by Kyle Wheeler | Mar 1, 2021 | Board Policy & Representation, COVID-19 (Coronavirus), General, School Management
Earlier this month, a judge in Hamilton County sided with the Board of Education of the Cincinnati Public School District (“Board”) when she denied the Cincinnati Federation of Teachers’ (“Union”) motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction that sought to delay the return to in person learning. Cincinnati Fed. of Teachers v. Bd. of Education of the School District of Cincinnati, No. A2100376 (Feb. 1, 2021).
This case was the result of the Board voting to resume in-person instruction beginning February 1, 2021. As a result, the Union filed a motion for a temporary restraining order on the basis that the Board’s decision to resume in-person instruction violated provisions of their collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”). In particular one of the provisions of the CBA provides that the Board and the Union will cooperate with one another in making reasonable provisions for the health and safety of its teachers. Additionally, the CBA provides that if a teacher believes that they are being required to work under unsafe or unhealthy conditions beyond the normal hazards of the job, then they have a right to file a grievance. In return, the Board argued that the court should dismiss the case because it lacked jurisdiction and because the Board had the express authority to make decisions regarding in-person instruction.
In reaching its decision, the court looked to § 4 of the Norris-Laguardia Act, 29 U.S.C. § 104, which generally prevents courts from granting injunctive relief involving labor disputes. However, an exception to this general rule applies if the controversy involves a labor dispute, an evidentiary hearing is held, the underlying dispute is subject to the arbitration procedure of the collective bargaining agreement, and the basis for injunctive relief are satisfied.
In evaluating the union’s claim, the court relied on previous Supreme Court precedent which held that a union’s claim that a board failed to provide them with notice and opportunity to discuss the closure of a facility fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the State Employment Relations Board (“SERB”). State ex rel. Wilkinson v. Reed, 99 Ohio St.3d 106 (2003). The court in this particular case analogized the union’s failure to cooperate claim to the claim in Reed. Thus, the court concluded that SERB had exclusive jurisdiction to the claim and it therefore was not subject to the arbitration process. Because they were not subject to the arbitration process, the union’s claim did not meet the exception to the general rule that prevents courts from granting injunctive relief in a labor dispute.
The teachers in this case also filed a grievance due to their belief that they were being required to work under conditions which were unsafe or unhealthy. Though the arbitration process with respect to this grievance was proceeding, the union asked the court to issue a status quo injunction while the grievance was being resolved. In evaluating this claim, the court looked to a particular section of the CBA which stated that the Board is invested with the governmental authority and control of Cincinnati Public Schools. The provision further stated that the Board’s authority includes the authority to make rules, regulations and policies that are necessary for the government of schools, the employees, and their students.
This court further noted that the Ohio legislature has vested superintendents and boards of education with almost unlimited reasonable authority to manage and control the schools within their districts. Courts will not interfere with grant of discretionary power, so long as it is exercised in good faith and is not a clear abuse of discretion. Here, the court determined that the return to in-person instruction clearly fell within the authority granted to the Board. Thus, the court concluded that the claims brought by the Union were not arbitrable and the court could not issue an injunction.
What this means for your district?
Ohio superintendents and boards of education have the ultimate decision-making authority in determining whether their schools return to in-person instruction. Courts recognize that Ohio has granted superintendents and boards of education with almost unlimited authority to manage and govern the schools within their districts. So long as boards and superintendents exercise this power reasonably and in good faith without violating the laws of the state of Ohio, courts will seldom interfere.
by Ryan LaFlamme | May 27, 2020 | General, School Management
On May 6, 2020, we reported to you that a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a decision holding that there is a fundamental right to a “basic minimum education” that is potentially violated when the state fails to provide adequate public schools. As a follow up to that post, on May 19, 2020 the Sixth Circuit vacated that ruling so that it can be considered by the entire Sixth Circuit bench. The ruling allowed students from five of the lowest-performing schools in Detroit to sue Michigan officials over their inability to read. There was some speculation about whether a rehearing before the entire Sixth Circuit bench (en banc) would be sought by the Attorney general, who had publicly praised the decision. However, the Sixth Circuit did so itself (sua sponte) under rules granting it the power to vacate panel decisions for consideration by the entire bench. This is done so where there is a potential for “a precedent-setting error of exceptional public importance” or direct conflict with Sixth Circuit or Supreme Court precedent. As reported in the blog post, the U.S. Supreme Court has not expressly held that the U.S. Constitution provides a fundamental right to a basic minimum education. As the dissent noted, the Court held in Plyler v. Doe, that “p]ublic education is not a ‘right’ granted to individuals by the Constitution.” The effect of the ruling is that the opinion of the three-judge panel is vacated and of no force and effect. We will keep you posted on any developments in this important case.
