— In New Mexico, the United States District Court refused to dismiss claims brought by parents of a student who alleged that “when she was a fourteen-year-old freshman…a senior student …raped her.” The gist of several claims is that “the school and its employees enabled (the senior student’s) predatory behavior, protected him from being held accountable, and failed to protect victims from his abuse.” The court seized upon the parent’s claim based upon the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, holding that neither the individual school officials nor the school district were entitled to dismissal as to the equal protection claim. The legal standard for this claim is that a “school district’s liability for sexual harassment under the Equal Protection Clause (requires the plaintiff to) show that the harassment was the result of municipal custom, policy, or practice…In the absence of an official policy, a municipality may still be liable for the widespread and persistent practice of sexual harassment which constitutes a custom.” Under the custom standard, the case must go to a jury because the parents alleged that the school officials and the school district were “on notice and failed to properly address, over a sufficient period of time, student and staff concerns that (the senior student) was sexually harassing female students… (and) he was allowed to return to (school), all while the individual Defendants downplayed his actions.” The court ruled that the individual school officials were not entitled to qualified immunity as to the equal protection claim because they “repeatedly failed to enforce remedial measures they knew were necessary to keep female students safe.” The school district was unable to assert state statutory immunity because while state law “provides immunity from tort claims to governmental entities and public employees acting within the scope of their duty… immunity does not apply to liability for damages resulting from bodily injury, wrongful death or property damage caused by the negligence of public employees while acting in the scope of their duties.” Doe v. Taos Municipal Schools
— In Kentucky, “The Kentucky Office of the State School Security Marshal released a report on the security of Commonwealth schools. The annual School Safety Risk Assessment Report shows 99.8 percent of Kentucky’s more than 1,300 schools comply with regulations.” Its contents include, among other requirements, that schools “must have electronic-locking front doors, surveillance, locked classroom doors, and classroom window coverings.”
— In Michigan, the Fenton Area Public Schools are installing state of the art technology to avert active shooter incidents. The ZeroEyes AI Gun Detection and Intelligent Situational Awareness Platform, a collaboration between the school district and the technology provider is designed such that “if a gun is identified, images are instantly shared with the ZeroEyes Operations Center…If these experts determine that the threat is valid, they dispatch alerts and actionable intelligence — including visual description, gun type, and last known location — to local law enforcement and the district’s school resource officers as quickly as 3 to 5 seconds from detection.”
— In Oklahoma, state officials are urging parents and students to “download the ProtectOK app” to provide an additional layer of communication surrounding school safety. “The ProtectOK app allows users to report suspicious activity and threats anonymously and have it sent to the proper authorities.”