ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Education Law Blogs -> BoardBuzz: NSBA's Daily Weblog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Education Law

: BoardBuzz: NSBA's Daily Weblog

Supreme Court to hear school case tomorrow

ADVERTISEMENTS

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).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0266 secs (new cache)