by Jeremy Neff | May 18, 2020 | COVID-19 (Coronavirus), General, School Management
In light of ongoing bans on mass gatherings, many school districts are moving to a graduation ceremony plan that involves a video or other online elements (e.g. video, PowerPoint, etc.). While virtual commencements may be almost unheard of prior to this spring, there are long-standing legal requirements that apply to this format just as they would to traditional, in-person ceremonies.
Traditional graduation ceremonies include many features aimed at making them accessible to students, family and friends, and school employees who have disabilities. Because school facilities are already subject to Americans with Disabilities Act design requirements everything from the parking lots, building entrances, restrooms, and seating areas are already accessible. Specific to the graduation ceremony itself, a school might have wheelchair ramps to access the stage, a sign language interpreter, and other accommodations.
The same anti-discrimination laws that inform the accommodations described above also apply to online services offered by school districts. In recent years, disability rights activists have filed hundreds of complaints regarding school district website accessibility. In many cases, the activists had no connection at all to the district against which the complaint was filed. They were simply scouring the internet for websites with obvious accessibility concerns. It is entirely possible that a similar approach may be used in relation to this year’s virtual graduation ceremonies. In any event, it makes good sense for districts to address website accessibility, irrespective of the pandemic.
As such, and in our experience assisting school districts that were subject to website accessibility complaints, it seems that there are certain “red flags” that may have caused some websites to be targeted for complaints while others were not. Applying this lesson to virtual graduation ceremonies, there are some basic steps that can still be taken to reduce the risk of receiving an investigation letter from the Office for Civil Rights:
- Investigate practical captioning options: Many online platforms have captioning already built-in, so it may just be a matter of enabling this feature and editing the automatic captioning. Captioning can stand in the place of a sign language interpreter if that is normally offered at your district’s ceremonies. Of course, many graduation ceremonies in the past did not have an interpreter and this has not caused widespread complaints. The idea now is to investigate what options are available in the online platform that you use for the ceremony and to use available tools to reduce your risks.
- Pay attention to color contrast: School colors are a source of pride and frequently used in important rituals like graduation. However, if the school colors are low contrast (e.g. red and orange, green and blue) it may cause problems for people with vision-related disabilities. Consider pairing neutral alternative colors like black or white with a school color to avoid low contrast pairings.
- Ensure announcements of the ceremony details are formatted for screen reader use: People with vision-related disabilities sometimes use screen readers to access electronic written information. Some file formats are less screen reader-friendly. PDF files and other picture type files can be problematic. Simpler can be better when it comes to conveying information in writing. A basic email or attached Word document is less likely to cause challenges.
- Make access to the virtual ceremony accessible: A common challenge with school websites is that they are not easily navigated by individuals with physical challenges that prevent them from using a mouse. Consider emailing students and their families a link that goes directly to the virtual ceremony. The more steps that must be taken to get to the virtual ceremony, the more risk there is of an accessibility issue (e.g. a drop-down menu that cannot be easily accessed using keyboard tabbing, a link button that is not tagged, etc.).
The efforts taken by school districts to offer something special for seniors graduating under the current conditions are admirable. Paying close attention to accessibility for people with disabilities will help ensure that these celebrations do not lead to legal headaches down the road.
by Gary Stedronsky | May 14, 2020 | General, Legislation, School Management
On May 13, 2020, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld House Bill (HB) 70, which was passed in 2015 by the 131st General Assembly. HB 70 is a school takeover bill that gave sweeping powers to an appointed CEO in districts that struggled to meet overall state report card requirements.
The Youngstown City School District Board of Education argued that HB 70 was unconstitutional. HB 70 originally authorized schools to create community learning centers where academic performance was low. It was considered by the House on three separate days, after which it was ultimately passed by the House and went to the Senate for consideration.
The Senate considered the bill on three separate days also but made two amendments, one of which modified the structure of academic-distress commissions. Among other items, the amendment included a requirement that for any district that has received an overall grade of “F” on its state report card for three consecutive years, a commission must appoint a CEO who has “complete operational, managerial, and instructional control” over the school district. The Senate passed the amended bill and the House quickly concurred in the Senate amendments. The Governor signed the bill into law.
