The guidance notes, “…an LEA should consider ways that will build short- and long-term capacity and be sustained after the funding is no longer available.” School districts may provide the services directly or by entering into a contract. Subgrants of these funds are not authorized.
Construction and ventilation
Funds may be used for new construction, renovation and remodeling, with the approval of ODE or the Governor’s office. Improvements must be for the purpose of preparing, preventing or responding to COVID-19. Improvements may include HVAC and ventilation testing and work to upgrade or alter existing systems.
If used for HVAC improvements, projects must comply with ASHRAE standards. Making improvements to improve cleaning, such as removing carpet, are approved. (See questions B-6 and B-7)
Modular units may be purchased using federal funds. All projects must comply with federal procurement standards and must pay prevailing wage.
Supporting special education students
The guidance provides specific examples of ways ESSER and GEER funds may be used to provide services and support students with disabilities, whether they have an IEP or 504 plan. These may include hiring additional people to conduct evaluations if they were backlogged or providing transition services.
One interesting suggestion is for transition services and programs, including “coordination of services with agencies involved in supporting the transition of children with disabilities to postsecondary activities.”
If your district had issues due to the pandemic of providing work experience, internships, workshops, or life skills training for students preparing to graduate, these funds may be used to provide those experiences now. This may occur through extended school year services, if necessary.
A (non-exhaustive) list of activities for which the funds may be used may be found at questions C-5 and C-6 of the guidance.
Students who are migratory, homeless, or in foster care
These students may have had trouble accessing instruction via the use of technology and may have simply stopped attending. ESSER and GEER funds may be used to provide outreach to ensure better engagement. This includes better access to technology, including broadband, and for lost instructional time, tutoring and even transportation.
Attendance issues
ESSER and GEER funds may be used to assist districts in developing data quality systems to track attendance, analyze and publish data, and monitor trends for early warning signs based on key student indicators.
Other miscellaneous guidance
The guidance make several interesting miscellaneous points for which ESSER and GEER funds may be used:
- Food service (to the extent USDA or other federal program funds are not available), including packaging for grab and go meals, costs of transportation, and additional staff and equipment.
- Paying college application fees for economically-disadvantaged students
- For students who graduated in 2020 or 2021, districts may provide college or career counseling, assistance with entry to job training programs or college applications, financial literacy and more.
- Re-engaging students who have not participated in remote learning and programs to reduce community violence to address social, emotional, mental health and behavioral issues.
- Paying staff overtime to safely reopen schools and keep them open.
There are many specific questions which cannot be addressed in this format, as well as timelines for use of the various funds authorized under different programs.
The guidance may be reviewed here: https://tinyurl.com/4d3ykh2x
by Hollie Reedy | Mar 23, 2020 | COVID-19 (Coronavirus), General
The pandemic has resulted in the enactment of emergency federal legislation providing additional the amendments are part of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (H.R. 6201), and the FMLA expansion portion is called the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act. Additional provisions of the law that provide employer-paid sick leave are called the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act.
These laws take effect fifteen days from the enactment of the law (March 18), which will be April 1st. Both of these provisions will be temporary, ending on December 31, 2020.
FMLA Leave Expansion
To be eligible for this type of FMLA leave, employees must have been employed only for thirty days (not the usual eligibility criteria of 1,250 hours in the preceding year). The thirty days mean on the payroll for the 30 calendar days immediately prior to when the leave would begin.
Reasons for Leave
1. If a child’s school or place of care is closed, or the
child care provider is not available, and the employee is unable to
work or telework because they must care for the minor
child, the employee may use leave.
Pay for leave after first ten days
The first ten days of this FMLA leave is unpaid, although the employee may elect to substitute vacation, sick, personal or medical leave for unpaid leave. They also may use the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act described below. After that, the leave will be paid for up to twelve weeks.
After the first ten days, employees are to be paid at a rate of 2/3rds their regular rate of pay for the number of hours they normally work. The amount of pay for this sick leave is capped at not more than $200 per day, and continues up to a maximum of $12,000 (this is for the entire 12-week period, including the two weeks of leave which may be the emergency paid sick leave provided in the Act.
There is an averaging process provided in the law to determine the amount to be paid to an employee who works a varying number of hours.
Documentation
Employers may require documentation in support of expanded family medical leave just as you would for other FMLA requests.
Intermittent leave
The expanded FMLA leave for child care does not require that employers permit the leave to be taken intermittently. However, if the employer agrees to do so, the leave may be taken intermittently.
Insurance benefits
Employers must maintain health insurance during the period of expanded FMLA leave for child care.
Right of restoration
Employers must restore the employee to an equivalent position unless the position has been eliminated or reduced due to economic reasons or other operating conditions that affect employment as a result of the public health emergency.
