by Erin Wessendorf-Wortman | Mar 17, 2015 | General, Labor and Employment
On February 25, 2015, the U.S. Department of Labor issued a Final Rule changing the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (“FMLA”) definition of “spouse.” Effective March 27, 2015, spouses in same-sex marriages shall have the same opportunity as spouses of heterosexual marriages to exercise FMLA rights regardless of where they live. Therefore, even though Ohio prohibits same-sex marriage, if a couple was legally married outside of Ohio in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage, the same-sex spouse(s) must receive the protections of FMLA.
The U.S. Department of Labor issued this new rule in the wake of the United States Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Windsor where the Court deemed the federal Defense of Marriage Act’s definition of spouse and marriage, which was limited to heterosexual marriages, unconstitutional.
The Final Rule modifies the definition of “spouse” in several ways.
- The definition of “spouse” will use a “place of celebration” rule rather than a “state of residence” rule. This means that the same-sex spouses who reside in a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, but were legally married in a state that does, will be considered spouses under FMLA.
- The definition of “spouse” will expressly include persons in lawfully recognized same-sex and common law marriages, as well as marriages that were validly entered into outside of the United States, so long as those marriages could have been entered into in at least one state.
This change is intended to create a consistent application of FMLA rights across the country, even when different states have different laws regarding the underlying marriages. Further, this definitional change means that eligible employees, including those in a same-sex marriage, regardless of where they live, will be able to: take FMLA leave to care for their spouse with a serious health condition; take qualifying exigency leave due to their spouse’s covered military service; or take military caregiver leave for their spouse so long as the couple was legally married in a state that recognized the marriage.
Another change within this Final Rule entitles eligible employees to take FMLA leave to care for their stepchild (child of employee’s same-sex spouse) regardless of whether the in loco parentis requirement of providing day-to-day care or financial support for the child is met. This Final Rule also entitles eligible employees to take FMLA leave to care for a stepparent who is a same-sex spouse of the employee’s parent, regardless of whether the stepparent ever stood in loco parentis to the employee.
Therefore, effective March 27, 2015, employers covered by FMLA must follow the Final Rule changes promulgated by the U.S. Department of Labor, including this new definition of “spouse.” Currently, this change will only have FMLA implications, and will not impact other employment aspects for Ohio school districts (i.e. sick leave policies, benefits, etc.). However, by the end of June 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court should decide on whether state same-sex marriage bans are constitutional. If the U.S. Supreme Court decides that state same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional, same-sex married couples will be entitled to all benefits received by heterosexual married couples.
by Pamela Leist | Mar 17, 2015 | General, Labor and Employment, Special Education
USDHHS Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services recently withdrew its prior guidance on the “free care” policy as expressed in the School-Based Administrative Claiming Guide. Under CMS’s new guidance, Medicaid reimbursement is available for covered services under the approved state plan regardless of whether there is any charge for the services to the beneficiary or the community at large. Also under CMS’s new guidance, schools are not considered to be legally liable third parties to the extent schools act to ensure that students receive needed medical services to access a free appropriate public education consistent with federal law. The guidance also states that even if a state determines that schools are legally liable third parties, the Medicare statute contains an exception which requires that Medicaid serve as the primary payer to schools and providers of services in an IEP under IDEA; noting that nothing in IDEA permits states to reduce medical or other assistance available.
by Jeremy Neff | Dec 22, 2014 | General, Student Education and Discipline
The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard arguments in a case regarding the extent of Constitutional protection of speech on social media. In United States v. Elonis, Elonis wrote graphic lyrics on Facebook which involved killing his estranged wife, law enforcement, and school students. Elonis is the Supreme Court’s first freedom of speech case involving cyber speech.
The issue before the Court is whether “conviction of threatening another person under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) requires proof of the defendant’s subjective intent to threaten” or whether “it is enough to show that a ‘reasonable person’ would regard the statement as threatening.” Basically, under this “threat” statute, does is matter whether Elonis intended to cause fear or whether a reasonable person would consider his postings a threat?
To get an understanding of the context of this case, the following excerpts provide a brief glimpse into the speech that Elonis posted on Facebook:
“There’s one way to love you but a thousand ways to kill you. I’m not going to rest until your body is a mess, soaked in blood and dying from all the little cuts.“
“Little agent lady stood so close. Took all the strength I had not to turn the b–ch ghost. Pull my knife, flick my wrist, and slit her throat. Leave her bleedin’ from her jugular in the arms of her partner.”
“Enough elementary schools in a ten mile radius to initiate the most heinous school shooting ever imagined. And hell hath no fury like a crazy man in a kindergarten class.”
(In order to avoid complications with school internet filters, this blog post avoids the more profanity-laced postings of Elonis and censors a word that was spelled out in his original posting.)