The Board of Education (along with its employee unions) sought a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction by challenging the constitutionality of the bill and the legislative process in enacting it. The Board of Education argued that the law violated an Ohio Constitutional provision that requires that every bill “be considered by each house on three different days,” and another provision that states that a city school district has the power “by referendum vote to determine for itself the number of members and the organization of the district board of education.”
The trial court ruled against the Board of Education, as did the Tenth District Court of Appeals. The Ohio Supreme Court agreed to hear the Board of Education’s appeal.
The Supreme Court found that the three-consideration provision in the Ohio Constitution was not violated. The Board of Education argued that the bill was substantially changed in the Senate from its original purpose of creating community learning centers. The Board of Education claimed that the amended bill must also satisfy the three-consideration provision of the Constitution. The Supreme Court disagreed. It found that a bill need not contain the exact same language in each of its three readings to be valid. “[A]mendments which do not vitally alter the substance of a bill do not trigger a requirement for three considerations anew of such amended bill.” Only where the subject or proposition of a bill is wholly changed must an amended bill satisfy the three-consideration provision.
In this case, the House and Senate each considered HB 70 on three different days. The Supreme Court found that the amended bill had a common purpose to the original bill of seeking to improve underperforming schools. Therefore, the amended bill that included the additional academic-distress commission provisions did not also need to satisfy the three-consideration provision of the Constitution.
As for the Board of Education’s other argument, the Supreme Court found that the Ohio Constitution governs the size and organization of school boards, not the power and authority conferred to them. Although HB 70 removed most of the Board of Education’s power, the Supreme Court found that the Constitution does not prevent that. Accordingly, the Supreme Court upheld HB 70 and affirmed the judgments of the lower courts that ruled against the Board of Education.
HB 70 does not apply to the vast majority of Ohio school districts. However, it has been declared constitutional and will remain valid Ohio law until such time as the legislature amends it. Recent legislation has been proposed seeking to end school takeovers such as this (SB 89) or dissolve the academic-distress commission overseeing Lorain City Schools (HB 9). Neither of those legislative attempts have become law. Members of the General Assembly have indicated that they will continue to address the status of academic-distress commissions and school takeover. We will monitor those efforts and keep you updated.
by Ryan LaFlamme | May 6, 2020 | General, School Management
A
panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a 2-1 decision
holding that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause protects a
fundamental right to a “basic minimum education” that is potentially
violated when the state fails to provide adequate public schools. The Sixth
Circuit has jurisdiction over Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee.
Judge
Clay, who wrote the majority opinion, summarized the crux of the Plaintiff’s
case. The Plaintiffs are students at several of Detroit’s worst-performing public
schools. They credit this substandard performance to poor conditions within
their classrooms, including missing or unqualified teachers, physically
dangerous facilities, and inadequate books and materials. Taken together, the
Plaintiffs say these conditions deprive them of basic minimum education,
meaning one that provides a chance at foundational literacy.
In
2016, the Plaintiffs sued several Michigan state officials, who they say are
responsible for these abysmal conditions in their schools. Plaintiffs allege
that state actors are responsible, as opposed to local entities, based on the
state’s general supervision of all public education, and also on the state’s
specific interventions in Detroit’s public schools.
The
Plaintiffs’ claims are all based on the Due Process and Equal Protection
Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs argue that while other Michigan
students receive an adequate education, the students in Plaintiffs’ schools do
not, amounting to a violation of their right to equal protection of the laws.
They also argue that the schools they are forced to attend are schools in name
only, and so the state cannot justify the restriction on their liberty imposed
by compulsory attendance. And in their most significant claim, Plaintiffs ask this
Court to recognize a fundamental right to basic minimum education, an issue the
Supreme Court has repeatedly discussed but never decided.
The
District Court found that the Defendants (various state officials including the
Governor, Members of the State Board of Education, the State Interim
Superintendent of Public Instruction, Director of the MI Dept of Technology,
and the State School Reform/Redesign Officer, in their official capacities)
were in fact the proper parties to sue, but it dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint
on the merits.
