Page 1


THE FORUM June 2013

Volume 18, Issue 4

Tri-State News & Workshops


Tri-State News & Workshops


Title IX Update: Stereotypes Do Not Promote Athletic Equity


State & Local Education News


Best Practices from STANDING FIRM


Membership Map


In Brief: School Law Update


2013 Event Calendar

16th Annual Dr. Samuel Francis School Law Symposium and Special Education Workshop Tri-State, in cooperation with the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, is pleased to present the 16th Annual Dr. Samuel Francis School Law Symposium and Special Education Workshop on Tuesday, June 18, 2013, at The University Club. A group of new presenters will be part of the workshop this year, joining the familiar faces that have provided past audiences with valuable knowledge and important tools for handling legal and special education issues that all administrators face. During the luncheon portion of the program, Tri-State will honor Patrick Clair, Esq., Goehring, Rutter & Boehm, with the Distinguished Achievement in Law Award. Mr. Clair will be recognized for his years of service to local school districts. He specializes in labor and personnel law, including collective bargaining, disability, harassment, and other employment discrimination, capital leasing, software licensing, and other procurement, construction, real estate acquisition, finance and taxation, and student rights. Based on peer evaluation and nomination, Mr. Clair has been consecutively named to the “The Best Lawyers in America” list since 2007. Tri-State would like to thank the following individuals and their organizations for their contributions to and support of our program: 

          

TRI-STATE AREA SCHOOL STUDY COUNCIL Seeking ways to increase organizational capacity in schools through problem solving, technical service, and staff development so all students will be better prepared to make contributions to both our democratic society and the world community UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF EDUCATION 4302 WW POSVAR HALL 230 S BOUQUET ST PITTSBURGH, PA 15260 PHONE PHONE FAX

- 412.648.7175 - 412.648.3907 - 412.648.7185



Carl Beard, Esq., Andrews & Beard, Altoona Albert Lee, Esq., Tucker Arensberg, Pittsburgh Ira Weiss, Esq., and Jocelyn Kramer, Esq., The Law Offices of Ira Weiss, Pittsburgh Dr. Carla Claycomb, Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA) Sara Rose, Esq., ACLU of Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh Tammy Adams, South Side Area School District Jean Inskip, Bureau of Special Education, PA Department of Education Judy Pamer, ACHIEVA Patricia Andrews, Esq., Andrews & Price, Pittsburgh Don Palmer, Esq., and Megan Ott, Esq., Goehring, Rutter & Boehm, Pittsburgh Prof. Robert Harper, Esq., University of Pittsburgh School of Law

For more information on Tri-State workshops, email 

Pettigrew Named Rural Superintendent of the Year Mars Area School District Superintendent and Tri-State Executive Committee Member Dr. William Pettigrew has been named Pennsylvania Rural Superintendent of the Year by the PA Association of Rural & Small Schools (PARSS). This award is presented annually to educators who have made a significant contribution to the quality of rural education and improved student learning opportunities. Congratulations to Dr. Pettigrew both on this honor and on his retirement at the end of this school year. 

Title IX Update Stereotypes Do Not Promote Athletic Equity By Terry L. Fromson, Managing Attorney, Women’s Law Project, and Nancy Hogshead-Makar, Senior Director of Advocacy, Women's Sports Foundation Against the backdrop of the 40th anniversary of Title IX, a recently revived Pennsylvania case from the 1970s casts a spotlight on principles of athletic equity. In late 2012, the Grenens, parents of a young woman from western Pennsylvania, with support by the Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association (PIAA), filed a petition with the Commonwealth Court that asserts stereotypes about girls in an attempt to dissolve a 1975 injunction. That injunction was issued in Commonwealth v. PIAA, 18 Pa. Commw. 45 (1975), a case in which the Pennsylvania Attorney General successfully challenged a PIAA rule prohibiting girls from competing and practicing with boys. The 1975 injunction issued by the Commonwealth Court ordered PIAA “to permit girls to practice and compete with boys in interscholastic athletics.” The Court determined that the PIAA bylaw prohibiting such competition violated the Pennsylvania Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which prohibits sex discrimination. In doing so, the Court rejected the PIAA’s justifications for sex segregation in sports, which were that “men generally possess a higher degree of athletic ability” and that “girls as a whole are weaker and thus more injury prone, if they compete with boys.” Recognizing that individual females may be just as strong and just as skilled as individual male athletes, the Court found that the justifications had no validity and affirmed that “[t]he existence of certain characteristics to a greater degree in one sex does not justify classification by sex rather than by the particular characteristic.” Recently, the Grenens and PIAA have resurrected old stereotypical arguments that the Commonwealth Court rejected in 1975. Arguing that girls are weaker and more injury prone, the Grenens and PIAA assert that girls will be hurt if they compete with boys. The circumstances differ — in 1975 the girls were being denied the opportunity to participate on boys teams, whereas now the Grenens and PIAA are trying to keep boys off the girls’ teams — but the stereotypes and justifications they raise are the same. Thus, the result under the law should be the same. The Pennsylvania ERA does not allow laws or rules based on average differences between the sexes. Boys and girls

