Uncategorized

Safety Law News for December 13, 2024

by  • 

— In New York, the United States Court of Appeals held that the State of New York could sue the Niagara Wheatfield Central School District for failing to “address repeated complaints of student-on-student sexual assault, sexual harassment, and gender-based violence and bullying.”  The case arose out of allegations by the New York Attorney General that “the School District’s lapses affected not only the student victims, but the School District’s community as a whole.”  The lower court dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that the State of New York did not have authority to sue because “it had not successfully asserted that the School District engaged in a broader policy or practice of failing to protect student victims.”  The State of New York appealed, describing “how four of the School District’s students were subjected to sexual assault, sexual harassment, or gender-based violence and bullying by other students; how the four student victims and their parents repeatedly notified the School District and requested remedial action; and how the School District consistently failed to respond adequately…(and how) the School District knew of, but ignored, at least thirty similar incidents.”  The appellate court agreed and reversed the lower court.  It held that “a state suing in parens patriae must establish (1) an injury to a sufficiently substantial segment of the state’s population; (2) a quasi-sovereign interest; and (3) an inability for individual plaintiffs to obtain complete relief.”  As applied this case, the appellate court ruled that the State of New York “has adequately alleged that it is seeking to vindicate a quasi-sovereign interest—the health and welfare, of students exposed to gender-based violence and harassment whether as victims, perpetrators, or bystanders, and their families—and that the individuals on whose behalf it is bringing suit cannot obtain complete relief.”  The appellate court explained that, “the School District’s failure to act allowed more and more students to turn into harassers.  The broader alleged effects on the students in the School District—and, indeed, their parents—do not stop there… students had to contend with the fear that, if something comparable happened to them, the School District would also leave them unprotected.”  New York, by James v. Niagara Wheatfield Central School District

— In Florida, officials in the Lake County Schools are implementing a new pilot program to “employ smart sensor detection devices in restrooms and nearby areas to enforce a strict no-vaping policy.”  State law prohibits person under the age of 21 from possessing or using any tobacco products.

— In Utah, teachers and faculty in the Salt Lake City School District mounted a protest “over safety and security issues they say put them and students in danger.”  “A student being shot on campus last month originally spurred the teachers into taking action… Teachers said they were only made aware of the shooting from a police press release and not by the district or school officials.”

— In Florida, legislation is being introduced that will require all teachers to “receive basic, uniform training on how to prevent and respond to school shootings.”  House Bill 37 will “mandate that strategies and practices on identifying, preventing, preparing, addressing and responding to mass casualty incidents is included in all teacher and education preparation, certification and training programs.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for December 12, 2024

by  • 

— In Wisconsin, the United States District Court upheld the search and seizure of contraband in a student’s bag.  The case arose out of a report by a PE teacher of the student’s “possession of a vape during an off-campus bike ride.”   School officials then had a meeting with the student during the school day.  The student “denied owning the vape or knowing anything about it, even offering (educators) the opportunity to look through her bag.”  A search of the bag revealed “a keychain bottle of pepper spray and a flashlight stun gun…(that were) considered weapons and prohibited at school.”  The school officials called the student’s parents to disclose the meeting, the search, the items discovered, as well as verifying that the student “had a valid prescription (for medication found in the bag) and permission to keep it at school.”  The student “was given an in-school suspension for the rest of the day.”  The parents filed a lawsuit claiming that First Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights of their child were violated.  The court declared that “none of (educators’) alleged actions violated (the student’s) constitutional rights.”  As to the Fourth Amendment, the school’s PE teacher “was entitled to observe things in plain sight on school business, even if his gym class was biking off-site.”  Moreover, under Wisconsin law and the U.S. Supreme Court case of New Jersey v. TLO, school officials “were within their rights as school officials to search (the student’s) bag, as well as speak with the (parents) over the phone about their findings…There was ample justification for (school officials) to examine the bag and its contents after (the student) admitted to keeping pepper spray and a stun gun on school grounds.”  As to the First Amendment, “possessing a vape…does not express an idea protected by the First Amendment, let alone a message capable of being readily understood by those observing it.”  Therefore, (the parents’) claim challenges nothing more than a school’s everyday interaction with a student being questioned about potential violations of school policy, with that student’s parents, and with law enforcement authorities. Accordingly, this case will be dismissed with prejudice.”  Wayne Evangelista v Krista Flanagan (W.D. Wis. Dec. 10, 2024)

