Uncategorized

Safety Law News for March 13, 2025

by  •  • 0 Comments

— In Georgia,  the Court of Appeals of Georgia reversed the dismissal of a case involving an injury to a student, disagreeing that school officials were entitled to official immunity.  The victim, “was stabbed multiple times by a classmate at school.”  “(T)he record shows that (the) School Resource officer … notified the administration … that a student … had a knife at school and was making threats to use the knife to injure fellow students.”  The same notification was given the following school day.  “According to the complaint, (school officials) did not investigate this threat either.  On that day, when (the victim) was walking to the gymnasium, (she was attacked and) was stabbed at least 14 times during the attack.”  The school officials argued, successfully in the lower court, that in “the absence of malice or actual intent to injure, which is not alleged here, public officials are immune from damages that result from their performance of discretionary functions.”  The appellate court disagreed, applying the rule that “immunity for discretionary acts does not extend to ministerial acts.”  Moreover, the appellate court ruled that “a report of bullying triggers a ministerial duty” for school officials to implement school policy that provides that “(a)ny report will be appropriately investigated by the administration based on the nature of the complaint and in a timely manner.”  As a result “(while school policy) leaves it to the administration’s discretion what level of investigation would be appropriate given the nature of the complaint and that the investigation must occur in an undefined timely manner … an investigation is required after a report of bullying … thus the Administrators have not demonstrated entitlement to official immunity.”  Wilson v. Anderson.

— Nationally, the Centegix 2024 National Educator Survey Report “found 84% of respondents affirm school safety directly impacts student achievement and 83% feel their students are concerned for their safety while at school. The survey also revealed 56% of educators lose two or more hours of instructional time weekly due to emergency or safety incidents.”

— In Florida, the Marjory Stoneman Douglas School Safety Commission “may see some legislative clarification of … school safety laws that public safety officers have had trouble interpreting. … HB 1473, requires classrooms and the perimeter of a campus to be locked while students are present. HB 1403 … would allow for doors to be unlocked if they are actively being watched.”

— In New York, “(t)he number of (New York City) school safety agents — unarmed but uniformed New York Police Department employees stationed at schools — has plunged from about 5,000 to 3,600 over the past five years, a roughly 28% drop.”  School officials as well as parents are concerned with the increased risk of harm to students from routine and foreseeable incidents each school day.  “(M)ore than 120 school administrators and staffers who signed an open letter to NYPD and Education Department officials in November (are) calling on the city to hire additional agents.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for February 28, 2025

by  •  • 0 Comments

— In New York, the New York Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by parents who claimed that educators  “failed to prevent sexual abuse perpetrated by a teacher.”  The teacher in question, “was on ‘probationary’ status” during which “between 50 and 100 (incidents of alleged abuse occurred) over the course of two school years, inter alia, in a classroom and the school parking lot during school hours.”  The lower court dismissed the lawsuit, agreeing with the school that “the School District did not have actual or constructive notice of the teacher’s alleged propensity to engage in sexual abuse.”  The appellate court reversed, holding that “(a)lthough an employer cannot be held vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee who is acting solely for personal motives unrelated to the furtherance of the employer’s business, the employer may still be held liable under theories of negligent hiring, retention, and supervision of the employee.”  Here, “the teacher’s personnel file contains only a single evaluation from the school during the relevant period, and multiple former students testified at their respective depositions that the teacher’s inappropriate relationship with the plaintiff was readily apparent.”  Therefore, the school officials “failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether (they) took appropriate measures to evaluate the teacher’s employment and fitness at the time she was hired.”  Brauner v. Locust Valley Central School District

— In Minnesota, the legislature is proposing a more rigorous school safety policy on public schools.  SF 1318 “would require every school district to have school safety initiatives in their 10-year building maintenance plans. It would also make new funding available for districts to install things like bullet-resistant doors and windows as well as remote lockdown activation systems to streamline communication with law enforcement.”

— In Alabama, the legislature is proposing a change in policy on campus safety at private schools.  Senate Bill 4 authorizes private schools to contract with a police department or sheriff’s office for a school resource officer.  “The bill has passed the House and Senate. It now heads to Gov. Kay Ivey’s desk for her review and signature.”