are not uniquely different in the physical factors that affect athletic skill. In fact, more physical variability exists within a sex than between sexes. Furthermore, there is no evidence that girls are at greater risk if they play with boys. Girls and boys get injured in sport, whether they are playing against or with athletes of the same sex or not. To the extent that factors such as height, weight, or strength pose safety concerns, steps can be taken under existing law to equitably address that risk based on those particular characteristics, rather than resorting to stereotypical assumptions about whole genders. Moreover, if a school were able to show that their female students were not receiving equal athletic opportunities and that boys were displacing girls on a girls’ team, the injunction would not prohibit a school from restricting boys from participation on that team. Safety in sport and the expansion of girls’ athletic opportunities are both essential. Schools must do more to make sure competitions are evenly matched and keep our children safe. They also must do more to abide by their legal obligation to provide equal opportunities for female athletes. Allowing sex segregation based on harmful stereotypes, however, is not the answer.   Women's Law Project Western Pennsylvania 401 Wood Street, Suite 1020, Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 281-2892, Women’s Sports Foundation (800) 227-3988,

Legal & Policy Issues Facing School Administrators in 2013-2014 September 24, 2013, Westminster College October 1, 2013, Intermediate Unit 1 Join

Dr. Joseph Dimperio, JD, Dr. Chester Kent, JD, & Dr. Lawrence Korchnak for presentations of and discussions on important legal issues Email for more info.

The Forum 2

State & Local Education News New Secretary of Education Nominated by Gov. Corbett Pennsylvania will have a new Secretary of Education beginning June 1st, when Dr. William Harner will take over as Acting Secretary until confirmed by the Pennsylvania Senate. Harner has served as the superintendent of the Cumberland Valley School District since 2008. Ronald Tomalis leaves his post to become Special Adviser to the Governor on Higher Education. The 56-year-old Harner graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. He served in command, teaching, and staff positions at West Point and Chief of Policy & Strategy, U.S. Forces Korea in Seoul. He retired with the rank of lieutenant colonel and has a doctorate in educational leadership as well as a master’s degree in education supervision and human resources from the University of South Carolina. Harner worked as a middle school and high school principal before he was named school superintendent for the Greenville County Schools in Greenville, S.C. Harner has served school districts in Gainesville, Georgia, Toledo, Ohio, and Philadelphia, and then was named deputy superintendent for the Recovery School District of New Orleans, where he oversaw the reopening of nine school buildings in the post-Katrina area. He returned to Pennsylvania in 2008. Many are applauding Gov. Corbett’s selection of Harner, including the Pennsylvania School Board Association, who site his time spent as an administrator as a welcome change. "Dr. Harner brings years of field experience leading schools and school systems in a wide array of educational environments across the state and the nation," said PSBA Interim Executive Director Stuart Knade. "His energy and enthusiasm for education and the students of Pennsylvania are contagious. Dr. Harner is a respected leader in Pennsylvania's education community with the ability to foster open dialog with school districts, career and technology centers, intermediate units and other school entities in the commonwealth. The association members and leadership look forward to working with Dr. Harner in his new role as nominee for secretary of education." 

Annual NCAA Update Fall 2013, Petersen Events Center Join Tri-State, Pitt Athletics, and WPIAL for updates on NCAA rules for initial eligibility, NCAA Eligibility Center requirements, non-traditional coursework, recruiting, and other hot topics. Hear about WPIAL bylaw updates and AD issues. Look for more information in your inbox in August.

