Supreme Court decisions impacting school discipline employment practices
By Joetta Sack-Min
Fall '09 -- The Supreme Court handed down numerous decisions potentially affecting school districts at the end of its 2008-09 term. NSBA filed briefs in eight cases with issues ranging from sexual harassment to employment law.
The case that garnered the most attention for educators was Safford Unified School District v. Redding. A student sued a school district and an assistant principal who ordered the school nurse to strip search her and a friend because they were suspected of giving prescription-strength ibuprofen to another student. No drugs were found, however, and the case generated a mass of sympathy for the students.
Although the justices ruled 8-1, with Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting, that the school officials had violated the girl’s Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, the Court ruled unanimously that the assistant principal who ordered the search could not be held personally liable because the law was not clear about what constituted a dangerous drug.
The decision will mean school administrators will have less discretion to search students they believe possess or distribute drugs, says NSBA General Counsel Francisco M. Negron Jr. Further, the Court provided little guidance for school officials to determine if a drug should be considered “dangerous.” It did not nullify “zero tolerance” policies.
“While we are pleased with the first part of the ruling that relieves school district staff of personal liability, we are certainly concerned that the ability of school districts to keep students safe may be compromised in some situations,” Negron says.
Another troubling ruling for school officials came in the case of Forest Grove School District v. T.A. The Court ruled 6-3 that a district must pay for a private placement for a student with a disability who had never previously received special education services in the public school system. The student’s parents had placed him in a private school after the school district’s evaluation deemed him ineligible for special services.
The ruling means that parents who want private placements at taxpayer expense now have much less incentive to work with school districts. And unless Congress amends the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or other education law, school districts will face more litigation from such parents and will end up spending even more on private placements for students with disabilities who could be served in the public schools.
One case that could indirectly impact schools is Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville, which involved an employee who was fired after she cooperated in an internal sexual harassment investigation. During the course of their work, investigators found evidence of drug use and embezzlement by the employee. After a separate investigation, the employee was fired. But she sued, claiming her rights were violated under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits retaliation against an employee who cooperates in an investigation.
The Court ruled unanimously in favor of the employee. For school officials, this means that an employee who is fired or disciplined can bring a retaliation claim under Title VII. While a school district can still show that it has legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for firing or disciplining such an employee, it will be harder to get rid of employees for poor performance or misconduct who claim retaliation.
In other cases involving school districts, the Court ruled:
• Students can file suits claiming sexual harassment under both Title IX and Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act based on the same facts, meaning that district can be forced to pay attorney fees under both laws.
• Arizona is providing adequate funding for English language learners, in a 17-year-old case brought by advocates of a predominantly Hispanic school district. The case will go back to the lower courts to reconsider and could adversely affect other school finance cases brought by districts in other states.
Reproduced with permission from School Board News. Copyright © 2009, 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.