— In California, the California Transportation Commission awarded “$7.9 million for the City of Salinas’… (to) provide meaningful connections to …local schools.”  The project is called the “John Street/Williams Road Safe Routes to School Project and Programming.”  It will include “buffered bike lanes and bicycle conflict striping, and pedestrian improvements, such as curb ramp enhancements and crosswalk improvements.

— In New York, the Syracuse school board passed a resolution to allow staff employees to carry guns on campus.  The policy will authorize the “director and assistant directors of public safety to carry guns in schools. The three administrators are retired police officers who have been issued special armed guard registration cards.”

— In Pennsylvania, Philadelphia schools are being equipped with artificial intelligence to enhance campus safety.  “New security procedures are underway at Upper Darby High School, Beverly Hills Middle School and Drexel Hill Middle School…Students must walk through a weapons detection system, powered by artificial intelligence, as soon as they enter the building.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for December 11, 2024

by  • 

— In Virginia, the Court of Appeals of Virginia denied the Prince William County School Board immunity in a lawsuit claiming gross negligence by campus educators.  The case arose out of injuries sustained by a victimized special needs student in high school.  A fellow-student with special needs with “a known, troubled record involving harmful, sexual, and abusive behavior… transferred from another high school”  with a notice that he “would pose a danger to other students.”  Even so, however, the parents alleged that the fellow-student “was placed in several (special needs) classes …sexually assaulted (the victim) by touching her breasts and legs, kissing her, and trying to take her outside of the school building to perform other sexual acts on her.”  Many of these acts occurred in the classroom and many of “the assaults occurred in open view of other people.”  The parents of the victimized student asserted “a single count of gross negligence against the School Board Employees in their official capacities only.”  The members of the school board argued that a lawsuit “against them in their official capacities amounted to a suit against the School Board (and that) the School Board is entitled to sovereign immunity.”  The lower court agreed, dismissing the lawsuit.  On appeal the appellate court reversed, sending the case to trial to “to determine whether the alleged actions taken by the (school) amounted to gross negligence.”  The appellate court made three points.  First, under Virginia law  “Virginia school boards should be considered municipal corporations rather than arms of the state…. not entitled to a claim of sovereign immunity.”  Second, ““Official capacity” suits are effectively suits against the entity for whom the individual works and are separate and distinct from “individual capacity” suits where the individual is sued for the actions he took while acting within the scope of his employment.”  Third, a school board “should be immune for acts of simple negligence, but should not be immune for acts of gross negligence or intentional misconduct. Immunity cannot be asserted when gross negligence, rather than simple negligence, is alleged.”  At trial, the parents must prove that school officials “acting in their official capacity, committed gross negligence because they were aware that a violent student had been accepted into the intellectual disability class, as well as evidence that the abuse (the victim) suffered occurred in plain view of the teacher in the classroom.”  Drasovean v. Walts

— In Arizona, a study released by state auditors revealed areas in which school safety was lacking.  “State auditors said not a single one of the schools they reviewed had fully implemented their emergency operations plans, a failure that a new report says could affect their ability to protect students in emergencies.”

— In Michigan, the Michigan legislature has approved a series of new polices to implement stronger school safety requirements and mental health assessments.  The legislation also addresses the response of schools during an emergency.  House Bill 5659 and House Bill 5660 “(codify) a School Safety and Mental Health Commission (to) specifically examine and make recommendations to improve school safety measures and mental health support.”  “Under House Bills 4095 and 4096, all schools in Michigan would be required to adopt uniform terminology for emergency response starting in the 2026-2027 school year.”