First,
it found that the Plaintiffs had not alleged a proper comparator for their
equal protection claim, nor had they highlighted any state policy or action
that was not supported by a rational basis. Second, it found that the Plaintiffs
had not sufficiently pleaded their compulsory attendance theory, and so the
court only viewed their due process claim as seeking an affirmative fundamental
right. Third, the court held that basic minimum education is not a fundamental
right, and so Plaintiffs’ due process claim was dismissed. The plaintiffs then
appealed.
The
Sixth Circuit panel agreed that the Plaintiff’s equal protection and compulsory
education claims were not properly pleaded and were therefore rightfully
dismissed by the District Court. However, the panel agreed that the Plaintiffs
had “been denied basic minimum education, and thus have been deprived of access
to literacy.”
Judge
Clay, seeming to understand the gravity of declaring a new fundamental
constitutional right, wrote the following:
“The recognition of a fundamental right is no small matter. This is particularly true when the right in question is something that the state must affirmatively provide. But just as this Court should not supplant the state’s policy judgments with its own, neither can we shrink from our obligation to recognize a right when it is foundational to our system of self-governance.
Access to literacy is such a right. Its
ubiquitous presence and evolution through our history have led the American
people universally to expect it. And education—at least in the minimum form
discussed here—is essential to nearly every interaction between a citizen and
her government. Education has long been viewed as a great equalizer, giving all
children a chance to meet or outperform society’s expectations, even when faced
with substantial disparities in wealth and with past and ongoing racial
inequality.
Where, as Plaintiffs allege here, a group of children is relegated to a school system that does not provide even a plausible chance to attain literacy, we hold that the Constitution provides them with a remedy. Accordingly, while the current versions of Plaintiffs’ equal protection and compulsory attendance claims were appropriately dismissed, the district court erred in denying their central claim: that Plaintiffs have a fundamental right to basic minimum education, meaning one that can provide them with a foundational level of literacy.“
The
dissent argued that a holding such as this is beyond the court’s role and is
something best left to the Legislature and the citizens at-large. Judge Murphy
wrote in dissent: “The Due Process Clause has historically been viewed,
consistent with its plain text, as a negative limit on the states’ power to
“deprive” a person of “liberty” or “property.”
U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. It has not been viewed as a positive command for
the states to protect liberty or provide property. A state’s decision “not
to subsidize the exercise of a fundamental right” has never been thought
to “infringe the right,” even in areas where the states have long
provided that assistance.”
Judge
Murphy also noted the practical difficulties with attempting to enforce a right
and its impact on the separation of powers issues. “How should those courts
remedy the schools that they conclude are not meeting the constitutionally
required quality benchmarks? May they compel states to raise their taxes to
generate the needed funds? Or order states to give parents vouchers so that
they may choose different schools? How old may textbooks be before they become
constitutionally outdated? What minimum amount of training must teachers
receive? Which HVAC systems must public schools use?”
The
U.S. Supreme Court has not expressly held that the U.S. Constitution provides a
fundamental right to basic minimum education. As the dissent noted, the Court
held in Plyler v. Doe, that [p]ublic education is not a ‘right’ granted to
individuals by the Constitution.” Accordingly, there is good reason to
speculate that this decision would not survive an appeal to the U.S. Supreme
Court. However, it is not certain where the case goes from here. The State
Attorney General could seek a re-hearing before the entire Sixth Circuit bench
(en banc). This may not occur as the Michigan Attorney General has already
praised the decision. It is also possible that the State Legislature may seek
to intervene and ask for a re-hearing. That request may have to go to the same
panel that made this decision. Finally, the Sixth Circuit could decide itself
(sua sponte) to re-hear the matter en banc.
We will, of course, keep you apprised of this matter as it progresses. While this case focuses on State officials, the next suit to enforce this new right could include local and County officials as well. This would put courts in the role of making independent judgments about the adequacy of all aspects of the educational services provided by schools in Ohio. This would be a significant break from the normal legal environment in which courts are reluctant to second guess the discretionary decisions of elected officials in the state, focusing instead on whether there are procedural violations to remedy.
Gary B., et al. v. Whitmer, et al 2:16-cv-13292
by Pamela Leist | May 5, 2020 | COVID-19 (Coronavirus), General, Labor and Employment, School Management
On
April 30th, 2020, the Ohio Department of Health Director, Dr. Amy Acton, issued
two revised orders that will impact school operations at least in the short
term. These orders will cover school operations through June 30th at a minimum.
It’s a wrap
– concluding school operations for 2019-2020.
