Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Education Law Blogs -> BoardBuzz: NSBA's Daily Weblog
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Education Law
: BoardBuzz: NSBA's Daily WeblogSupreme Court to hear school case tomorrow
Tomorrow the U.S. Supreme Court will hear its first K-12 case of its current term, Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee. Details on the case, the lower court rulings along the way, and NSBA's brief to the court are here, courtesy of NSBA's Legal Clips. The local newspaper from the Massachusetts town where the case arose, the Barnstable Patriot, has a good article here, and USA TODAY here.
The question for the Court is whether Title IX, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in federally funded educational institutions, precludes a legal claim over the same discrimination that is brought under the Equal Protection Clause via Section 1983, a federal statute that gives plaintiffs a legal lever to sue public institutions and public officials for violating federal constitutional or statutory rights. What's at stake from the plaintiffs' standpoint is expressed on this Title IX blog:
The availability of both Title IX and constitutional remedies is important to sexual harassment plaintiffs like the Fitzgeralds because constitutional claims are not subject to the case law limiting liability to cases involving 'deliberate indifference.' Moreover, unlike Title IX claims, which may only proceed against institutions, 1983 plaintiffs may sue individuals who were acting 'under color of law' when violating the plaintiff's constitutional rights. Lastly, some courts have held that Title IX plaintiffs are not entitled to punitive damages, a remedy that 1983 allows.
That pretty well sums up, from the school perspective, what's really going on here. NSBA argues in its brief, which was joined by the American Association of School Administrators and the American Council on Education, that making a constitutional issue out of a peer-harassment case like this one is duplicative of Title IX, simply isn't necessary to make schools take such harassment seriously, and would have some serious downsides. In fact, NSBA argues, Title IX's protection is stronger than Section 1983's in such cases.
By the way, as upsetting as the harassment allegations against the third-grader were in this case (and they are), the lower courts specifically rejected the argument that the school district's response to them was one of "deliberately indifference." The police even investigated the alleged incidents but found the evidence was inconclusive.
Stay tuned.
Full post as published by BoardBuzz: NSBA's Daily Weblog on December 01, 2008 (boomark / email).
Selection of State Supreme Court Judges
How State Court Judges are Selected
California Supreme Court Proposition 8 Decision
Court Rejects Challenges to Proposition 8, but Finds Marriages Valid
Is Barack Obama a Natural Born Citizen?
Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz (Supreme Court): Does Obama meet the constitutional requirements to be President
Unwed Fathers' Rights in Adoption
Landmark Cases in Adoption Law Shape Law with respect to Unwed Fathers
Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Career Choices
Descriptions of law enforcement occupations
Heart of Atlanta v United States
Supreme Court Decision: Civil Rights Act Protected by Interstate Commerce Clause
Rutland School District
Double pay offered as part of class action wage dispute settlement, pending court approval.
School Racism
School District pays $250,000 in racial harassment settlement.
Student Harassment
Wichita School District pays $45,000 settlement for high school students' harassment lawsuit.
School House Abuse
Selwyn House School agrees to $5 million teacher molestation settlement.
Personal Injury
Appeals Court Upholds Congressional Legislation
Ebay Fined
French Court Sets Fine at $61 Million

Football Coach Asks Supreme Court to Hear Prayer Appeal
Big Week at Supreme Court for Employment Retaliation Cases
U.S. Supreme Court to hear prosecutor immunity case
why U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Gov. definition of money laundering was too broad
LC Will Argue Free Speech Case At Florida High Court