— In Arizona, House Bill 2074 proposes to eliminate the shortage of available police officers to serve as school resource officers.  It would “qualify retired police officers to be stationed at K-12 schools.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for February 21, 2025

by  • 

— In California, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of a claim asserted by a student who was injured when a teacher fell on the student while breaking up a fight in which the student was involved.  The teacher “immediately intervened to prevent the two boys from hurting themselves or someone else. While pulling the larger boy away from plaintiff – and being hit himself by plaintiff, who continued to throw punches after the other boy stopped—the teacher lost his balance and fell onto plaintiff, breaking plaintiff’s leg.”  The student brought a negligence lawsuit against the teacher and the school district, claiming that “the teacher should not have tried to stop the fight because of his weight and physical condition, and (the teacher) should have done something else, sooner, to prevent the fight…(and) the school district failed to train its teachers how to safely intervene in physical altercations between students.”  The appellate court, affirming the lower court ruling, stated that “the special relationship between school personnel and students under their supervision and control…includes the duty to use reasonable measures to protect students from foreseeable injury at the hands of third parties acting negligently or intentionally… There is no more to say than we have already said about the state of the evidence and the effect of the instructions that were given.”  I.C. v. Compton Unified School District

— Nationally, the Congress is considering setting aside “$100 million in annual funding for school safety upgrades through the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.”  The provisions of H.R. 1335 (The Measures for Safer School Districts Act), would create “a nationwide framework for school security focusing on standardizing emergency response and notification protocols, notifying parents immediately, and reinforcing school infrastructure for maximum protection.”

— In New Mexico, lawmakers have introduced a comprehensive crime package, known as House Bill 8, that would “make a threat of a school shooting a fourth-degree felony.”  State officials are also calling for the “creation of a Department of School Safety and a “czar” who would oversee it.”

— In Kentucky, proposed House Bill 14 “aims to enhance school safety by encouraging the implementation of wearable panic alert systems” in schools across the state.  Schools would “implement “wearable panic alarm” technology…(allowing) teachers to silently alert law enforcement and administrators in emergency situations with the push of a button.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for February 18, 2025

by  • 

— In California, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that school officials violated a high school student’s procedural due process rights by extending his suspension without informing him of new misconduct.  The case involved a “lunchtime fight,” after which “(a)ll students involved—after each meeting with various administrators and submitting a written statement about the incident—were suspended for fighting at school and sent home that day.”  Of these students, K,J, was suspended for three days after receiving notice and providing his side of the circumstances surrounding the fight as one of self-defense.  School officials, after watching surveillance videos of the incident, determined that K.J. “did not just participate in the fight but “willfully caused serious injury” to another person not in “self-defense.””  The outcome of school discipline was amended, “extending K.J.’s school suspension from three days to five days,” and recommending him for expulsion.  K.J. was sent suspension/expulsion paperwork.  “At no point did school officials communicate with K.J. about the extended suspension.”  The appellate court quoted from the landmark student rights case of Goss v. Lopez that clearly established law “requires that school officials provide him with (1) oral or written notice of the charges against him, (2) “an explanation of the evidence the authorities have, and (3) an opportunity to present his side of the story.  K.J.’s rights under the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution were violated, “because (school officials) never informed K.J. of the new charges and new evidence that formed the basis of the extended suspension, he did not have a meaningful opportunity to present his side of the story regarding those charges.”  K. J. by & through Johnson v. Jackson

— In Utah, a new bill in the Utah state legislature would teach firearm safety in the classroom as early as kindergarten. Under 4HB 104 (The Firearm Safety in Schools Amendments), “public school students would receive mandatory instruction throughout their K-12 years on how to respond if they encounter a gun. The lessons, which could be presented in a video or by an instructor displaying an actual firearm, would demonstrate best practices for safely handling and storing a gun to prevent accidents.” Supporters of the legislation say, “it’s aimed at preventing accidental shootings by and of young children.”

— Nationally, the “Senate Judiciary Committee… is leading bipartisan lawmakers…to reintroduce the EAGLES Act to prevent acts of mass violence. The bill, named after the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School mascot and introduced on the seventh anniversary of the tragic school shooting in Parkland, Florida, would expand the U.S. Secret Service’s National Threat Assessment Center (NTAC) to include a greater focus on preventing targeted violence, including school violence.”