Regional Chief Administrator Changes Congratulations to the following new and new-todistrict superintendents and directors: Dr. Eric Rosendale, Beaver Valley I.U. Mr. Nicholas Perry, Central Valley School District Mr. Terry Struble, Clearfield Area School District Mr. Aaron Thomas, Cornell School District Dr. Gennaro Piraino, Franklin Regional School District Dr. Nina Zetty, Gateway School District Dr. Michael Bjalobok, Highlands School District Dr. James Budzilek, Mars Area School District Dr. Joseph Guarino, New Brighton Area School District Dr. Darby Copeland, Parkway West CTC Dr. Michael Panza, West Jefferson Hills School District Best wishes to the following on their retirements: Mr. Thomas Zelesnik, Beaver Valley I.U. Dr. Daniel Matsook, Central Valley School District Ms. Donna Belas, Cornell School District Dr. Emery D'Arcangelo, Franklin Regional Dr. William Pettigrew, Mars Area School District Dr. Donna Milanovich, Moon Area School District Dr. David Pietro, New Brighton Area School District Mr. Jack Highfield, Parkway West CTC Dr. Joseph Iannetti, Western Area CTC Look for new administrators to be announced in the coming months for the following districts and organizations:

The Forum 3

Falk Laboratory School Leechburg Area School District Moon Area School District Mt. Pleasant Area School District Midwestern I.U. Peters Township School District South Side Area School District Western Area CTC

State & Local Education News Nominations sought for 2013 ‘Awards of Achievement’ and Superintendent of the Year Now more than ever it is important to recognize the good work that school administrators do in leading school systems, raising student achievement, and advocating for public education.

2013 Awards of Achievement The PA Association of School Administrators (PASA) is seeking nominations for three special awards recognizing leadership in public education in three areas: SERVICE TO THE PROFESSION: Demonstrating commitment to excellence as evidenced through notable service to the profession. Examples of this service may include developing an effective professional development program for school district educators, demonstrating leadership in administrator preparation programs, school study councils or other professional development efforts, or promoting the education profession through research, writing or organizational service. Sponsored by: Horace Mann INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP: Demonstrating commitment to excellence in teaching and learning by developing, nurturing and supporting exemplary programs that support the academic achievement of particular student populations, enrich student learning in a particular content area, or implement strategies to enhance student learning across the curriculum. Sponsored by: Lincoln Investment Planning, Inc. LEADERSHIP IN PUBLIC EDUCATION: Demonstrating commitment to school administration as a profession, to public education and to one's colleagues, including participation in and leadership with the Pennsylvania Association of School Administrators. Sponsored by: PLGIT/PFM All PASA members are eligible for these awards. The PASA Awards of Achievement will be presented on October 17 at the PASA/PSBA Annual Conference. The deadline for nominations is July 1. For more information on the Awards of Achievement, visit

Superintendent of the Year PASA and the American Association of School Administrators are now seeking nominations for 2014 Pennsylvania Superintendent of the Year. The Superintendent of the Year program, sponsored by ARAMARK Education, VALIC and AASA, pays tribute to the talent and vision of the men and women who lead the nation’s public schools. To be considered for National Superintendent of the Year, a Pennsylvania applicant must first be selected as a PA Superintendent of the Year by PASA. Any superintendent, chancellor or top leader of a school system who plans to continue in the profession may be nominated. The program is designed to recognize the outstanding leadership of active, front-line superintendents. It is not recognition of service at retirement or a program to reward current state or national leaders. The deadline for submitting formal, online nominations for the Pennsylvania Superintendent of the Year is July 30, 2013. Nomination information for the 2014 National Superintendent of the Year program is available on the AASA web site at 

Best Practices for Training Employees about Partner Violence Courtesy of STANDING FIRM: The Business Case to End Partner Violence There are many uncomfortable conversations that school leaders have with their emp lo y ees. Discussing the subject of intimate partner violence could be one of the most challenging, but one of the most important, since it could help save a life. Paying attention to the issue goes beyond a school district caring about workers. It makes good business sense. Violence at home costs employers money. Every year, partner violence (PV) costs employers $727.8 million in lost productivity and $5.8 billion in health-related costs. Additionally, more than 7.9 million paid workdays are lost each year due to PV. (US

Continued on page 8 The Forum 4

Tri-State Area School Study Council Membership Map As the close of the 2012-2013 school year arrives, Tri-State would like to send a warm thank you to all of our member districts for their continued support of our organization. The map below shows the geographical spread of our membership – we are grateful to have members from all 8 local IUs. We do hope you will renew your membership again this year and hope to be of service. Thank you! Intermediate Unit 3

Intermediate Unit 4

Allegheny IU 3 Allegheny Valley Avonworth Baldwin-Whitehall Bethel Park Brentwood Borough Carlynton Chartiers Valley Cornell Deer Lakes East Allegheny Elizabeth Forward Fox Chapel Area Gateway Hampton Township Highlands Keystone Oaks McKeesport Area Moon Area Northgate North Hills Parkway West CTC Plum Borough Quaker Valley Riverview South Fayette Township Sto-Rox Upper St. Clair West Allegheny West Jefferson Hills West Mifflin Area