Elonis argued that, under the applicable statute, the government must prove that the speaker intended the speech to be threatening. His argument centered on the protections offered under the First Amendment. In making this argument, he tried to relate his speech to the speech of famous rap artists, who are typically provided First Amendment protections despite the fact that they often express violent and threatening messages. On the other side, the government argued that the standard under the statute should be a reasonable person standard, requiring only that a reasonable person would consider the speech to be threatening.
The questions from the Supreme Court justices addressed both sides of the issue during oral arguments. Some of their questions included the following:
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked Elonis’s attorney about how the government would prove whether a particular threat, “in the mind of the threatener[,] was genuine?”
Chief Justice John Roberts questioned the government’s attorney on its interpretation of a “reasonable person.” He used the example of teenagers making a threat while playing a video game and questioned He then expressed concerns over the reasonable person standard being applied consistently with the same speech.
Justice Elena Kagan took a middle ground proposing a “reckless standard,” meaning a prosecutor would need to show only that the speaker should have known there was a substantial probability that the speech would cause fear, even if the speaker did not intent to threaten the listener. This standard would provide more protections for speech than the “reasonable person” standard, but it would not require the government to determine the speaker’s subjective intent.
It will be several weeks or months before the Supreme Court issues its highly anticipated decision in this case. Despite the fact that this case focuses on the interpretation of a specific threat statute, it will give insight into the justice’s views on freedom of speech in the context of online speech. In the absence of any significant appellate case law governing Ohio schools, the Elonis decision will provide some guidance to schools as they determine how to address student cyber speech.
United States v. Elonis, 730 F.3d 321 (3rd Cir. 2013), cert. granted, 134 S.Ct. 2819 (2014).
by Pamela Leist | Oct 30, 2014 | Board Policy & Representation, General, School Management
As districts transition to the new minimum school year reporting system, the Ohio Department of Education (“ODE”) recently released guidance about how it will allocate funding for students that attend school for less than a full day. In July of 2013, House Bill 59 became effective and mandated that the state funding formula for schools be based on annualized full- time enrollment (“FTE”). In order for a district to receive full per pupil funding, each student is expected to receive instruction for the entire day that the student’s grade level is scheduled to attend.
However, school districts typically have a number of students that do not attend for a full day, including students who participate in alternative school programs or who receive home instruction. Currently, districts are required to report in EMIS the percent of time that these students attend school as compared to the full day. In its guidance, ODE states that schools may experience a decrease in funding for part- time students as follows.
Alternative School Programs
Many students who are enrolled in alternative school programs are given the option to complete online modules independently. Often these students do not attend school for the entire day. According to ODE’s guidance, beginning this school year districts will be expected to provide an entire day of instruction for alternative school students unless they apply for and receive a waiver from ODE. ODE cites ORC §3313.533(B)(1), which states that an alternative school student must attend school or participate in another program named in the district’s plan for a period equal to the minimum school day mandated by state law. ODE states that a district may obtain a waiver if it can demonstrate that “the minimum hourly requirements are not workable for a particular student population.”
Districts that wish to apply for a waiver this school year are instructed to submit an email request to ODE at daystohours@education.ohio.gov.
Home Instruction
ORC §3323.12 requires a board of education to provide home instruction for children with disabilities who are unable to attend school. The statute further clarifies that for the purpose of determining formula ADM, five hours of home instruction is equivalent to five school days. Relying in part on this statute, school districts sometimes place students temporarily on home instruction, and provide five hours of instruction each week to ensure full funding. However, ODE notes that unless an IEP expressly requires home instruction, students who receive home instruction for less than a full day, including special education students, must be reported in EMIS as attending part-time. These students may trigger a percentage reduction in funding as a result.
Senior Late Arrival and Early Release
For years, school districts have rewarded seniors who have completed most of their graduation requirements early with the option to arrive late or leave early from school each day. Beginning this summer, ODE indicated to districts that these students must be reported as attending school part-time. ODE recognized in the new guidance that districts may lose funding for the percentage of time the seniors are out of school because of late arrival or early release.
However, ODE also indicates that districts may apply for a waiver from the state superintendent that would allow them to count certain seniors who miss one period of class as fully enrolled, but only if those students take sufficiently rigorous courses. The guidance includes several examples of what would be considered “rigorous” for the waiver, such as when a student 1) takes two or more AP classes; 2) takes two courses through a dual enrollment program, or 3) completes a certain number of hours in an internship or apprenticeship program. A district that wishes to request this waiver/exemption should send the request along with a draft policy to daystohours@education.ohio.gov.
