Connecticut Education Law Blog

Connecticut Education Law Blog

OCR Publications Clarify District Obligations to Student with ADHD under Section 504

Posted in Regular Education, Special Education

School is back in session once again, and districts are confronting the perennial challenge of educating students with a multitude of physical, cognitive and behavioral limitations. Among these conditions, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) stands out in both its ubiquity and its potential to thrust parents and school districts into conflict over appropriate educational programming. In fact, the United States Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has received over 2,000 complaints involving allegations of discrimination against students with ADHD in the past five years alone. The staggering number of complaints is testimony to both the elusive nature of ADHD and the difficulties school districts are experiencing in identifying, evaluating, and providing appropriate programming to students with the disorder. Absent clarification of the rights of students with ADHD and the responsibilities of the school districts that serve them, the surge in complaints and litigation is unlikely to subside in the foreseeable future.

Fortunately, school districts are beginning the new school year armed with guidance for meeting their obligations to students with ADHD under federal law. Over the summer, the OCR published a Dear Colleague letter highlighting the recurring problems school districts are facing with respect to ADHD and emphasizing the need for school districts to tailor their responses in compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The letter was accompanied by a comprehensive Resource Guide outlining the applicable federal law, providing step-by-step instructions for compliance with substantive obligations, and reminding school districts of their duty to notify families of their rights and procedural protections. These publications can aid school districts in revising their policies and procedures in accordance with federal law, which will likely result in better programming for students with ADHD and a reduction in complaints and litigation.

The OCR publications detail the bases for many of the complaints by families of students with ADHD. These allegations include the failure of school districts to identify and properly evaluate students with ADHD, to provide appropriate regular or special education and related services, to educate teachers and staff regarding students’ needs, and to notify families of their procedural and substantive rights under Section 504.

School districts are reminded of their “Child Find” obligation to identify and locate students suspected of having “disabilities” under Section 504. A student has a “disability” if she has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, and is also protected from discrimination if the student has a record of such an impairment, or is regarded as having such an impairment. The OCR emphasizes some examples of major life activities that could be substantially limited by ADHD, including concentrating, reading, thinking, and functions of the central nervous system/brain. Once a student is identified as possibly having a disability, school districts are obligated under Section 504 to conduct an evaluation at no costs to the student’s family. The evaluation must be conducted by appropriate personnel, without undue delay, and without regard to the effects of “mitigating measures” such as medication. Importantly, OCR states its own presumption that a student diagnosed with ADHD is substantially limited in one or more major life activities, and thus qualifies as a student with a disability under Section 504 unless proven otherwise. Overall, the definition of “disability” is to be construed broadly, and the determination of whether a student has a disability should not demand extensive analysis.

A student with a disability under Section 504 is entitled to a free appropriate public education (FAPE) comprised of regular or special education and related and/or supplementary services, modifications, and accommodations. FAPE must be individually tailored to a student’s particular needs, and provided without inappropriate consideration of administrative and financial burdens. With respect to ADHD, OCR cautions against the “blanket” provision of boilerplate services to any student diagnosed with the disorder. Instead, a “Section 504 plan” should be developed and implemented by a team of administrators and staff knowledgeable of the student’s particular needs. For example, a student with ADHD-predominantly inattentive type may supports such as prompting and redirection, while a student with ADHD-predominantly hyperactive/impulsive type may require a smaller classroom setting and reduced auditory or visual stimulation. The Section 504 plan should be disseminated to all of the student’s teachers in order to ensure uniform and consistent implementation.

Finally, school districts are obligated to notify families of their rights and procedural safeguards under Section 504. If a parent believes her child has a disability, she has the right to request an evaluation at district expense. If the school district refuses to conduct an evaluation, an explanation must be provided, and the parent must be able to challenge the district’s decision. Similarly, a parent must be able to challenge the determination that a student does not qualify as having a disability under Section 504. Finally, if a parent disagrees with the programming implemented for her child, she must be able to challenge the adequacy of the programming before a neutral hearing officer.

The OCR Dear Colleague letter and Resource Guide should be embraced by all school districts as the new school year begins. The existing confusion surrounding ADHD and the obligations of school districts under federal law indisputably drains educational resources and has resulted in a plethora of complaints and litigation. School districts are encouraged to heed the instructions and suggestions detailed in the OCR publications, and to revise their policies and procedures related to students with disabilities accordingly. In doing so, school districts will not only preserve scarce resources and avoid costly litigation, but more importantly, they will ensure that students with disabilities such as ADHD are being provided appropriate programming and afforded an equal opportunity to receive a quality education.

