Blog

Each student will be given monthly Legal Updates in Modules.  Each student wil

  Each student will be given monthly Legal Updates in Modules.  Each student will select a court case to report on.  The following format will be used to describe the selected court case: I. Citation II. Topic III. Issue IV. Facts V. Findings VI. Reasoning The report on this case should be clear and concise using at least 300 words as you describe this court case.    Cases: Abuse and Harassment High school football coach was engaged in a state action (An action that is taken directly by the state or bears a sufficient connection to the state to be attributed to it…football coach employed by a school district.) when he ordered players to assault a football referee, to subject the coach to liability under Section 1983 (civil rights). Note: The United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case back to the United States District for the Western District of Texas. Watts v. Northside Independent School Dist. (C.A.5 [Tex.], 37 F. 4th 1094), June 27, 2022. The United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and referred the case back to the Texas court since the school district was not liable. Texas law clearly established that the assistant football coach engaged in a “state action” when he ordered his football players to physically assault a football referee during a high school football game. Due to being a school district employee (under state law) the coach was subject to liability (not the school district) under Section 1983 (federal civil rights) for the referee’s substantive due process claim. Note #1: The coach was on the sidelines acting in his role as an assistant football coach at a public high school, and therefore, the coach could not escape liability by ordering his players to attack a football referee; furthermore, any reasonable football coach would have known that he was engaged in a state action when he instructed his players during a football game. Note #2: The two players who followed the demand of the assistant coach to “hit the ref,” stated that they followed the coach’s direction to hit the ref, knew what they did was wrong, but they did it anyway because of their trust in the coach. Note #3: The assault left the referee with “a turf burns on his forehead, a cut next to his right eye, and a large abrasion on his left arm. In addition, he received a concussion and experienced “post-concussion syndrome and an anxiety disorder.” Virtual learning program was a reasonable accommodation under ADA and Rehabilitation Act with respect to school district’s reduced COVID-19 restrictions. L.E. v. Ragsdale (N.D. Ga., 568 F. Supp. 3d 1364), October 15, 2021. The United States Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division held that a school district reasonably accommodated students’ disabilities with respect to reduced COVID-19 restrictions, and the accommodations adequately provided students with meaningful access to education, and therefore students failed to demonstrate the likelihood of success on the merits of their failure-to-accommodate claims under ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. Therefore, evidence did not support “injunctive relief” in the form of a temporary restraining order (TRO) or a preliminary injunction requiring the school district and school board to reimplement COVID-19 safety measures such as mask mandates, were provided accommodations included a robust virtual learning program, in which students were allegedly performing reasonably well, meeting their grade level standards, and earning high marks. Note: The plaintiffs were four students with disabilities who attended Cobb County schools. Their disabilities varied but included acute myeloid leukemia, hypogammaglobulinemia, Duchenne 3 Muscular Dystrophy, bronchiectasis (an airway clearance impairment), chronic severe asthma, and chronic bronchitis and pneumonia. Parent of public-school kindergarten student stated a claim under Title IX against school district for alleged sexual assault and harassment of student. Moore vs. Freeport Community Unit Sch. Dist. No. 145 (N.D. Ill., 570 F. Supp. 3d 601, November 8, 2021. Note: The court granted in part and denied in part. The case might be appealed by one or the other “parts” in the litigation, as the case now stands (sort of like a draw or tie). The United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Western Division held that (1) Under Title IX claims based on student-on-student harassment, schools and districts that receive federal funding are liable in damages only where they are deliberately indifferent to the sexual harassment, of which they have actual knowledge, that is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it can be said to deprive the victims of access to the educational opportunities or benefits provided by the school and (2) Parent of public school kindergarten student stated a claim for damages against school district under Title IX with allegations that the district subjected the student to discrimination in which the student was sexually assaulted by a classmate and, after the assaults, was sexually harassed by the classmate and others on a daily basis; although the school district had a safety plan, classmate was allowed to be unsupervised with the student, and student experienced physical and psychological arm from the assaults, which included behavioral changes, a urinary tract infection, missed days of school, nightmares, and sleeplessness, leading student to transfer to a private school, and parent reported continued harassment of student by the classmate, and others at school.