An “equivalent position” is one that provides equivalent benefits, pay, and other terms and conditions of employment. If the efforts of the employer to do so are unsuccessful, employers must contact them if such a position does become available for a period of one year.
Paid Sick Leave
Another part of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act is the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act. This leave applies to school districts and, like the expanded FMLA provisions, it expires December 31, 2020.
Employers must immediately provide, as needed, eighty hours of paid sick leave to full time employees (regardless of the length of their employment) or an average of hours worked over a two-week period for part-time employees who meet the following criteria:
- Unable to work (or telework) due to an isolation or quarantine order related to COVID-19 (federal, state or local order);
- Has been ordered by a health care professional to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19;
- The employee is seeking medical diagnosis and is having symptoms of COVID-19;
- The employee is caring for an individual (law does not specify that it has to be a family member) subject to such an order
- The employee’s child’s school or place of care is closed or child care provider is unavailable (same reason as FMLA expansion), or
- The employee is experiencing any substantially similar condition as identified by the Secretary of Labor or Treasury.
For the first three conditions, hourly pay is the greater of the employee’s regular rate of pay, the federal minimum wage, or local/state minimum wage. This is subject to a maximum of $511/day, up to $5,110 for the entire paid emergency sick leave period.
For the conditions from 4-6 on the list, pay is capped at 2/3 of the greater of the amounts listed above. This is subject to a maximum of $200 per day, up to $2,000 over the two week period.
The leave is subject to a few conditions, including that:
- The employee may not be required to find another employee to cover the hours they are using for sick time.
- The employee may be required to return to work at the next scheduled shift after the need for sick leave ends.
- The leave does not carry over from one year to the next.
- The employer also may not require use of other paid leaves before using this emergency sick leave.
This leave is limited to two weeks for any combination of the reasons listed above. The leave is not retroactive (prior to April 1, the effective date) and the employee may still use the leave even if the employer gave the employee paid leave for similar reasons prior to April 1, 2020.
Employers must post a notice of the availability of this sick leave. This notice is available at:
dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/posters/FFCRA_Poster_WH1422_Non-Federal.pdf
Violation of the provisions of the emergency paid sick time would be a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act for failure to provide minimum wage and subject to the penalties of the FLSA.
Stay tuned
More changes and new provisions are possible as lawmakers and federal and state agencies respond to this situation. There are issues of interpretation with this new law that may be dealt with in additional legislation, future regulations, or a FAQ from the Wage and Hour Division.
This article will be updated to reflect changes in these particular provisions as needed.
by Hollie Reedy | Mar 16, 2020 | COVID-19 (Coronavirus), General
Your school district may be getting public records requests, and/or requests for health information concerning students, and you may have questions about how your school district may share information with parents, with public health authorities, and the media.
The Student Privacy Policy Office of U.S. Department of Education has recently (March 2020) issued guidance in the form of a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) that provides some answers about student records disclosures during the pandemic.
Let’s break it down in understandable bytes. The federal law on the confidentiality of student records is the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and Ohio’s student confidentiality law is found at Ohio Revised Code 3319.321. The issues that may come up during this pandemic are what records may be shared, with whom, when you may have students, staff, and their family members who may be affected by the COVID-19 virus.
FERPA generally protects the confidentiality of personally identifiable student information. That means schools must not release personally identifiable information about students without the consent of the parents of students under 18 years of age, and of students themselves who are over 18 and a legal adult. Directory information may be released if the student/parent has not opted out of such disclosures.
There are exceptions to FERPA. One of these is the “health and safety emergency” exception, which allows certain disclosures of personally identifiable information under certain circumstances to certain individuals or entities that are relevant during this pandemic.
If a school district determines there is a health and safety emergency; that is, an emergency in which it is necessary to protect the health or safety of students or other individuals, that requires the release of personally identifiable student information without consent, it may make disclosures of the personally-identifiable information of those students to address the emergency on a case-specific basis. The district must evaluate the need for such disclosures and to whom such disclosures should be made.
There are some important considerations in the guidance. The first thing to remember is that the health and safety exception to FERPA is a limited exception and when using it, schools need to decide whether a release of normally-confidential information is warranted on a case-by-case basis.
Another way of saying this is that if there is a health and safety emergency (which the school district may determine in its reasonable discretion), FERPA allows disclosures to persons or entities that need that information for the purpose of protecting health and safety of a student or another individual. It is not, however, a blanket release of information to all entities or persons equally. The guidance also states that these disclosures are “…limited in time to the period of the emergency and generally does not allow for a blanket release of PII from student education records.”
To whom may we disclose information during a health and safety emergency?
There are some different ways this may come up. The first and probably easiest issue is the public health authority asking the school district for disclosures of personally identifiable information of students to track exposure and possibly for the purpose of notifying people who need to self-quarantine or who may have been exposed.
May the District disclose personally-identifiable information if the health department asks for it?
