by Pamela Leist | Nov 10, 2022 | General
The board of trustees of a North Carolina charter school discovered that designing a dress code based on the view that girls are “fragile vessels” could violate both the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.
Parents of several students at Charter Day School (CDS) filed suit, challenging the dress code requiring K-8 girls to wear a skirt, jumper or skort unless they were in PE class or for certain field trips and other special events. Boys, on the other hand, were allowed to wear shorts or pants at school. Parents complained that the requirement of skirts for girls prevented their daughters from engaging in numerous physical activities including using the swings playing soccer, and even comfortably participating in emergency drills that required students to crawl or kneel on the floor.
The District Court concluded that CDS was a state actor for purposes of the Equal Protection Clause, but determined that dress codes are exempt from Title IX’s prohibitions against gender discrimination. On rehearing en banc, the 4th District Court of Appeals affirmed that in certain circumstances, a private actor could be engaged in state action. In this case, the court determined that “…implementing the skirts requirement based on blatant gender stereotypes about the proper place for girls and women in society” is a clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
The court went on to consider the Title IX claim, overturning the District Court’s ruling. Title IX provides that“…no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.”
In reaching its conclusion, the 4th Circuit noted that Congress did not list any specific discriminatory practices in Title IX, but the law was instead intended to generally prohibit explicitly sex-based policies. Since the effect of the dress code was to prohibit female students from participating in certain school activities, it denied them the full benefit of their education and subjected them to discrimination because of their sex.
Accordingly, the court concluded that Title IX applies unambiguously to sex-based dress codes. The case was remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
What this means for your district: While few schools still embrace such gender stereotypes, boards are cautioned to review dress codes and any other gender-specific policies for conformity with Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause.
Peltier v. Charter Day School, Inc., No. 20-1001 (4thCir. 2021)
.
by Giselle Spencer | Nov 10, 2022 | General, Special Education
The Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to hear a special education case concerning a family’s obligation to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case of Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools involves a former student of the Sturgis, Michigan school district who was denied a sign language interpreter for many years. The family filed a due process complaint, claiming violations of the IDEA, the ADA, and other statutes. The parties settled the IDEA complaint when the district agreed to pay for post-secondary compensatory education and sign-language services. The former student then sued the district and federal court for monetary damages for ADA violations. The school district argued that, due to the settlement, Perez failed to exhaust the administrative proceedings under the IDEA. Both the District Court and the US Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit sided with the school district – the latter finding that there was no applicable exception to the exhaustion provision under the IDEA, despite the fact that the administrative law judge could not award monetary damages. For that reason, the settlement of the IDEA due process complaint shields school districts from related claims under Section 504 or the ADA. The Appellate Court’s decision is consistent with similar findings in the 8th and 10th Circuit Courts of Appeals. However, suggesting that there may be conflicts among other federal appeals courts, the SCOTUS has agreed to hear the appeal. This is especially important since the high court’s earlier decision in Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools left “for another day” the question of whether exhaustion of IDEA proceedings is necessary when seeking monetary damages that in IDE a hearing officer cannot award. Although the Supreme Court recently ruled that monetary damages for emotional distress were not available under the rehabilitation act of 1973 the court has not directly considered similar damage requests under the ADA. Its consideration of the Perez case will afford the High Court that opportunity.
What This Means for Schools: The court’s ruling will have a significant impact on the remedies available to litigants when the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA converge.
by Giselle Spencer | Nov 10, 2022 | General
U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) recently released guidance linking the protections of Title IX of the Education Amendments Act to students and employees based on pregnancy and related conditions. The October 4, 2022 guidance reiterated that the protections of Title IX that prohibit discrimination on the basis of pregnancy have been in place since 1975. The guidance goes on to provide that schools may not discriminate against any student, or exclude any student from their education program or activity, including any class or extracurricular activity, based on the student’s pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy, or recovery therefrom. Furthermore, a school may not discriminate against or exclude from employment any employee or applicant on these bases.
Schools are advised to treat pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy, and recovery therefrom the same as any other temporary disability of a student. For employees, schools must treat pregnancy and its related conditions the same as any other temporary disability for all job-related purposes.
The guidance goes on to state that if a school does not have a leave policy for students, or if a student does not otherwise qualify for leave under existing district policies, the school must nonetheless provide leave to a student for pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy, or recovery therefrom, for as long as the student’s physician deems such leave to be medically necessary. After the leave expires, the student must be reinstated to the status the student held when the leave began.
Finally, the resource states that a school must ensure that its teachers’ policies and practices do not discriminate against students because of pregnancy and related conditions. This means that a teacher may not refuse to allow a student to submit work after missing a deadline because of absences due to pregnancy or childbirth, and if part of the teacher’s grading is based on class attendance or participation, the student must be allowed to earn the miss credits and be reinstated to the student’s pre leave status.
As with other Title IX matters, students may file a complaint through their school’s grievance process or directly with OCR. For OCR’s purposes, a complainant can include students, parents and guardians, employees, community members, and others, including anyone who observes discrimination in educational programs based on sex, including pregnancy and related conditions.
What This Means for Schools: school districts are encouraged to review their policies and practices regarding student absences, return to school, and policies on work completion to ensure their compatibility with OCR expectations.
by Pamela Leist | Sep 2, 2021 | General
U.S. DOE’s Office for Civil Rights Enters the Fray by Initiating Discrimination Investigations Against States with Mask Prohibitions
On Monday, August 30, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) opened investigations into five states that prohibit schools from setting universal mask mandates. Letters were sent to the chief state school officers of Iowa, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Utah. Several state school chiefs who received the letter said they agreed that their school districts should have the flexibility to set mask requirements if they deem them necessary.
