Major education issues await Supreme Court action this term
By Joetta Sack-Min
When the Supreme Court begins its 2008-09 term on Oct. 6, NSBA will be closely watching three cases -- addressing employee discrimination, special education, and Title IX -- that could have a significant impact on school districts.
Two days after its opening session, the Court is scheduled to hear arguments in Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville, which examines the extent that federal employment antidiscrimination laws protect workers who bring complaints. At issue is whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act covers employees who have cooperated in internal investigations.
An employee of the Nashville, Tenn., school district was accused of sexual harassment. During the investigation of the complaint, the district’s human resources officials interviewed a potential witness, Vicky S. Crawford, who was head of the payroll division. They became concerned about statements she made about her department’s business practices.
Following up on those concerns, the district conducted an audit of the payroll department and found evidence of misconduct, including the mishandling of employee contributions to retirement plans and payments to insurance companies and failure to file federal tax returns for the school system on time.
After a separate investigation, Crawford was fired from her job for embezzlement and drug use. But she then filed a lawsuit claiming that she was fired because she cooperated in the sexual harassment investigation, as Title VII prevents employers from retaliating against employees who bring complaints or cooperate in investigations.
The sexual harassment inquiry, which was separate from the investigation into the payroll department, was later dismissed because of lack of evidence.
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals and the trial court have ruled in favor of the school district.
A reversal by the Supreme Court could subject school districts to more lawsuits and higher legal costs, as well as limit their ability to remove ineffective employees, says NSBA Deputy General Counsel Naomi Gittins. It also could limit the ability of districts to conduct internal investigations of sexual harassment complaints.
“This case is tricky, but our position is, we want employers to be able to get rid of ineffective employees without Title VII,” Gittins says. “Title VII isn’t there to protect those people. Its purpose is to get information and encourage people to come forward.”
NSBA has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the district.
The brief argues that there is no need to expand Title VII protections to employees who participate in internal investigations where no formal complaint has been brought forward. Further, most employees already have job protections through other sources and would not need Title VII.
The Supreme Court also has accepted a case based on Title IX, the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in school programs, but will not hear arguments until later this term.
This case, Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee, will determine whether school officials could be held personally liable for monetary damages when districts are sued successfully under Title IX. Currently, plaintiffs can collect damages from school districts, but not individuals.
The case centers on a claim that a female kindergartner was sexually harassed on a school bus by a boy in third grade. Investigations conducted by the Barnstable, Mass., school district and local police did not find enough evidence to discipline the third-grader, and the district offered to place the kindergartner on a different bus.
After that offer was rejected, and two other students claimed they were harassed, the parents filed a lawsuit against the district and asked for monetary damages from the district and superintendent. The lower courts have ruled in favor of the district.
NSBA is planning to file a friend-of-the-court brief in October. Gittins says that brief will argue that Title IX is already broad enough to provide monetary damages from districts found to be liable and that allowing superintendents and principals to be sued would set a bad precedent that would make the profession less attractive.
A third case under consideration for review by the Court deals with private school tuition reimbursements for special education students under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
At issue in T.A. v. Forest Grove (Ore.) School District is whether parents can receive private school tuition for a child who has never received special education services within the district.
Before the parents had enrolled the child in a private school, they had agreed with the public school’s assessment that the student did not qualify for special services.
The case is reminiscent of the Tom F. case, in which the Court ruled 4-4 in 2007 to let stand a 2nd Circuit Appeals Court decision that allowed parents to place a student with disabilities in a private school and then ask the public school system for reimbursement.
“The difference is, in Tom F., nobody disputed that the student needed special education services,” says Gittins.
Like the Tom F. case, NSBA believes this case could have serious ramifications for IDEA and the collaborative process between school districts and parents. The ruling would affect all districts involved in disputes over tuition reimbursement where the school systems never had a chance to provide services to a child who was unilaterally placed in a private school.
If the Supreme Court rules for the parents, there would be many more cases of parents enrolling their children in private schools and demanding tuition reimbursement while bypassing the development of an individualized education plan.
In the T.A. case, a district court sided with the school district, but that decision was overturned by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
NSBA has filed a brief that encourages the Court to accept this case because of its significant impact and to further clarify the split decision in Tom F.
There’s no way to tell whether these cases will be decided or even accepted, Gittins says, before the Supreme Court’s 2008-09 session ends in June.
Reproduced with permission from School Board News. Copyright © 2008, National School Boards Association. Opinions expressed in this newspaper do not necessarily reflect positions of NSBA. This article may be printed out and photocopied for individual or educational use, provided this copyright notice appears on each copy. This article may not be otherwise transmitted or reproduced in print or electronic form without the consent of the Publisher. For more information, call (703) 838-6789.