by Bronston McCord | Sep 5, 2019 | Board Policy & Representation, General, School Management, Student Education and Discipline
On August 9, 2019, a federal judge in Virginia ruled in favor of a transgender student in holding that a school district’s policy violated his rights under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. The Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board case stemmed from a school district’s policy requiring students to use restrooms and locker rooms that corresponded to their “biological genders.” The district provided alternative facilities for transgender students.
The court initially ruled that claims of discrimination on the basis of transgender status for gender-stereotyping are actionable under Title IX. The court further found that denying Grimm the ability to access the facilities corresponding with his gender identity were not only actionable but did in fact result in a violation of Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause.
The Board argued that it had not engaged in discrimination and that Grimm had not suffered any harm as a result of its policy. The court found this argument to be unconvincing. The court determined that the district’s policy subjected transgender students to discriminatory treatment by excluding them from places similarly situated students had access to. Further, Grimm did suffer emotional harm due to the fact he was unable to comfortably access restrooms at school. Grimm was further subjected to harm when the school district refused to update his school records in order to reflect his male identity. Failure to do so has negated his male identity and marked him different than other males any time he provided a copy of his transcript to another entity.
This ultimately led the court to grant a permanent injunction against the school district’s restroom and locker room policy. The injunction further awarded Gavin nominal damages and ordered the school district to change his school records to conform with his gender identity.
While the decision from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals is not controlling on Ohio school districts, the Sixth Circuit did rule on a very similar case back in 2016. In Dodds v. United States Department of Education, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a lower district court decision and determined that an eleven-year-old transgender girl had a strong likelihood of success in her claims against the school district and should therefore be allowed to use the school restrooms conforming with her gender identity.
It is important to note the decision in Dodds relied on guidance from the United States Department of Education that has since been rescinded. The current position of the USDOE is that they will not accept any complaints alleging a transgender student was denied access to restrooms and locker rooms and will only accept complaints of harassment or bullying for failing to conform to sex-based stereotypes. Thus, in light of this new guidance, it remains unclear how an Ohio court would rule on this issue today.
What this means for your district:
The issue of providing accommodations to transgender students remains unclear and is a matter that will doubtless be subject to further litigation before any clarity is provided. Districts should proceed with caution when faced with these issues. For additional advice on handling requests for accommodations for transgender students, please contact an Ennis Britton attorney for assistance.
by Giselle Spencer | Aug 16, 2019 | Board Policy & Representation, General, Labor and Employment, Legislation, School Finance, School Management
The Ohio Attorney General’s Office recently released an opinion in response to a request for legal advice on the issue of arming school staff. The letter requested, among other things, an analysis on how the training requirements under R.C. 109.78(D) apply to school employees authorized by the board of education to carry or possess a deadly weapon on school property under R.C. 2923.122(A).
R.C. 109.78(D) in full provides:
“(D) No public or private educational institution or superintendent of the State Highway Patrol shall employ a special police officer, security guard, or other position in which such person goes armed while on duty, who has not received a certificate of having satisfactorily completed an approved basic police officer training program, unless the person has completed twenty years of active duty as a police officer.”
As noted, R.C. 2923.122(A) prohibits any person from knowingly conveying, or attempting to convey, a deadly weapon into a school safety zone. However, there is a specific exception set out in R.C. 2923.122(D)(1)(a) which excludes any other person from this prohibition:
“who has written authorization from the board of education or governing body of a school to convey deadly weapons… in a school safety zone or to possess a deadly weapon… in a school safety zone and who convey or possesses the deadly weapon… in accordance with that authorization.”
The letter sought advice on whether or not a school employee who has been authorized to carry a deadly weapon by the board of education under R.C. 2923.122(D)(1)(a) is subject to the training requirements of R.C. 109.78(D). The Attorney General’s Office reiterated their argument laid out in their amicus brief in the appeal of Gabbard v. Madison Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. The court in that case concluded that school employees authorized by the board of education to carry firearms on school premises were not subject to the training requirements of R.C. 109.78(D) because they were not employed by the district in a security capacity. The Attorney General’s Office agreed and opined that in order to determine which provision outlined above is applicable to an employee hired by a school district, we must analyze whether the individual is employed in a role comparable to that of a security guard or police officer. In doing so, we must look to the person’s job title along with the duties and responsibilities assigned to them.