The education team at Berchem, Moses & Devlin, P.C. offers representation and guidance to school district clients across the State of Connecticut. For inquiries regarding Section 504 compliance and more, visit http://www.bmdlaw.com, or email us at mlaubin@bmdlaw.com.

Public Act 16-67: New Hiring Requirements for Board of Education Personnel

Posted in Labor and Employment

Effective July 1, 2016, local or regional boards of education, governing councils of state or local charter schools and inter-district magnet school operators (collectively “BOEs”), are going to have to follow new requirements for hiring education personnel.  The state legislature recently enacted Public Act 16-67 (“the Act”) in response to a new provision in the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (“ESSA”). The new ESSA provision, entitled “Prohibition on Aiding and Abetting Sexual Abuse”, is aimed at preventing school employees who have engaged in sexual misconduct with students from being passed from one school district to another, by requiring states, state educational agencies and local school districts that receive federal funding to establish laws, regulations and policies that prevent employment of school personnel where there is reason to believe that person has previously engaged in sexual misconduct with a student or minor.

Who is impacted by the new requirements?

The Act has broad application and seeks to identify potential predators earlier in the hiring process. Significantly, the Act applies to applicants, rather than those offered employment, and prohibits the employment of any applicant who fails to meet the new requirements.  The Act makes no distinction between certified and non-certified personnel, but instead applies to all “applicants for a position, including any position which is contracted for, if such applicant would have direct student contact”.  “Direct student contact” is not defined by the Act, but positions with direct student contact would include teachers, administrators, paraprofessionals, behavioral therapists, coaches, food service workers, custodians, clerical/administrative support staff in the schools, and school nurses.  There are specific provisions for temporary positions (less than 90 days), substitute teachers and contractors, but even applicants for these positions must comply with the requirements for criminal and employment background checks.  Student employees remain excluded from the requirement of a criminal background check under Conn. Gen. Stat. §10-221d.

What is required under the Act?

The Act imposes significant changes on existing laws regarding hiring of education personnel, specifically impacting Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 10-221d (criminal and child abuse registry background checks), 10-222c (hiring policy) and 10-145 (substitute teachers). Continue Reading

Major Overtime Rule Change Effective December 1 – What You Need To Know To Prepare Now

Posted in Labor and Employment

The U.S. Department of Labor just issued its final rule, requiring minimum wage and overtime for some employees who are currently “exempt” from these requirements. Employers need to plan ahead for implementation, as the rule change could lead to seismic shifts in some payrolls.

The federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) requires that employees receive minimum wage and overtime (calculated at one-and-a-half times the regular rate of pay for hours over 40) unless they are “exempt” from one or both requirements. The most popular exemptions are the so-called “white collar exemptions,” which apply to executive, administrative, and professional employees who meet rigorous criteria based on their duties. To be exempt, these employees must be paid a salary of at least $455 per week and the employer must pay on a salary basis (meaning no docking for partial workweeks, subject to limited exceptions). Doctors, lawyers, and teachers can be exempt under the FLSA even if they are not paid on a salary basis and there is no minimum salary for these employees. (The computer professional exemption has special rules under which employees can be paid hourly, but in any event, there is no computer professional exemption under Connecticut state law.)

The rule change more than doubles the salary threshold from $455 per week ($23,660 annually) to $913 per week ($47,476 annually). Further, these thresholds will be subject to inflationary increases every three years. Nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive payments (including commissions) may account for up to 10 percent of the minimum salary level. By contrast, discretionary bonuses do not count toward the minimum salary level.  The duties tests are not changing under this rule. The threshold for the “highly compensated employee” exemption increases from $100,000 to $134,004, but Connecticut does not recognize this exemption, so employers should not rely upon it for employees in the state.

Raising the salary threshold is expected to transform millions of exempt employees into non-exempt employees overnight. Some employers will be able to weather this change better than others. Virtually every employer in the country is subject to the FLSA, even if there is only one employee. This includes non-profits and public sector employers. In Connecticut, where the cost of living is high, the effect of this change may be lower than elsewhere in the country. It is more likely here than elsewhere that employees who meet the duties tests are already earning at least $913 per week. However, non-profit, low-profit, and government employers may find that many of their employees are subject to this rule change and these employers may have more rigid budgets that cannot withstand the impact. Employers with an annual volume of sales or business of less than $500,000 may wish to consult an employment lawyer to see if they are one of the very few employers not subject to the FLSA.