— In Texas, the legislature has introduced has introduced House Bill (HB) 62, that authorizes the use of remote-operated aerial drones to enhance school security.  “According to the bill text, “Requirements … can also be met via at least one remote-human-operated aerial device … deployed or contracted by the district at each district campus providing less lethal interdiction capability by means of air-based irritant delivery or other mechanisms for every 200 students enrolled at the district.””

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for December 9, 2024

by  • 

— In New York, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division reversed the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by parents of children who were injured by a fellow-student during rides on the school bus.  The case involved students from kindergarten through second grade who were victimized by a male student “who rode the bus with the (students), and included, inter alia, exposing himself to them, touching the genitals of one of the (students), asking one of the (students) to touch his genitals, and attempting to have sex with one of the (students), or rubbing his body against hers.”  The parents claimed that the school district “failed to protect students from the fellow student’s sexual misconduct” under a clearly established rule of law that “schools are under a duty to adequately supervise the students in their charge and they will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision (and a) school bus operator owes the very same duty to the students entrusted to its care and custody.”  The appellate court agreed, holding that liability depends on whether or not the school “had sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct which caused injury; that is, that the third-party acts could reasonably have been anticipated.”  The case could not be dismissed.  The claims of the parents were appropriate for a jury to determine whether school officials “had actual or constructive notice of fellow’s student’s prior misconduct.”  Porschia C. by Melissa A.C. v. Sodus Central School District

— In Alabama, the Scottsboro City Schools Board of Education has approved a series of upgrades to its campus safety policy.  The details are kept confidential, although “getting a resource officer in each school (is) our immediate concern.”  In addition, special attention is being given to “small safety measures that have been slacked on, including keeping classroom doors locked and teachers wearing the proper identification …(because) it’s the little things that can make a big difference when you are talking about the safety of our children.”

— In Texas, officials in the Boerne ISD are removing hallway doors leading to restrooms at one of its high schools “in an effort to cut down on vaping incidents.”  “Possession of a vaping device is prohibited by state law for those under the age of 21. Possession or use of any e-cigarette device is also prohibited in public schools by the Texas Education Code and the BISD Student Code of Conduct.”  “All stall doors inside the restrooms were left in place.”

— In Tennessee, the Shelby County Sheriff’s Office (SCSO) “wants to remind all parents and guardians that bringing firearms onto school property is illegal.”  According to a social media post by the Shelby County Sheriff’s Office, a fourth arrest this school year has been made in connection with firearms on campus “involving a parent.”  Tennessee’s concealed carry law allows most citizens to carry a loaded handgun without a permit, as long as they meet certain requirements.

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for December 5, 2024

by  • 

— In Illinois, the Appellate Court of Illinois reversed the judgment of the circuit court and affirmed the decision of a school board to impose a one-year expulsion upon a student for bringing a fake handgun to school.  The decision arose out of the incident in which a school administrator discovered a loaded pellet gun in the locker of the student.  Believing it to be a real firearm, school officials signaled the alarm, implementing the steps required under school policy to secure the weapon, effectively disrupting the school day.  The student was suspended.  Later, the school board imposed a one-year expulsion based upon a Report by the Hearing Officer.  The student argued and the circuit court agreed that “the expulsion be expunged from his disciplinary record (because) the District had not exhausted all appropriate and available interventions before recommending expulsion.”  The appellate court reversed applying the rule that “the state, having compelled students to attend school and thus associate with the criminal few—or perhaps merely the immature and unwise few—closely and daily, thereby owes those students a safe and secure environment.”  Based upon this duty, “we would still see no abuse of discretion in Board’s decision to expel… First, (the student) committed a serious offense by bringing a lookalike gun to school in knowing violation of school rules. Second, (the student) had a lengthy disciplinary history that, while comprised of largely minor infractions, suggested a consistent refusal to follows rules and respect authority. Third, (the student’s)  decision to bring a lookalike gun could reasonably cause fellow students to be fearful of his ongoing presence at school, thereby affecting the delivery of education services. Fourth, the Board’s selection of a one-year expulsion is a severe sanction. While not the harshest punishment available, which would have been a two-year expulsion, the legislature has cautioned that removing a student from his established learning environment is to be avoided if at all possible. And finally, for that same reason, expulsion would not be in A.A.’s best interests. When we consider these factors as a whole, we do not see an abuse of discretion.”  A.A. by and through Pasillas v. Board of Education, Summit School District No. 104

— In Georgia, school officials in the Barrow County Board of Education received input from the community on school safety policies in the aftermath of the death of two students and two teachers in the shooting at Apalachee High School.  The gist of the feedback is that “there is a lack of urgency from the board of education.”