Ellwood City Area

Intermediate Unit 6

Farrell Area

Franklin Area

Jamestown Area Mars Area Midwestern IU 4 Seneca Valley Sharon City Sharpsville Area South Butler County Union Area Wilmington Area

Intermediate Unit 27 Albert Gallatin Area Aliquippa Beaver Area

Intermediate Unit 1

Intermediate Unit 7

Beaver County CTC

Avella Area

Beaver Valley IU 27

Belle Vernon Area


Big Beaver Falls Area

Greater Latrobe


Brownsville Area Burgettstown Area

Greensburg Salem

Central Valley


Midland Borough

Carmichaels Area

New Brighton Area


South Side Area


Western Beaver County

Connellsville Area Fort Cherry Intermediate Unit 1

Allegheny County


Community College of Allegheny County

Peters Township

Diocese of Pittsburgh Catholic Schools


Falk School Urban Pathways Charter School

Washington Western Area CTC

Other Members Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School PA Distance Learning Charter School

The Forum 5

Hempfield Area Mount Pleasant Area Penn-Trafford Southmoreland Yough

Intermediate Unit 8 Blacklick Valley Cambria Heights Central Cambria Conemaugh Valley Ferndale Area North Star Penn Cambria Shade-Central City

Westmoreland County Dr. Robert Ketterer Charter School

Intermediate Unit 28 Apollo-Ridge Armstrong Indiana County Technology Center Leechburg Area Lenape Technical School Penns Manor Purchase Line United

In Brief

School Law Update

Leaders in Educational and Municipal Law

June 2013

TAKE NOTE: Special Education Updates By Jocelyn P. Kramer, Esq. • N  EW REQUIREMENT – HOMEBOUND – Pennsylvania’s Department of Education (PDE) now requires schools to request permission/ approval from PDE prior to initiating homebound instruction for a student with a special education designation. Approval is necessary through the Special Education ‘Students @ Home’ reporting system, including for reporting students receiving Instruction Conducted in the Home.

for recommending a new funding formula by September 30, 2013. The current formula is based on the assumption that 16% of the student population in every district is eligible for and receiving special education services. This 20-year-old formula is obviously flawed and results in painful inequities. The legislation pushes for a formula based on actual need and delivery and the separation of costs for special education based on level of service. We will update you after September 30.

• H  EARING OFFICERS REVIEWING CODE OF STUDENT CONDUCT VIOLATIONS – Letter to Ramirez issued by the U.S. Dept. of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) has clarified its position that a special education hearing officer has the authority to review whether a student violated the code of student conduct and not just the special education ramifications of the disciplinary action. This advisory letter clearly expands a hearing officer’s traditional role and is contrary to at least one federal District Court case from Hawaii. Watch for this the next time a parent requests an expedited due process hearing to challenge a unilateral removal or a manifestation determination. • P  ENNSYLVANIA PUSHES NEW FUNDING FORMULA FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION – On April 26, 2013 Gov. Corbett signed legislation creating a commission that is responsible

• DSM V BRINGS NEW WAIVE OF REQUESTS FOR SERVICES The planned fifth edition of DSM V(Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) was released May 22, 2013 and is expected to bring sweeping changes for schools. Separate autism spectrum categories were combined into one Autism category that is separated into degrees of severity (mild, moderate, severe). Rule out for severe depression and post-traumatic stress disorder resulting from bereavement was eliminated. Additional diagnosis were added, including, Disruptive Mood Disregulation Disorder (DMDD), a new diagnosis that describes most teenagers! There are also changes to ADHD diagnostic criteria which may expand diagnosis and eligibility. Register to hear Attorney Aimee Zundel ‘s Pennsylvania Bar Institute presentation on June 26 at the ‘Autism: Fitting the Pieces Together’ program in Pittsburgh (register online at or contact the Law Offices of Ira Weiss to request professional development for your staff.