To comply with the rule, employers need to either raise salaries of affected employees to ensure they meet the threshold or begin treating these employees as non-exempt. Raising salaries is straightforward, but remember that the rule is likely to require inflationary increases, so the amount will change going forward. If employers do not wish to raise salaries, the employees must be treated as non-exempt. This means that employers must keep records of their hours worked and they must be paid overtime for hours over 40. It is legally permissible to cap hours at 40 by prohibiting employees from working overtime and some employers may choose to hire multiple employees to do what was once one employee’s job. Collective bargaining agreements may limit employers’ options.

It cannot be overstated how important it is to ensure that employees are properly exempted if they are not going to be paid overtime. Consider the following scenario. A passionate, well educated executive director of a nonprofit organization earns a salary of $912 per week – just one dollar short of the new threshold. She labors with love, working 70 hours most weeks. A disgruntled employee complains to the Department of Labor that he is owed overtime and the agency examines the payroll practices of the entire organization. The Department of Labor finds that the executive director is not exempt. It is not that she is underpaid by fifty-two dollars. It is that she is not exempt at all. She is owed unpaid overtime of more than $20,000 (more if the salary was only intended to cover a certain number of hours) all because she was paid one dollar per week too little to qualify as exempt.  She would likely also be eligible for liquidated damages, doubling the underlying liability. (There are some arguments an employer could make to apply more favorable damages calculations, but these arguments have yet to be successful in the Second Circuit.) That is the legal significance of the salary threshold and why employers must be extremely careful. For that matter, when considering the duties tests as well, employers should recognize how a small mistake in classifying an employee or a group of employees could add up to huge liability.

Employers should take time now to review their payroll practices to ensure they are in compliance with state and federal laws now and in the future. For each employee believed to be exempt, ensure that he or she meets the duties tests for the applicable exemption, is paid on a salary if required by the exemption, and is paid a salary that is high enough to support the exemption. In considering the duties of a position, employers should be concerned not with titles or job descriptions, but with how the employee actually spends his or her time. It is a good idea to update job descriptions to match reality.

Ensure that all non-exempt employees’ hours are being tracked, including time spent offsite performing work, on call, or traveling, to the extent required by law. Ensure that break periods of fewer than 20 minutes are treated as working time.

Now is a good time to change payroll practices without raising alarm that perhaps things were not done properly before. Employers can connect changes with the new overtime rule to minimize suspicion, particularly in cases of misclassification. Internal review of payroll practices should be aided by a competent labor and employment attorney, as the rules can be excruciatingly detailed. Using non-attorney human resource consultants or payroll companies for this activity is not advised, as communications will not be privileged. Changes to payroll practices, hours, or other terms or conditions of employment should be communicated to employees well in advance, ideally at least 30 days.

Our team of labor and employment attorneys can assist employers in adjusting to the new white-collar exemption requirements and ensuring compliance with all applicable labor and employment laws.  Contact us to arrange a wage-and-hour self-audit for your organization.

U.S. Department of Education Tackles Discrimination of Refugees

Posted in Regular Education

On December 31, 2015, the Department of Education issued a Dear Colleague Letter before the beginning of the new year to remind schools of the importance of providing a discrimination free learning environment. The letter specifically focused on discrimination and harassment in schools based on race, religion, and national origin in light of the large number of families fleeing violence in Syria.

The Department of Education emphasized that the United States must welcome these refugees while also being committed to safeguarding the safety and security of the American people during this time of heightened fear and anger. One important aspect the Department of Education highlighted was ensuring that a student’s ability to learn was not affected due to inappropriate school conduct or discrimination.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, and national origin for public and private agencies that receive Federal funding. While Title VI does not expressly prohibit discrimination based on one’s religion, discrimination against persons who belong to a religious group based on their actual or perceived characteristics is a violation of Title VI.

The letter speaks to both K-12 and higher education institution’s duty to provide a safe learning environment, and limiting behavior that causes hostile environments. It additionally clarified that protecting free speech means allowing students, staff, and community members to express speech, even if it is at odds with the institution’s beliefs.

Some examples the Department of Education gave for helping facilitate the appropriate environment included encouraging students to express disagreement in a respectful manner, clearly communicating that harassment and bullying will not be tolerated, and creating opportunities for cultural groups to engage with each other and the school community.

The Department of Education acknowledged the difficulty of the work, but reiterated that schools have a responsibility to challenge past efforts, and welcome the refugees by working together to prevent discrimination.