If an employee is hired by the district in a security capacity, then they are subject to the training requirements expressed in R.C. 109.78(D). (I.e. approved basic training police program, or twenty years active duty of a police officer). However, any other employee hired by a school district who does not serve in such a role, i.e. teacher, principal, custodian, and who is authorized by the board to carry or possess a firearm under R.C. 2923.122(D)(1)(a), is not subject to the training requirements of R.C. 109.78(D).
by Erin Wessendorf-Wortman | Aug 14, 2019 | General
It is no secret that board of education members and school employees often communicate with one another through their personal cell phones. However, board members and employees rarely consider that these private text messages could potentially be disclosed to the public. Two recent decisions have highlighted the need for board members and school employees to proceed with caution as these text messages may be considered public records subject to disclosure upon request.
On May 15, 2019 a special master determined that a school district did not deny a requester public records when it declined to provide her with the cell phone call and text detail logs of particular district employees. (Paule v. Woodmore Local Schools, 2019-Ohio-2625.) The requester in this case argued that the administrators conducted district business through calls and texts with their personal cell phones that the district paid for. The special master found the district did not require the administrators to provide copies of their wireless bills or expense reports related thereto, and therefore had no obligation to disclose documents that did not exist and were not in their possession.
The special master also went on to conclude that the call and text message logs were not records subject to disclosure because a “record” is defined as
Any document, device, or item, regardless of physical form or characteristic, *** created or received by or coming under the jurisdiction of any public office of the state or its political subdivisions, which serves to document the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the office.
R.C. 149.011(G). The special master stated that there was no evidence that the district required their administrators to document their cell phone usage or that this usage information would document the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the district. Therefore, the personal cell phone call and text detail logs were not records subject to disclosure.
However, shortly after this report and recommendation was handed down, a similar case reached the Ohio Court of Claims. In this case, the presiding Judge concluded that the text messages on personal cell phones of city council members were subject to the Public Records Act. (Sinclair Media III, Inc. v. Cincinnati, 2019-Ohio-2623) In this case, the plaintiff requested text messages of particular public officials in which the employment status of the city manager was discussed. The city argued that the text messages did not meet the definition of a “record” subject to disclosure and that the messages were not “kept by” a public office because they were located on the personal cell phones of the city council members.
In rejecting the city’s argument, the court noted that Ohio courts generally treat text messages and emails sent by public officials in the same manner as other records, regardless of whether they are on privately-owned or publicly-issued devices. The issue is not whether the text messages were sent or stored on personal devices, but whether they document the functions, policies, procedures, operations, or other activities of the city. The court determined that the text messages reflecting on the employment decisions of public offices clearly document the operations and activities of that office. Therefore, the text messages in this case were public records subject to disclosure.
In each of these cases, the decisions focused on whether or not the messages document the functions, policies, procedures, operations or other activities of the public office. The key is the content of the messages not the device on which they are sent. If the messages document the functions, policies, procedures, operations or other activities of the school district, these messages could be subject to a public records request even if located on a personally owned device. As a result of these decisions, school districts should inform and educate their board of education members and employees that their text messages could be subject to disclosure depending on the content of the message. Boards of education may need to update their current records and retention policies to ensure compliance in accordance with these decisions.
by Jeremy Neff | Jun 24, 2019 | General, Legislation, Student Education and Discipline
The use of restraint and seclusion in schools continues to be a high priority for state and federal policy makers. Ohio’s first regulations specifically addressing restraint, seclusion, and positive behavior intervention and supports took effect in 2013 as Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) 3301-35-15. In June 2018, the General Assembly passed House Bill (HB) 318, also known as “the SAFE Act”. This law addresses a variety of student discipline issues, including a requirement to rewrite Ohio’s restraint and seclusion regulations.
Ohio Administrative Code 3301-35-15 was due for review by August 2018, but the process has not been completed. HB 318 set a deadline for revision of OAC 3301-35-15 by early February 2019. Again, no revisions were made. However, work is ongoing at the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) and various stakeholder groups are being presented with draft rule revisions this summer. It is anticipated that in the coming months, there will be a proposed rule presented for public comment and consideration by the State Board of Education.
In the meantime, existing requirements for the use of restraint and seclusion remain in place. This includes absolute restrictions on certain practices, and significant data tracking and reporting requirements. The summer “break” is a good time for administrators to review existing training programs, plan for which staff members may require additional training due to student assignments and program changes, and review reporting data for the recently completed school year to determine if there are any patterns or gaps that need to be addressed.