Data-Driven Dismissals: Future of Employee Discipline Under Act 82 Many uncertainties remain regarding the imminent shift to performance based evaluations. You will need to work closely with your solicitor and special labor counsel to anticipate new types of challenges to ratings and dismissals. Beginning in 2013-2014, all classroom teachers must be evaluated using the new rating tool. Classroom teachers include professionals or temporary professionals who provide direct instruction to students related to a specific subject or grade level. The rating tool for classroom teachers will include 50% observation data and 50% student performance data. The PDE is required to publish the rating tool for classroom teachers and related regulations to assist in implementation by June 30, 2013. The regulations relating to teacher evaluation and the new rating tool will be published without any prior public review or comment and must be implemented by educational institutions (excluding charter schools) beginning next school year. Act 82 did not address many practical implementation issues. For example, the Act requires that all temporary professionals be rated with this new data driven tool, but a school will not have any student achievement data available for a temporary professional’s first semester rating and likely will not have sufficient data to support

a rating for at least two years. Similarly, Act 82 has defined classroom teachers and wrongly assumes that teacher level data is readily available for all professionals and temporary professionals that fall into this category. PDE has suggested that such practical problems will be addressed via regulation and accounted for in the adopted rating tool. The new performance based system raises a broad array of employee discipline issues. A dismissal under Section 1122 for incompetency or unsatisfactory teaching performance must now be based on observation and student performance. A rating that includes 50% data creates many new avenues for challenges. Many districts may want to explore bargaining an alternative system for disputing ratings and avoid traditional arbitrations. Or districts may need to have an expert on call to defend the statistical integrity of each individual rating at arbitration. How will your district defend these challenges? Join Attorneys Ira Weiss and Jocelyn Kramer for a discussion of dismissals under Act 82 at the 16th Annual Dr. Samuel Francis School Law Symposium and Special Education Workshop on June 18, 2013 at the University of Pittsburgh (to register, email

The Forum 6

H.S. Senior Suspension Challenged the District and the Court on ‘Notice” by Robert Max Junker, Esq.

As we approach prom and graduation season, school administrators are often confronted with discipline issues that need to be dealt with quickly. A recent Commonwealth Court opinion addressed the due process protections that are afforded to a student in a discipline case, particularly when prom and graduation are involved.

• If a suspension exceeds 3 school days, the parents and student must be given the opportunity for an informal hearing. • W  ritten notice of the reasons for the suspension must be given to both the parents and the student, sufficient notice of the time and place of the informal hearing must be given, and the student has the right to speak, produce witnesses, and question any witnesses present at the informal hearing. • A  suspension that exceeds 10 school days is considered an expulsion requiring a formal hearing.

Dissinger v. Manheim Township School District involved a senior who was suspended for 60 days at the end of school year which prevented him from attending graduation. The student attended a post-prom party at the high school where an assistant principal confronted him about his behavior. The student denied drinking and consented to a breathalyzer test administered by a police officer. The test indicated a .04% BAC. The assistant principal called the student’s father, informed the father that the student would be suspended at that time, and told the father to attend a morning meeting at the school. At the morning meeting, the assistant principal informed the student and his parents that the student was suspended for 60 calendar days for violating the anti-alcohol policy. The student could take his final exams and graduate, but he was forbidden from attending classes or participating in any extracurricular activities, including the graduation ceremony. After the meeting, the assistant principal sent a letter to just the parents confirming the suspension. The letter stated that a review of the assistant principal’s decision could be obtained by submitting a request within 7 days. The parents stated they never received the letter. However, before the end of the morning meeting, the father stated that he wanted to appeal the suspension. The school district scheduled a meeting with the assistant superintendent for two days later. There was no recording of the meeting with the assistant superintendent, but the assistant principal testified under oath. The student admitted taking two sips of vodka. The assistant superintendent affirmed the suspension. The father asked about a further appeal, and the assistant superintendent stated that he could obtain a hearing before the school board but risked receiving an even harsher penalty. The assistant superintendent issued a letter describing the 60 day suspension. The family filed for an injunction to challenge the suspension and argued that the school district did not follow the proper procedure to suspend a student for more than 10 days. The judge refused the injunction, the student missed graduation, and the family appealed to the Commonwealth Court. Our experienced readers have, no doubt, spotted the number of issues with the school district’s actions. The Commonwealth Court declared that there is “no air” in Title, 22, Chapter 12 of the Pennsylvania Code. • A  suspension may be given by the principal or person in charge of the school, but a student may not be suspended until the student has been informed of the reasons for the suspension and given an opportunity to respond.