New Special Legislation Requires Principals To Certify DCF Training Has Occurred and Increases Penalties For Failing To Report Suspected Abuse

Posted in Regular Education, Student Matters

School employees who fail to report child abuse may face tougher penalties for failing to report such incidents to DCF or the police as a result of a law passed by the General Assembly.

Public Act 15-205, An Act Protecting School Children, increases, from a class A misdemeanor to a class E felony, the penalty for a mandated reporter who fails to report suspected child abuse or neglect to the Department of Children and Families (DCF), if the (1) violation is a subsequent violation; (2) violation is willful, intentional, or due to gross negligence; or (3) a mandated reporter had actual knowledge of the abuse, neglect, or sexual assault.

The Act expands the reporting requirement for school employees and subjects violators to the penalties described above.  It also clarifies that the mandated reporter law protection applies to high schools students who are over age 18.  The Act requires school employees to report to DCF suspected sexual assault of any student who is not enrolled in adult education by a school employee.  It also establishes the factors on which a mandated reporter may base his or her suspicion.  Under the Act, it is a class D felony for anyone, other than a child or a student who is not enrolled in adult education, to intentionally and unreasonably interfere with or prevent such reporting or conspire to attempt to do so.

By law, (1) DCF must make available educational and refresher training for all mandated reporters of child abuse and neglect and (2) school employees must participate in the training course when hired and the refresher training every three years.  Under the Act, the principal for each school under the jurisdiction of a local or regional board of education now must annually certify to the superintendent that school employees complete such training and the superintendent must certify compliance to the State Board of Education (SBE).

The Act extends DCF’s investigation and notification requirements under existing law in reported child abuse or neglect cases to include cases of reported sexual assault of students by school employees.

It requires each local or regional board to (1) update its written policy, by February 1, 2016, to include the new school employee reporting requirements and (2) establish a confidential rapid response team, by January 1, 2016, to coordinate with DCF to ensure prompt reporting.  It also prohibits the boards from hiring noncompliant or convicted employees who were terminated or who resigned and requires SBE to revoke the certification, permit, or authorization of anyone convicted of certain crimes.

In addition, it (1) expands the list of suspected sexual assault crimes that school employees must report to DCF; (2) establishes the factors upon which a mandated reporter’s suspicion or belief may be based; (3) applies the original Act’s enhanced penalty of a class E felony to specific circumstances; (4) exempts children and any students who are not enrolled in adult education from the crime of interference with a mandated reporter’s duty to report; (5) extends DCF’s existing child abuse and neglect investigation and notification requirements to reported sexual assault cases; (6) eliminates the underlying Act’s provisions on SBE’s noncompliance investigation, the related forfeiture of state grants, and the child abuse and neglect investigation account; (7) establishes the membership of the confidential rapid response team; (8) broadens the range of criminal convictions for which rehiring is prohibited and the state’s attorney notification is required; and (9) makes various technical and conforming changes.

Effective Date: October 1, 2015; however, a provision on DCF’s training program (§1); provisions on rapid response teams (§9); rehiring prohibitions (§12 & 13) are effective July 1, 2015.

Superintendent of Schools’ Newsletter Regarding Budget Referendum Did Not Violate Election Laws

Posted in Regular Education

A Superior Court Judge recently held that a superintendents’ newsletter sent to parents which discussed a referendum does not violate Connecticut General Statutes §9-369b if the referendum has not yet been scheduled to take place.  In this case a complaint was filed alleging that the Bethel superintendent of schools used municipal funds to distribute a newsletter about a budget referendum, in violation of C.G.S. §9-369b.  The statute only prohibits distribution of such information when a referendum is legally “pending.”  As of the date of the superintendent’s newsletter on April 24, the referendum had not yet been scheduled to take place.  Because the superintendent’s April 24, 2015 newsletter was distributed before May 14, 2015, when the budget referendum qualified as “pending” under the local Charter, C.G.S. §9-369b did not apply.  The State Elections Enforcement Commission dismissed the complaint.

Because the point at which a referendum is considered “pending” varies from Town to Town, districts should consult with legal counsel to make certain they do not run afoul of the State Campaign Finance laws when they issue such statements.

IEP’s Must Align with State Academic Content Standards

Posted in Special Education

On November 16, 2015, the Department of Education issued a Dear Colleague Letter providing guidance concerning the alignment of an individualized education program (IEP) with the state standards for academic grade-level content. The Department of Education stated that in adhering to federal laws requiring that all students within a state have the same academic content and standards for achievement, an IEP for an eligible child with a disability under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) must therefore align with the state academic content standards for the particular grade in which the student is enrolled.