— In Washington State, legislators are considering two proposals to enhance school safety.  Senate Bill 5003 would require the Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction to create a school security and preparedness infrastructure grant program to encourage improvements in campus safety.  Senate Bill 5004 would require schools to update emergency response systems to include panic alarms or alert buttons.

— In Alabama, legislators are considering a state-wide ban on cell phones in schools.  House Bill 65 “would require the Alabama Board of Education to create a model policy that, at a minimum, prohibits public K-12 students from using an electronic communication device during the school day. The bill allows exceptions in case of an emergency or if using the device is part of a student’s Individualized Education Program or 504 plan.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for December 4, 2024

by  • 

— In New York, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division reversed the dismissal of a case involving a student-on-student assault in which the parents alleged “negligent supervision due to (school’s) failure to protect (the injured student) from the assault.”  The lawsuit arose when “(the injured student) was walking toward the cafeteria for lunch when she noticed (the assailant) glaring at her. (The injured student)  continued into the cafeteria, at which point she was approached and assaulted by (the assailant), who started punching .. and slamming “(the injured student’s)  head into a pillar…(the assailant’s) friend then joined in the attack.”  Educators argued for dismissal and the lower court agreed because “the attack was not foreseeable, nor was (the school’s) alleged negligence a proximate cause of E.E.’s injuries.”  The appellate court reversed citing the rule of law in which “(s)chools are under a duty to adequately supervise the students in their charge and… Evidence of the foreseeability of a student-perpetrated assault may include prior specific knowledge of the student’s propensity to engage in such conduct.”  Liability depends on “whether, under all the circumstances, the chain of events that followed the negligent act or omission was a normal or foreseeable consequence of the situation created by the school’s negligence.”  The appellate court ruled that what is important is “(t)he issue is not the speed of the punch, but the circumstances leading up to and surrounding that conduct.”  Therefore, reversal was required due to the record that showed that “(the assailant) had a school disciplinary history of 18 incidents…which resulted in numerous detentions and suspensions. Of these 18 incidents, it appears that at least five involved acts of violence…One of the suspensions was for lighting a fellow student’s hair on fire, while another suspension was for her previous attack on (the injured student)…the evidence … was sufficient to raise triable issues of fact.  T.E. v. South Glens Falls Central School District

— Nationally, “the U.S. Department of Education is calling on every state, district, and school to adopt policies that guide the use of student personal devices in schools, and today is issuing a new resource.”  The resource, Planning Together: A Playbook for Student Personal Device Policies, “offers a model process that education leaders can use to design policies for use of cell phones and other personal devices in schools alongside educators, students, parents, and caregivers.”

— In Maryland, “Harford County Government and Harford County Public Schools announced a partnership on Tuesday to improve security measures and safety in the schools.”  This comes after a fatal shooting in an area high school.  The  focus of the collaboration will be adding “advanced weapons detection systems, enhanced camera systems, door alarms and other security upgrades.”  In addition, “the funding includes adding three new school resource officers to work at some of the county’s elementary schools. SRO’s are already working in each of the district’s high schools and middle schools.”

— In Illinois, the Illinois Emergency Management Agency and Office of Homeland Security is launching a school safety and prevention program designed to “empower students to take an active role in creating safer school environments.”  The program is managed by Southern Illinois University Edwardsville and EdVenture Partners.  It “challenges high school students to design and implement peer-developed projects, tools, and strategies aimed at preventing targeted violence and hate within their schools and communities, using approaches that they believe will be most effective.”