The guidance says generally, yes. The guidance states “Public health officials may be considered ‘appropriate parties’ by an educational agency or institution under FERPA’s health or safety emergency exception, even in the absence of a formally declared health emergency. Typically, public health officials and trained medical personnel are among the types of appropriate parties to whom PII from education records, may be non-consensually disclosed under FERPA’s health or safety emergency exception.”
May the District release contact information for students and their parents to the public health department if asked by the health department to do so?
Yes, if that information is needed and the district has made a determination that there is a health and safety emergency that requires such disclosure.
What about the media requesting lists of how many students are affected by the illness or the numbers of absences the district may have been seeing prior to schools being closed?
The guidance generally says no. Disclosures to the media of personally-identifiable information of students affected by COVID-19 are not appropriate under this limited exception. It describes the media as not generally an “appropriate party” under FERPA’s health and safety exception. “Appropriate parties” are those who provide “…specific medical or safety attention, such as public health or law enforcement officials.” If all identifying information has been removed (and disclosure would not allow a person to determine individual students affected) and the district has such a record, it may be able to comply with some requests for information. Consult counsel if you receive such requests.
If students are affected by COVID-19 and are out sick, may the District disclose information to parents of other students?
The Department answered that some information could be disclosed only if the information was not personally identifiable. Consent would not be needed to disclose information that is not personally identifiable (although the district should make a case-by-case determination that disclosing the information will not allow people to identify the student who is absent due to COVID-19.)
The Department does state in the FAQ that in “rare situations during a health and safety emergency” that disclosure of the identifiable information about a specific student may be warranted. The FAQ uses an example of a wrestler who had close contact with other students, school officials might determine it was necessary to disclose the student’s identity to the parents of other students. This determination of whether the disclosure is “absolutely necessary” is made on a case-by-case basis dependent upon the situation.
The Department suggests making consent forms available to parents that specifically allow such disclosures to obtain consent to release personally-identifiable information in these circumstances. In a health and safety emergency as determined by the District, the exception would allow non-consensual disclosures of personally identifiable information. During these times, obtaining such consent may not be a priority crisis response. These consent forms could be implemented as part of emergency planning in the future, however. A sample form is available with the guidance should districts choose to attempt to obtain consent from parents.
If a school employee has the illness, could the district notify parents and students or the media?
The Department notes that FERPA applies only to student records. Other state privacy laws may impact this issue, however, so a release of a school official or employee’s name to the public or the media should be made only in consultation with board counsel. Please note that the health department is not releasing personal information about people affected in its reports, only their general geographic area and sometimes their age.
However, disclosures of the identity of school employees affected to the health department would generally be authorized so that the health department may track contacts and notify those who may need to self-quarantine or be tested. The district itself also may communicate with parents and students about possible exposure to an individual affected by COVID-19, but should protect the privacy of the individual’s identity to the extent possible.
Does the District need to document when these disclosures are made and to whom?
Yes. School districts that make such disclosures of personally identifiable information are required to make and maintain records of the disclosures that are made and the reasons for such disclosures. Schools must record the reason for the basis of the disclosure (i.e., “the articulable and significant threat to the health or safety of a student or other individual that formed the basis for the disclosure and the parties to whom the agency or institution disclosed the information”) and to whom the disclosures were made in the student’s record, for each student for whom information was disclosed.
These disclosures must be retained in the education record as long as the records are maintained. Parents and eligible students (over 18) may view the educational records so they would see if such disclosures were documented.
Public records requests will need to be handled generally in the same way as would be ordinary for your office. You will still need to respond to records requests within a reasonable time, but what is reasonable under these circumstances may vary based on the ability of the district to have adequate staff available during this crisis to respond. Please call to discuss these issues with our office. All of our attorneys are well-versed in public records law.
by Hollie Reedy | Dec 20, 2019 | Special Education
If it seems like there are more food allergies today, there are. Today, about 8% of all children have food allergies, an increase of 50% in ten years. This translates into 1 in 13 children, or about 2 per classroom. Individualized plans for the safety of each student with an allergy should be made to avoid exposure and reactions.
Students with food allergies may be eligible for special education supports and protections. For instance, a student could be IDEA- eligible as “other health impaired” if the allergies adversely affect learning or the student needs special education/related services due to the allergies. More commonly, students with food allergies may be eligible for a 504 plan if they have a physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. In the case of allergies, this could include breathing, immune system function, respiratory function, or learning. Districts may not discriminate against a student with a disability or deny them participation in school programs or activities. Schools IEP and 504 teams should discuss how allergies will be handled for students according to their particular allergy and its severity.
Individualized plans for the safety of each student should be developed to avoid exposure and reactions. The chosen accommodations must be implemented during all aspects of the school district’s activities and operations.
To determine if a student is eligible under 504 for a food allergy, district must screen out the use of medications or other measures to control the allergy. It is important to note that schools do not have to provide a risk-free environment, only a reasonably safe environment.