Under the IDEA, an eligible child with a disability must be provided a free appropriate public education (FAPE). Accessing FAPE includes providing a child with a variety of services designed to meet their specific educational needs presently and in the future, as well as prepare the child for future employment opportunities and independent living situations. In order to achieve FAPE and provide these necessary services for a disabled child, the IEP must be designed to allow the child to access, be involved, and make progressions within the general education curriculum set forth by their state.

Part B of the IDEA however references “specially designed instruction.” Specialized instruction allows an eligible disabled student to access the general curriculum by adapting the content and teaching methods to best serve the unique needs of the student. This requires the IEP team to make individualized decisions regarding what services and methods of instruction will best allow the student to reach the goals set forth by their IEP in conjunction with state standards.

The Department of Education did acknowledge that there is a small population of children with significant cognitive disabilities that may prohibit their achievement from being measured in comparison to the state standards. In these instances, alternative academic achievement standards may be created. These standards must still align with the state’s academic content standards, however the alternative standards can take other forms. For example, in order to reach a goal of performing the entire activity at grade level, an alternative standard could be requiring mastery of the introductory and pre-requisite skills required to perform the activity. The Department of Education suggests that the IEP team create ambitious goals that may seek to close the gap between the child’s current academic level and the grade-level standard the state sets.

According to the U.S. Department of Education, research has shown that when provided with appropriate instruction and services, children with disabilities can make great academic progress and strive toward grade-level general curriculum achievement. It is therefore very important that an IEP team carefully evaluate the unique needs of a particular child and create an IEP with appropriate goals and instruction methods to achieve those goals outlined while adhering to state academic content standards.

U.S. Department of Education Issues Guidance Regarding Dyslexia, Dyscalculia, and Dysgraphia

Posted in Special Education

On October 23, 2015, the Department of Education issued a Dear Colleague Letter providing guidance on the unique educational needs of students with dyslexia, dyscalculia, and dysgraphia. Despite generalized hesitancy to use these specific conditions in the evaluation and individualized education program (IEP) process, the U.S. Department of Education stated that there is nothing in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) or the regulations of the department that would prohibit using these conditions in IDEA evaluations, eligibility determinations or IEP documents.

When determining eligibility, the comprehensive evaluation must include a variety of assessment tools and strategies to ascertain all relevant material regarding the functional, development, and academic information of the student. In conducting this assessment it is therefore very important to understand the nature and extent of the specific disability and the subsequent needs of the student.

Students with dyslexia, dyscalculia, and dysgraphia have unique educational needs. Inclusion of these conditions on an IEP is of great benefit to educators as it affords them an opportunity to understand the condition underlying the disability determination. This allows for appropriate accommodations, modifications, and support systems to be implemented in accordance with the IEP in order to best serve these unique needs and reach the goals listed on the IEP.

While there have been requests to create a comprehensive guide for common accommodations for specific learning disabilities such as these, the IDEA does not provide this guidance. Instead the Department of Education suggests seeking assistance from other venues such as the National Center on Intensive Intervention, Center for Parent Information and Resources, and National Center on Accessible Educational Materials.

In recent years the Connecticut General Assembly has passed laws specifically pertaining to dyslexia as a learning disability. In Connecticut, dyslexia is now considered a “primary disability” on the standardized IEP form utilized by planning and placement teams throughout the state. Also, the Connecticut Department of Education is now responsible for providing teachers, boards of education, and parents or guardians information regarding dyslexia and how to detect and recognize the disability. While dyscalculia and dysgraphia are not yet recognized as primary disabilities in Connecticut, the guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Education suggests that they are conditions that should be disclosed in both eligibility determinations and IEP documents to assist educators in better serving the distinctive educational needs of students with these particular conditions.

Failure to Train Staff Properly and to Take Prompt and Effective Action Costs Michigan School District Dearly in Federal Title IX Peer-on –Peer Sexual Assault Case

Posted in Regular Education

Michigan Forest Hills School District reached a $600,000 settlement with a female student who sued the district in federal court alleging that she was sexually assaulted in her school’s band room by a male classmate, MM.  The female identified as Jane Doe was a 15 year old sophomore at the time of the assault and MM was a sixteen year old junior. Jane Doe claims that the school failed to protect her from sexual harassment after she filed her complaint against MM who was a prominent athlete in the school under recruitment from Division 1 colleges with a promise of athletic scholarships.