OCR will specifically investigate whether statewide prohibitions on universal indoor masking discriminate against students with disabilities who are at heightened risk for infection of COVID-19 by preventing them from safely attending in-person education. Specifically, they will determine whether these prohibitions are a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act which collectively mandate that schools are required to provide a free and adequate public education (FAPE) to students with disabilities and also provide programs and facilities that are accessible to individuals with disabilities.
Education Secretary Miguel Cardona had previously sent letters to each of the states who will be subject to the OCR’s investigations. In it, he noted that “the safe return to in-person instruction requires that school districts be able to protect the health and safety of students and educations, and that families have confidence that their schools are doing everything possible to keep students healthy.”
The Department will continue to monitor, but did not launch an official investigation into, Florida, Texas, Arizona, or Arkansas as they have voluntarily suspended enforcement of their policies while litigation is ongoing as described below.
Florida Judge Invalidates Governor’s Executive Order
On Friday, August 27, a Florida judge ruled that school districts can legally require their students to wear masks to prevent the spread of COVID-19. He stated Governor Ron DeSantis overstepped his executive order by banning school districts from requiring students to wear masks.
The governor has argued that a new Florida law gives parents the ultimate authority to oversee health issues for their children. However, the judge noted, it exempts government actions that are needed to protect public health and are reasonable and limited in scope. A school district’s decision to require student masking to prevent the spread of the virus falls within that exception.
Through his opinion, the judge cited Florida Supreme Court decisions which found that individual rights are limited by their impact on the rights of others. For example, adults have the right to drink alcohol but not drive drunk, and that there is a right to free speech, but not to harass or threaten others. As a result, he said that school boards could reasonably argue that mask-less students endanger the health of other students and their teachers, and mask policies should be up to them to determine.
Despite the ruling, the Florida Department of Education on August 30 began withholding school board member salaries from two school districts that require masks in classrooms. Florida Education Commissioner, Richard Corcoran, said he is following through on the orders of the State Board of Education and stated funds would continue to be withheld monthly until each school board complied with state law and rule.
Lawsuit in Texas Filed
On Tuesday, August 17, a lawsuit was filed in Texas claiming that the state is discriminating against medically vulnerable students by failing to accommodate their disabilities. The parents filed suit on behalf of their disabled children, all of who are under age 12 and ineligible to receive a COVID-19 vaccine.
The parents claim that the ban violates Section 504 and Title II of the ADA by excluding students with underlying medical conditions from district programs and failing to make reasonable accommodations that would allow those students to attend school. In addition, they are asking a judge to issue a temporary restraining order that would allow districts to implement mask mandates and prohibit the state from withholding funds from districts that choose to make them mandatory.
The lawsuit challenges an executive order by Governor Greg Abbott that declares school systems cannot require students or staff to wear a mask. It also noted that districts must allow individuals to wear a mask if they choose to do so. As a result of ongoing litigation, the Texas Education Agency issued an updated public health guidance that stated it would not be enforcing the mask provisions in the interim, but would make additional guidance once the court issues are resolved.
Other Actions Afoot
In Arkansas, a judge pressed pause on the state law that prohibits local officials from setting mask mandates, meaning school districts can – at least for now – set their own local mask requirements. Tennessee’s governor has signed an executive order requiring schools to allow families to opt out of mask mandates. In Utah, local health departments can issue 30-day school mask mandates with approval from the state or county government.
by Jeremy Neff | Oct 2, 2020 | COVID-19 (Coronavirus), General, Special Education
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) published a new COVID-19 Q&A on September 28, 2020 (OSEP QA 20-01). While OSEP explicitly cautions that the Q&A “is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements,” it nonetheless provides insights on how long-standing rules and laws will be applied to the novel COVID-19 virus.
In support of school districts that are guiding their decision-making based on the health and safety of students and staff, OSEP repeatedly describes health and safety as “most important” and “paramount.” If a hearing officer or court is making a decision based on the equities (i.e. fairness) the emphasis of OSEP on safety will weigh in favor of schools making reasonable adjustments to how IDEA is implemented. However, OSEP also repeatedly states that school districts “remain responsible for ensuring that a free appropriate public education (FAPE) is provided to all children with disabilities.” This requires an individualized response to COVID-19 that focuses on “each child’s unique needs” and ensures “challenging objectives.”
To strike the balance of protecting health and safety while also providing FAPE, OSEP points school districts to the normal IDEA processes. The Q&A notes that no changes to the law or regulations have been made at the federal level. Interestingly, when discussing the timeline for initial evaluations OSEP advises that states “have the flexibility to establish additional exceptions” to the 60 day initial evaluation timeline. As of this writing, the Ohio Department of Education has not taken actions to allow for COVID-19 specific exceptions from the timeline.
Otherwise, OSEP’s Q&A largely points to approaches that have been addressed in prior “Special Education Spotlight” articles, Ennis Britton blog posts, and in our Coffee Chat webinar series. These approaches include conducting records review evaluations when in-person evaluations are not possible, using virtual team meeting platforms, and delivering services flexibly (e.g. teletherapy, consultation with parents.). OSEP warns against conducting remote evaluations if doing so would violate the instructions of the test publishers.
The discussion of extended school year (ESY) services is perhaps the topic most likely to generate interest in the short-term. After clearly distinguishing ESY from compensatory education or recovery services, OSEP acknowledges the authority of the states to establish standards for ESY. Note that in Ohio the standard is based on excessive regression and recoupment. OSEP proceeds to observe that, understandably, ESY services may not have been provided over the past summer due to COVID-19 restrictions. In such cases, OSEP encourages school districts to “consider” providing ESY during times such as the regular school year or scheduled breaks (e.g. winter break).
The Ennis Britton Special Education Team will continue to monitor and share with clients the latest developments as we navigate this unusual school year. Please contact a member of our team with questions or concerns.