While the use of restraint and seclusion generally should be rare, consistent reports of zero incidents may raise a red flag. A recent report from the federal Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that nine of the nation’s 30 largest school districts reported no incidents of restraint or seclusion in the last reported year (2015-2016). The GAO and U.S. Department of Education presume that such reports are inaccurate, with the GAO reporting that, “We are encouraged that Education recognizes the seriousness of this issue and the data quality issues it has allowed to persist when districts inappropriately and inaccurately report zero incidents of restraint and seclusion.”
In addition to whatever new requirements might be rolled out by the U.S. Department of Education to address its concerns, long-proposed federal legislation is expected to be reintroduced later this year. The bill, called the “Keeping All Students Safe Act,” is likely to overlap significantly with Ohio’s restraint and seclusion regulations.
by Gary Stedronsky | May 23, 2019 | Board Policy & Representation, General, Labor and Employment
Given their choice to enter into elective office, school board members are typically service oriented individuals. They are very active in their communities and are often interested in the athletic programs of their district. Thus, it is not surprising that many school board members would want to help out by coaching or assisting a coach with an athletic team. On January 9, 2019 the Ohio Ethics Commission received a request from a district’s superintendent for an advisory opinion letter on behalf of a board member. The member wanted to pursue a coaching position with the district and asked if he could accept employment as a paid coach or serve as a volunteer coach.
The opinion indicates that a board member is prohibited, under Ohio ethics laws, from being employed as a paid coach by the district they serve. Ohio Revised Code section 3313.33(B) expressly states that members of the board may not “be employed in any manner for compensation.” RC 2921.42 (A)(4) also provides that a public official is prohibited from having an interest in the profits and benefits of a contract of the public agency he or she serves. A school board member who is a compensated employee of a district would have an interest in the district by entering into an employment contract as a coach. As a result, the commission’s opinion states that “RC 2921.42(A)(4) prohibits the school board member from serving simultaneously as a paid district coach.”
The opinion further provides that a board member may volunteer as a coach without any compensation. There is no statute that prohibits a member from serving as a volunteer coach. Additionally, there is no prohibited interest in a public contract when a board member volunteers his or her time without compensation. Although, members in this position may be required to abstain from participating in matters directly affecting the athletic department. This could include voting, discussing, deliberating or taking any other actions regarding athletic department personnel. They may also be required to abstain from voting on an employment/supplemental contract for an employee who works in that sport/activity or who oversees the program in which the board member volunteers (ie – athletic director) because of concerns about undue influence. However, the Ethics Commission found that a member was “not prohibited from participating in matters that affect all athletic department personnel within the district uniformly” (i.e. voting on a CBA that includes an increase in compensation to supplemental positions) or from participating in general budgetary matters that might include funding for athletics and compensation or benefits for employees.
It appears that the Ethics Commission likely issued the opinion to address the situation where board members volunteer to take the place of a paid supplemental coach rather than to serve as a volunteer in some other capacity, such as announcing the game, taking tickets, etc. However, the Ethics Commission was not very clear in delineating between someone who volunteers as a coach versus someone who volunteers in another capacity. For that reason, board members who volunteer in a capacity other than taking the place of a supplemental position are also advised to follow the advice in this Ethics Commission opinion.
by Ryan LaFlamme | May 1, 2019 | General, Student Education and Discipline
A Federal District Judge recently ruled that a charter school dress code policy which required girls to wear skirts and prohibited girls from wearing pants or shorts, violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Many challenges in the past have rested on First Amendment grounds regarding freedom of expression. However, this case was brought on a theory of gender discrimination.
The Plaintiffs argued that the girls suffered tangible disadvantages due to the policy. The court found that the Plaintiffs established that “the girls are subject to a specific clothing requirement that renders them unable to play as freely during recess, requires them to sit in an uncomfortable manner in the classroom, causes them to be overly focused on how they are sitting, distracts them from learning, and subjects them to cold temperatures on their legs.”
The Defendant, the Charter Day School, argued the dress code was designed to garner mutual respect between the boys and the girls, particularly in that the skirts represented visual cues to promote respect between the two sexes. Striking down the policy, the school argued, would remove those visual cues and hinder a sense of respect for the opposite sex. The Court noted that even if these were legitimate interests of the state, the school failed to show how the policy advanced such interests.
The Court further noted that school dress code policies have been upheld by numerous courts and that the state does have legitimate interests in the grooming and dress of students attending schools supported by the state. However, these interests must be addressed in a uniform, gender-neutral way that does not penalize a student simply for being one sex or the other.