The school’s investigation of Jane Doe’s complaint was quickly suspended when the police got involved.  The district’s Title IX coordinator, who was aware of the complaint, took no action to investigate.  As justification for its alleged inaction, the school claimed that it had insufficient evidence to act, and that it needed to wait for the completion of a police investigation which might bring forth more evidence. The school maintained that its initial inquiries were inconclusive regarding the assault. The school district maintained that they acted timely and appropriately after learning of the allegations, but also maintained that a local detective assigned to the case told them not to conduct a parallel investigation of their own. The detective denied making the statement.

Many months passed before the completion of the police investigation with no further school investigation, meanwhile Jane Doe and MM remained in school together and in the same lunch, even initially remaining in the same classroom for some two weeks before a change was made to MM’s class schedule after a second female came forward alleging MM assaulted her at school as well. While the police investigation lagged on, Jane Doe alleged that she was subject to a hostile school environment. She alleged that during the school year she was bullied on line by peers, pushed in the hallways at school into lockers, had her books thrown across the hallway at her, was continually taunted and harassed by the perpetrator and by the perpetrators’ friends as well as fellow classmates while in school, after school, and at afterschool activities including being forced to leave a school basketball game when students chanted until she left. As a result of the sexual harassment, Jane Doe alleged that her education was impacted negatively as she lost classroom time, avoided class time by staying in the school guidance counselor’s office, lost interest in afterschool activities, and required mental health counseling and medication for depression and anxiety related to the stress of attending school. Jane Doe alleges that even after reporting the many incidents of harassment, the only intermediary action taken by the school was to tell MM to leave her alone and to tell her to report any future issues with MM. Jane Doe and her parents were never questioned after their initial school meetings, not even after a second female student was allegedly assaulted two weeks after Jane Doe’s alleged assault. At various points, Jane Doe’s parents expressed concerns about the continued harassment of their daughter and shared copies of harassing messages received by her online, but their expressed concerns went largely unresponded to by the school.  No disciplinary action was taken against the male until the police investigation closed and a plea was negotiated at the end of the school year some eleven months after the alleged assault occurred.

A federal  district court judge granted summary judgment, in part, in favor of the female student on her §1983 equal protection claim. The female had alleged that the district failed to train its employees on how to handle sexual complaints notwithstanding the obvious risk that an untrained response would be deficient.  The district admitted that school district did not provide any training on responding to sexual assault claims.  When asked, the Title IX coordinator, the school district principal, nor the Superintendent was certain if Title IX applied to sexual assault situations. The judge ruled that the school failed to train staff on how to properly handle Title IX complaints of sexual assault and harassment and that training would have prevented Jane Doe’s injuries, at least to some extent. The district court judge reasoned that had the school immediately removed contact between the female and the male, it was very likely that the female would not have experienced ongoing harassment for the remainder of the school year. Under the parties’ settlement agreement, Forest Hills Public Schools will sponsor Title IX training as part of an existing Global Learning Initiative program.

This case highlights the need for schools to conduct their own Title IX investigations even when a police investigation is under way.  It will not suffice under the law for a school to report an incident to the police and to take no further investigatory or responsive action to protect complainants. Further, the ruling emphasizes how important it is that key school personnel receive appropriate and ongoing training regarding Title IX and its requirements under federal law. School employees should also be familiar with district board polices setting forth procedures for Title IX complaints, investigation, and recommended remedies including intermediary measures to be taken.

Berchem, Moses & Devlin Partner Michelle Laubin to Speak on Discipline and Discrimination at CABE Board Member Academy

Posted in Announcements
CABE_logo

Discipline and Discrimination: It Can Be a Fine Line

Thursday, February 19, 2015

9:00 AM – 11:30 AM

Rovins Conference Room, CABE, Wethersfield

If you have a diverse student body, you are encouraged to attend this workshop and learn ways to avoid discriminatory charges in your district. Michelle Laubin, Attorney at Berchem, Moses & Devlin, P.C., and Karen Parks, Superintendent for Fairfield Public Schools, will:

  • Review the latest guidance from the Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education concerning its findings of discriminatory treatment
  • Discuss discriminatory treatments’ impact on students of color
  • Provide concrete suggestions for how to avoid such charges in your district

Register now using our online registration page or click here to download the registration form.

In 2014, The U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights reported “Black Students are suspended and expelled at a rate three times greater than white students.” They also highlighted suspension inequalities between students with disabilities and students without disabilities.

`