Work Release Programs
For work release, a district may count a student’s work time as instruction time if he/she participates in an official work study program or an approved educational option. However, if a student has been released for employment due to financial hardship, a district has two options:
1) The district may report the student as part-time and include only the hours the student actually attends class (this is required if the absence is for more than ten days); or
2) Under certain circumstances, the district can count the absence as an excused absence if in accordance with board policy and approved by the district’s superintendent as an emergency or some other circumstance considered “good and sufficient cause” for an absence from school. Under this option, the absence will not impact the school’s funding but will affect the attendance rate.
Zero Periods
The last exemption for FTE that was included in the guidance involves zero periods. A zero period occurs when a district offers an additional period of instruction that is optional for students. With regard to the zero period exception, ODE will permit a district to report a student as attending full-time if he/she attends a district-created optional instruction period/zero period but is released from a period later in the day.
If you would like to view ODE’s guidance on Annualized Full- Time Enrollment, click here.
LEGAL REFS: ORC 3313.533, 3317.03, 3321.04, 3323.12
by Gary Stedronsky | Aug 29, 2014 | General
As students pack their book-bags and return to school, it’s important to keep in mind the law governing their entrance through your doors. In order to accommodate the registration process, schools much comply with the legal requirements of Ohio Revised Code 3313.64.
Ohio law requires that districts allow school age children to attend their district of residence free of charge. In general, residence for school purposes is determined using the residence of the child’s parent. Parent can mean either natural or adoptive parents, unless the parents are separated, divorced, or their marriage has been dissolved or annulled. Due to the complex nature of the family structure, there are several general guidelines to use when determining whether a child’s parent resides in the district.
Determining Residency when parents are separated and living in difference school districts:
- When parents are divorced, the term parent means either the parent who is the residential parent or the parent awarded custody in the action for divorce.
- In the case of shared parenting, unless a court specifically orders otherwise, both parents are considered parents for residential purposes; therefore, the child can attend either school district tuition free.
- If a child’s parents were never married, there is conflicting law, but it is generally best to consider the natural mother the parent for residency purposes.
Determining Residency when a child lives with persons other than the child’s parents:
- Under the Grandparent Caretaker law, grandparents may also acquire the legal status of parent for residency purposes when the child’s parents cannot be located or have lost parental rights and the grandparent provides a power of attorney signed by a parent, or a caretaker authorization affidavit (in such cases where parents cannot be located).
- When a child is in the legal custody of a governmental agency, the term parent means the parent who has residual parental rights or who has been divested of residual parental rights.
Determining Residency with Property Issues:
- If a child resides on property that straddles two school districts along a boundary line, residency is determined based on the location of the house of residence.
- The Superintendent of Public Instruction serves as the decision maker in any case of dispute and is given the task of analyzing the following: (1) where the parent sleeps the majority of the time, (2) where mail is received, (3) where meals are eaten, (4) the address of voter registration, (5) the address for bills or credit card statements, (6) the address of lease agreements, and (7) information in affidavits from the landlord, neighbors, or parent (to prove fraud).
Mandatory Exceptions to Residency Requirements, which allows a student to attend school in a district other than where the student’s parent resides:
- Student is between age 18-22, lives in the district apart from his parents, supports himself by his own labor, and has not successfully completed high school or the IEP developed for him.
- Student is under 18, married, and resides in the district.
- Student has been placed with a resident of the district for adoption and his parents reside outside Ohio.
- Student has a medical condition which may require emergency medical treatment and one of his parents is employed at a location within the school district.
- Student is residing in the district with a person other than his parent while his parent is serving in the armed forces outside of Ohio—Limited to a 12-month period.
- Student’s parent is having a “new” house built in the district—Limited to 90 days.
- Student’s parent is purchasing a house in the district—Limited to 90 days.
- Student is living in the district with a parent and is under the care of a shelter for victims of domestic violence.
- A power of attorney has been properly executed by a parent, guardian or other legal custodian under the provisions of the Grandparent Caretaker Law, the child resides within the district, and hardship is established. (discussed above)
- Child’s parent is a member of National Guard or reserve unit of armed forces and has been called to active duty or the child’s parent is a member of the armed forces and has been ordered to a temporary duty assignment outside the district.
- Child is living with a person who has been appointed to be the child’s caretaker under a military power of attorney or other comparable document in conformity with federal law while the parent is on active duty or a duty assignment outside the district.
- The district has adopted an inter-district open enrollment policy.
Residency decisions can be difficult because every situation is slightly different. To help resolve ambiguity, the law requires any parent awarded custody in an action for divorce, annulment, or dissolution to notify the child’s school of the custody arrangements by providing the school with a certified copy of the custody order at the time of enrollment or upon issuance of an arrangement. Thus, schools do not have a duty to investigate the details of court orders concerning parental rights.
When concerns about residency occur, a school district can use an SRO (or any other employee) to investigate residency or confirm residence. When completing an investigation into residency, school districts should be able to show that they have conducted a reasonable investigation to justify their decision. However, be careful with how this interacts with homelessness rules — you don’t want to appear to be intimidating the homeless from exercising their rights.