— In Kansas, the Kansas State Board of Education approved an updated at-risk program list for use by local school boards and local districts who are required to support evidence based practices by implementing assessments of concerning behaviors by students.  “Beginning with the 2026-27 school year, districts will be required to submit at-risk accountability plans.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for February 13, 2025

by  • 

— In Arkansas, the Court of Appeals of Arkansas, upheld the delinquency adjudication of a student, who twice spoke the words to school officials, “this school needs to blow up.”  The student argued on appeal that the words were not expressions of intent and that the words were “not directed at anyone in particular and that none of the evidence presented suggested that he had a propensity toward violence.”  The appellate court applied Arkansas law that prohibits threats “to cause physical injury or property damage to a teacher or other school employee acting in the line of duty.”  The court ruled that “the conduct prohibited by the statute is the communication of a threat with the purpose of terrorizing another person.”  On this interpretation, the delinquency adjudication was affirmed.  “We hold that the record before us contains sufficient evidence to support the circuit court’s finding that a reasonable person would have taken (the student’s) statement as a true threat made with the purpose of terrorizing the school officials. Evidence of (the student’s)  angry and combative behavior and the loud volume of his voice indicating an intent to be heard supports (the school official’s) testimony that he took the threat very seriously. Likewise, because (the student)  was yelling, being physically and verbally combative, and willing to repeat his comment that the school needed to blow up, (the school resource officer’s) concern was not unreasonable. He specifically stated that he felt the school, students, and staff were threatened and that he believed (the student)  “was coming back to do something.””  Minor Child v. State of Arkansas

— In Texas, the legislature is proposing an increase in funding for campus safety.  “Both the House and Senate’s proposed budgets for 2026 and 2027 would increase school safety funding by $400 million over the next two years.”  Senate Bill 598 is the first step in this direction.

— In Wisconsin, “(t)he Wisconsin Department of Justice Office of School Safety has released the second edition of its Comprehensive School Safety Framework.  This framework identifies model school safety practices and is designed for all Wisconsin school leaders to use as a guide and to adapt to fit their needs locally.”

— Nationally, a cybersecurity study publishes that an increasing number of schools surveyed are implementing multi-factor authentication (MFA) for students.  The Report also discloses that “74% of administrators believe a security incident is likely to impact their school system in the coming year, up from 71% last year. The number of surveyed administrators reporting cyber-attacks has also increased from 31% to 36%. Among school systems reporting incidents, phishing attacks remain the predominant threat – accounting for 87% of incidents, up from 73% last year.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for February 6, 2025

by  • 

— In Michigan, the United States District Court held that the suspension and expulsion of a high school student did not violate his First Amendment rights.  The case centers around a statement the student made at school regarding a recent shooting at another high school in Michigan.  The student was heard by his teacher saying to a classmate, “if you don’t shut up I will shoot this place up like Oxford.”  The Oxford reference was in relation to a campus shooting eight days earlier, where an Oxford High School student “brought a 9mm handgun to school and opened fire, killing four students and injuring seven others.”  The court applied the rule of law from the case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District: a student’s speech is not protected under the First Amendment if it “might reasonably have led school authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities.”  This rule of law translates into proactive authority for school officials.  The court opined, “(s)chool officials may restrict the student’s speech as long as the restriction is motivated by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint.”  Finally, the court reasoned that,  “(i)n assessing the reasonableness of a school official’s decision to restrict the student’s speech, this Court considers temporal factors and recent events, and affords deference to the professional knowledge and experience of school administrators.”  Therefore, the court dismissed the case, stating that, “the School District Defendants reasonably believed (the student’s) statement could substantially disrupt Huron High School’s activities. (The student) made the statement at issue just eight days after the Oxford High School shooting. In the aftermath of this shooting, schools—especially in Michigan—were justifiably sensitive to threats or comments suggesting violence.”  Reedy v. Huron School District, No. 2:23-CV-10221, 2025 WL 400226 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 31, 2025)

— Nationally, the Trump administration has begun drafting an executive order that would diminish the U.S. Department of Education by shutting down all functions that are not written explicitly into codified laws.

— In Indiana, House Bill 1637 proposes a uniform approach to regulating school safety.  Its provisions create the Office of School Safety, placing it under the Indiana Department of Homeland Security.  “The mission is to make school safety more efficient.”

— In Georgia, the Georgia legislature is introducing school-safety legislation that “calls for improvements in information sharing among schools through a new anonymous app, increases penalties for those who make terroristic threats, and provides tax incentives to encourage gun owners to purchase firearm safety storage devices.”