• N  otification of charges must be sent to the parents by certified mail, at least 3 days’ notice of the time and place of the formal hearing must be given, the hearing must be recorded, and additional due process safeguards apply. These due process rights can be knowingly and voluntarily waived by the student and parents. The Commonwealth Court made it clear that the student was challenging his suspension from school, and not merely his exclusion from the graduation ceremony. The Commonwealth Court found that the trial judge erred by not considering whether the school district followed the required suspension and expulsion process and instead focused solely on whether the student could be barred from attending the graduation ceremony. Imposing the 60 day “suspension” required the school district to provide the student with a formal hearing. Moreover, the school district did not follow the proper notice procedures, so neither the meeting with the assistant principal or the “hearing” before the assistant superintendent could be considered a valid informal hearing. Thus, the Commonwealth Court found that the school district did not follow the suspension and expulsion process, the student’s suspension was not valid, there was no waiver, and the trial court should have granted the injunction lifting the suspension. Administrators confronted with a discipline issue that could impact prom and graduation must continue to follow the suspension and expulsion procedure contained in Chapter 12. These notice requirements, timelines, and distinctions between informal and formal hearings can be lost in the crush of making a decision in the moment that will have immediate impact on these important milestones in a student and family’s life. In the calm before the storm, administrators should review their understanding of the proper discipline procedure.

The Law Offices of Ira Weiss 445 Fort Pitt Boulevard Suite 503 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: (412) 391-9890

Fax: (412) 391-9685

Ira Weiss

M. Janet Burkardt

This issue of In Brief: School Law Update is meant to be informational and does not constitute legal advice. Should districts wish legal advice on any matter, they should contact their legal counsel or request a legal opinion from The Law Offices of Ira Weiss. Copyright 2013, The Law Offices of Ira Weiss

The Forum 7

Centers for Disease Control, Report released April 28, 2003. Costs of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in the United States.) Employed batterers use company resources to harass and intimidate victims. PV heightens workplace violence risk when batterers come to your workplace for the purpose of harming their partners. PV is responsible for onefourth of all workplace violence events. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, The Survey of Workplace Violence Prevention, released October 27, 2006.) STANDING FIRM: The Business Case to End Partner Violence alerts employers to the financial, safety, and human costs of partner violence on the workplace and workforce and arms they with tools for taking effective organizational action. What can employers do? Recognize the business case for addressing PV in their company; Respond by taking effective organizational action steps; Refer to available community services or school district EAP. Training is a key best practice action for employers. Victims and their coworkers generally will not make concerns known unless the employer makes it clear that senior school administration:


CALENDAR OF EVENTS 16th Annual Dr. Samuel Francis School Law Symposium and Special Education Workshop June 18, 2013, University Club Annual NCAA Update Fall 2013, Petersen Events Center Legal & Policy Issues Facing School Administrators September 24, 2013, Westminster College Legal & Policy Issues Facing School Administrators October 1, 2013, Intermediate Unit 1

 Recognizes partner violence as a life problem that is

  

 

likely to affect employees’ well-being at home and at work Is knowledgeable about PV and the dynamics that keep victims in abusive and violent relationships Is genuinely interested in learning earlier rather than later about employees who are victims Is committed to maintaining a safe workplace and to providing assistance when workplace threats from partners are an issue Will not target victims for disciplinary action if they speak up Has the willingness and appropriate expertise to help


Organizations that have solid training programs in place not only reduce the chance of harm to their employees, but reduce the liability for the organization if problems do occur. STANDING FIRM currently offers the following courses:  Senior Leadership Training: Building the Business Case

Costs and risks of PV are discussed and liability and security issues are identified.  PV Awareness and Response Training for Supervisors and Managers Managers learn how to identify victims/ perpetrators of PV and what to say and what NOT to say.  Staff Awareness Training Employees become aware of partner violence in the workplace and learn the best words and community resources to help co-workers.  Human Resources Specialist Training HR specialists are guided through policy development, possible employee accommodations, and FMLA issues. PV happens at home, but walks into your door at work. Companies interested in learning more about PV training should go to 

The Forum 8

Edgewood CC, Noon-2pm Monday, June 17, 2013

The Forum is a publication of the Tri-State Area School Study Council. Your comments and suggestions of topics for future publications are always welcome. You may contact us at: Tri-State Area School Study Council University of Pittsburgh 4302 Wesley W. Posvar Hall 230 South Bouquet Street Pittsburgh, PA 15260 (412) 648-7175 (phone) (412) 648-7185 (fax) Director: Dr. Diane L. Kirk, Associate Professor, Administrative and Policy Studies, School of Education, University of Pittsburgh The information in The Forum is for the general knowledge of the reader. For more specific information, rely on the advice of your solicitor.

Forum June 2013  

Tri-State's Forum Newsletter

Forum June 2013  

Tri-State's Forum Newsletter