It is probably not surprising to you that the issue of accommodation of children with food allergies in schools has been the subject of special education hearings and litigation. Districts sometimes have to contend with diverse perspectives and demands, which they must reconcile on a daily basis. Here is a short summary of some 504 cases that may sound familiar to you.
In one case, a high school denied a student participation in a culinary arts program due to concerns about the student’s severe allergies to peanuts, dairy, egg, kiwi and crab. The student did not have a 504 plan at the time, but did have an emergency health plan to address exposure and response to a reaction. The student’s allergist had filed a letter stating the student could participate as long as he did not eat any of the foods prepared with ingredients to which he was allergic, and that he wore gloves when handling peanuts. The District attempted to contact the allergist one time, and did not contact him after that prior to making the decision to exclude the student. The student filed a complaint with the Office for Civil Rights, alleging disability discrimination. OCR found that the district had treated the student as a student with a disability even though it had not qualified him as one by excluding him from the program. They went on to find that the district had violated Section 504 procedurally, as it did not make a decision about the student’s exclusion with persons knowledgeable about the issues. (Bethlehem (NY) Central Sch. Dist. Office for Civil Rights, Eastern Division, NY, 52 IDELR 169, 109 LRP 30964)
Another case dealt with a student on an IEP whose allergy to peanuts and tree nuts was a life-threatening, airborne allergy. Initially, the District agreed that the student should be educated at a smaller private school that put into place significant protocols and regulations to ensure the student’s safety. The District proposed in a new IEP to change his placement to a public school on the basis that the student could be safely accommodated. This student also had autism with communication deficits, such that he would be unable to communicate his physical distress if he were having an allergic reaction. The parents rejected the proposed IEP and filed for due process. In a detailed decision concerning the peanut-free accommodations provided by the private school and the proposed peanut-restricted accommodations of the public school, the hearing officer found that the proposed IEP met the requirements of the law, which require only a reasonably safe environment, and plans in the IEP to ensure the student’s safety were adequate to prevent exposure and deal with a reaction if it did occur. (In Re: Student with a Disability Kentucky State Educational Agency 1213-16, 114 LRP 19510)
Finally, there was the Michigan case of a mother who refused to comply with the peanut free school building to accommodate another child who had a life-threatening, airborne peanut allergy. She wrote to the school, stating “I will not be cooperating not participating in the School’s 504 plan to another student. My child and I are not subject to, nor bound by, the provisions of the Rehabilitation Act….to meet my child’s needs, I will provide my child with the proper nutrition in her school lunch that I, in my sole discretion, deem appropriate.”
She filed a lawsuit seeking to enjoin the district from implementing the school-wide ban on nut products and requested money damages. She also alleged that her rights to equal protection and due process under the state and federal constitution were violated, and her child experienced unlawful search and seizure because her lunches were checked and when peanut items were found, replaced with appropriate alternatives.
The court of appeals rejected all her claims, finding that she lacked standing to challenge the 504 plan, that the school district’s peanut-free school policy was rationally related to a legitimate government interest, defeating the equal protection and due process claims. As to the unlawful search and seizure, the court stated that the school only looked for and removed banned items based on the parent’s notice to the school that they would not comply with the reasonable restrictions. (61 IDELR 231)
Practical takeaways
The most common food allergies are peanut and tree nuts, shellfish, milk, eggs, fish, wheat and soy. Some allergies are very severe, such as students who could have a life-threatening reaction to airborne particles of peanuts.
There are good resources for school professionals on ensuring a reasonably safe environment for students who have these allergies, and developing plans and emergency plans to accommodate the allergy to prevent a reaction, and to deal with a reaction if it occurs. The Centers for Disease Control has some great resources all gathered on one page, at https://www.cdc.gov/healthyschools/foodallergies/index.htm, including Food Allergy Guidelines FAQ and Voluntary Guidelines for Managing Allergies. Both of these resources and many others, including information for school nurses and more, may be found on the CDC page.
Food allergy management is increasingly a common issue. Staff training on preventing exposure, recognizing signs of a reaction, responding with medication or the use of an Epi-pen, including environmental management in terms of cleaning surfaces and other items used in instruction, transportation staff and substitute teacher/aide training are all aspects of food allergy management that require ongoing attention. School staff, including IEP and 504 teams, should discuss food allergies and take appropriate steps to ensure students with allergies are properly accommodated.
Parent, staff and community education is likewise an ongoing effort in the management of food allergies in schools, involving education on watching ingredients in school snacks, lunches and the cafeteria, providing ingredient lists, and more. If you have an IDEA or 504 plan issue involving a food allergy, the EB special education team can assist in ensuring your team’s compliance with procedural and substantive requirements.
“Food Allergen Icons” by Milos Radojevic is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
