Publication Sneak Peek: School Law Review This segment features content from other AAEA publications. School Law Review is a quarterly publication available to districts on a subscription basis. The following content can be found in the December 2021 edition.
RECENT COURT DECISIONS CONCERNING STUDENTS H.U. v. Northampton Area Sch. Dist., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (October 15, 2021) The parents of a female special needs student assaulted by a male student in a school vehicle sued the district claiming it violated Title IX by failing to protect her from the male student who had a history of violent contact with his peers. The court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the claim, holding that the due process clause does not impose an affirmative duty upon a district to protect students from the acts of another student. The court found that the student’s assault was not foreseeable, such that the school staff in the vehicle could not have anticipated or prevented the assault. Doe v. Town of Madison, Connecticut Supreme Court (July 30, 2021) Three high school students sued the district and several staff members for damages resulting from their sexual abuse by a teacher based on allegations that the district and staff breached their mandatory duty to report suspicions of child abuse. The district argued that it did not breach its reporting duty because it had no reasons to suspect abuse by the teacher, who had a clean record, was held in high regard by the school community and was known for her professionalism, and there were no
witnesses to any inappropriate actions with students. The court affirmed the dismissal of the case, holding that the students presented no evidence that anyone in the district had any reason to suspect that either the students were being abused or that the teacher was culpable. Dayes v. Watertown City Sch. Dist., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York (September 27, 2021) The parents of an African-American 4th grade student claimed that a teacher’s mock slave auction during a lesson on slavery in social studies class violated the child’s constitutional rights. The lesson had the teacher conducting the auction, using black students as slaves and white students as “masters.” The district countered that the claims should be dismissed because the parents failed to establish that any school official had knowledge of or participated in the lesson. The court dismissed the claim, holding that the parents’ failure to even allege, much less offer evidence, that school officials knew or participated in the lesson made it impossible for the parents to prove the district engaged in conscience-shocking exercises of power or deliberate indifference. continued
11