The mandatory exceptions to residency requirements listed above may allow the district to request documentation or limit duration. In addition to these mandatory exceptions, the law permits certain optional exceptions to residency requirements. For more information about a specific residency requirement or exception, please contact your attorney.
by Erin Wessendorf-Wortman | Jun 30, 2014 | General, Legislation
House Bill 487, the mid-biennium education bill, reviewed in last month’s ERF School Law Review newsletter, was signed into law on June 16, 2014. Except as indicated otherwise in the statute, HB 487 becomes effective September 15, 2014. Some of the upcoming changes in the law include the following:
- College and Work-Ready Assessment System-
- For students entering the 9th grade on or after July 1, 2014, the OGT requirement will be replaced by the College and Work-Ready Assessments System, which is comprised of two assessments:
- (1) Nationally standardized assessment measuring college and career readiness and
- (2) End-of-Course Exams.
- High School Graduation Requirements-
- For students entering the 9th grade on or after July 1, 2014, the OGT is no longer a requirement for graduation.
- Instead, students must meet one of the following options:
- (1) Score at “remediation-free” levels in English, math, and reading on the nationally standardized assessment;
- (2) Obtain a minimum cumulative performance score on end-of-course exams; or
- (3) Obtain a passing score on a nationally recognized job skills assessment andobtain either an industry-recognized credential or a state agency- or board-issued license for practice in a specific vocation.
- Statewide Curriculum Requirements-
- Extends exemption from the Ohio core curriculum requirements for graduation (now referred to solely as “requirements for graduation”) until July 1, 2016
- For students entering 9th grade for the first time on or after July 1, 2014 (Class of 2018), in addition to the current requirements, the following changes must be satisfied for the exemption to apply:
- The student has a Student Success Plan (previously called “individual career plan”) and
- The student meets the other graduation requirements, including the following curricular changes:
- 4 units of math (instead of 3 under current law),
- One must be probability and statistics, computer programming, applied mathematics, quantitative reasoning, or any other course approved by ODE before October 1, 2014;
- 5 elective units (instead of 6 under current law); and
- 3 units of science which are inquiry-based laboratory experience that engage students in asking valid scientific questions and gathering and analyzing information.
- Third-Grade Reading Guarantee-
- Allows school districts to submit an alternative staffing plan for the 2014-2015 or 2015-2016 school years if the school district is unable to provide the number of teachers who meet the criteria needed to teach 3rd grade students below grade level.
- Establishes the English-language arts assessment to be administered to 3rd graders during the 2014-2015 school year:
- Fall- Same assessment administered during the 2013-2014 school year;
- Spring-
- For students who failed to obtain the minimum score on the assessment and would be subject to retention—same assessment administered during the 2013-2014 school year; and
- For students who have obtained the needed minimum score and would not be subject to retention—the PARCC assessment.
- Online Administration of Assessments-
- For the 2014-2015 school year, school districts are not required to administer assessments through an online format.
- School districts have the option to administer the assessments in any combination of online and paper format.
- Safe Harbor for the 2014-2015 School Year-
- School districts may enter into an MOU with the teachers’ union stating that the value-added progress dimension score from the 2014-2015 school year will not be used to make decisions about teacher dismissal, retention, tenure, or compensation.
- Prohibits various penalties and sanctions due to a school district’s report card rating.
- Prohibits from assigning an overall letter grade to schools and school districts.
- Emergency Management Plan-
- Changes the name of School Safety Plan to Emergency Management Plan.
- Requires the administrator of a school district to develop and adopt a comprehensive Emergency Management Plan including a floor plan, site plan, and emergency contact information, as well as protocols for threats and emergency events.
- “Administrator” means superintendent, principal, chief administrative officer, or other person having supervisory authority over the school district.
- Requires the administrator to review and certify the accuracy of the plan to ODE by July 1st of each year.
- In addition to current requirements, the plan must be updated whenever the emergency contact information changes.
- Requires the administrator to schedule an annual emergency management test.
- “Emergency management test” means a regularly scheduled drill, exercise, or activity designed to assess and evaluate the Emergency Management Plan.
- The State Board must adopt standardized rules and standardized forms for Emergency Management Plans.
- Because it is unlikely that the State Board will have adopted rules and standardized forms prior to the effective date of September 15, 2014, the expectations for the 2014-2015 school year are unclear at this time.
- Career-Technical Education-
- Expands requirement to provide career-technical education to students in grades 7-12.
- If a Board of Education decides not to provide career-technical education for students enrolled in grades 7-8 in a particular school year, the Board must adopt a resolution and submit it to ODE by September 30th of that school year.