The first order directs schools to remain
closed to students through June 30th, 2020. However, the Director clarifies
that the order does not prohibit administrators, teachers, staff, vendors, or
contractors from showing up for work. Rather, administrators are tasked with
determining who will have access to the buildings and are encouraged to promote
practices such as social distancing and frequent hand washing. The order
encourages administrators to consider remote work options when possible.
The
order also specifically excludes a number of activities and events that may
occur at schools, such as voting, food services, health services, and
charitable works, as well as “targeted” and other educational programs and
activities. While schools have the discretion to determine what types of
programs and services may be provided, it should do so with caution and only
after consulting with the local health department and legal counsel. Further, a
school district must obtain written approval from the local department of
health before the activities may be held and then must submit a copy of the
written approval to both the Ohio Department of Health and the Ohio Department
of Education.
Schools
are expected to follow the social distancing guidelines published by the Ohio
Department of Health while conducting activities. Local law enforcement and
other officials who are tasked with enforcing the order are also directed and
encouraged to contact local health departments with questions and for opinions
about implementation.
Because
there are many practical and legal implications as you determine what
operations will resume, it is very important to consult with your
administrators, local health departments, and legal counsel as you make plans. Click here to review the order.
Business
as Usual? Not so fast!
The second order, which will remain in effect
through May 29th, 2020, addresses how residents and the majority of businesses
will operate during much of May. The stay-at-home requirement remains for
residents, although they are permitted to engage in business activities
authorized by the order. Individuals who are returning to the state are
encouraged to self-quarantine for fourteen days.
The
order allows most businesses to resume operations as long as they meet
workplace safety standards. These standards changed several times, but as of
May 1st included the following:
- Employees
must wear face masks or “face coverings” at all times unless an exception
applies; it is recommended that visitors do as well.
- Employers
and employees will conduct daily health assessments to determine if someone is
“fit for duty.”
- Employees
who report for work will maintain social distancing (people will stay 6 feet
apart) and will also sanitize and wash hands regularly.
- Worksites
will be cleaned throughout the workday (for high touch surfaces), as well as at
the close of each day or between shifts.
- To
meet social distancing guidelines, buildings will limit the number of visitors
and employees to 50% of the building capacity established by the fire code.
There
are specific rules about face coverings and masks, including when employees are
not required to wear them in the workplace. The exceptions include the
following:
- Masks/coverings
are prohibited by law or regulation.
- Masks/coverings
are in violation of a documented industry standard.
- Masks/coverings
are not “advisable” for health reasons.
- Masks/coverings
violate a business’s documented safety policy.
- Employees
are working alone in an area and coverings are therefore not necessary.
- There
is a practical/functional reason why an employee should not wear a covering or
mask.
At
a minimum, facial masks or coverings should be made of cloth and should cover
an individual’s mouth, nose, and chin. An employer must be able to provide
written justification for any exception if requested to do so.
Employers
are expected to “immediately report” when any employee is diagnosed with COVID-19
and will work with the local department to identify others who may have been
exposed. They are also expected to send employees home when they show signs of
the illness. When possible, a building site will be closed until it can be
professionally cleaned. Buildings may be reopened in consultation with the
local health department.
Paragraph
20 of the order contains a more specific list of steps that businesses are
expected to comply with as operations resume, broken down by type of business.
The order specifies requirements for manufacturing, construction, consumer
retail and services, and general office environment. Of course, schools are
governed by the separate order summarized above.
Finally,
the order includes a list of businesses that must remain closed for the time
being, including schools (at least as to student attendance), most childcare
services, beauty salons, entertainment and recreation facilities, and
restaurants/bars. These businesses may only engage in minimum basic operations
as defined by the businesses.
Click here to review the order.
Possible
Challenge to Orders Being Proposed in the House
State Rep. John Becker
of Clermont County plans to introduce a bill that would repeal the current
health orders, and make any future orders issued by the Director of Health
advisory unless and until those orders are approved by the General Assembly.
The bill would focus on speeding up Ohio’s return to normal business
operations. Stay tuned for more information about this and other efforts to change
the state’s direction.
We Can Help!
Many challenges and opportunities continue to present themselves during this pandemic – it is critical that you rely on credible sources of information to remain up-to-date. It is also important for you to consider your district’s specific needs as you develop plans, and remember that there is no “one size fits all” approach. Make sure you discuss your details and situation with legal counsel to determine how you can effectively implement these and other orders that arise.
