BULLYING SUITS FAIL TO GAIN GROUND
Even as a new lawsuit seeks to hold the New York City school district liable for failing to reduce violence and bullying in schools, recent court decisions show how difficult it is for plaintiffs to win on claims related to bullying.

A group of parents and other guardians of students backed by an organization called Families for Excellent Schools is seeking class action status for their suit against the New York City system. The suit in Doe v. New York City Department of Education, filed April 6 in U.S. district court in Manhattan, alleges that the school system is not adequately responding to in-school violence, harassment, and bullying.

The suit says the alleged pattern of "acts and omissions" by the New York City system "reveal a custom and practice of deliberate indifference to in-school violence, creating a culture of indifference to continued, violent assaults against named class plaintiffs and others similarly situated."

The suit's claims are based on the 14th Amendment's due process and equal-protection clauses, as well as New York state constitutional and statutory claims.

Meanwhile, two federal appeals court decisions in recent weeks rejected efforts by students and families to hold school systems legally responsible for bullying by students.

On April 8, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, in Richmond, Va., ruled unanimously that a Maryland school district could not be held liable for the alleged bullying of a student with disabilities by other students.

A student at Aberdeen (Md.) High School identified as S.B. had attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and learning disabilities, and he was often bullied, "sometimes severely," the appeals court said.

"While we sympathize with students and parents who face school bullying issues, we agree" that "S.B. has provided no evidence that the [school district] acted with the deliberate indifference necessary to hold it liable for student-on-student harassment," the 4th Circuit court said in its decision in S.B. v. Board of Education of Harford County.

On March 25, another federal appeals court reached a similar conclusion that school officials did not respond with deliberate indifference to an alleged pattern of repeated bullying and sexual harassment of a Tennessee student.

In its March 25 decision in Stiles v. Grainger County, a three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit court unanimously ruled that the bullying and sexual harassment pattern, which it outlined in detail, was not met by deliberate indifference by school officials.

ASSEMBLY BILL 2242
The California Charter Schools Association has called AB 2242 (Assemblymember Patty Lopez) the first "anti-charter" bill of this year. As currently drafted, AB 2242 would prohibit charter schools that operate as non-profit organizations from having a sole statutory member, being a subsidiary of another corporation, being affiliated with another corporation or equivalent legal entity that has the power to control the decision making or governance of the charter school including, fiscal, operational, and educational decisions.

Property Tax Lawsuit Against Los Angeles County Assessor Could Have Statewide Implications for Charter Schools

In October 2015, the Los Angeles Leadership Academy and affiliated entities filed a lawsuit against the Los County Assessor’s Office, the Los Angeles County Treasurer’s Office, and the Los County Auditor-Controller’s Office alleging, among other counts, violations of the equal protection clause in the California Constitution.

Although the Leadership Academy, which is a charter school authorized by LAUSD, is exempt from property taxes pursuant to Cal. R&T Code section, they still must pay a variety of “special” property tax assessments that traditional public schools do not have to pay. As the lawsuit alleges: “This lawsuit has been filed because charter school students and teachers are being denied that promise of equal treatment. Based on an erroneous legal interpretation of what is known as ‘the public entity exemption,’ the Assessor, Treasurer and Tax Collector, and Auditor-Controller of the County of Los Angeles . . . have taken the position that - unlike all the categories of public schools described above - charter schools are required every year to pay certain types of property taxes, including special assessments, voted indebtedness, and ad valorem taxes assessed prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.”

Our understanding is that the lawsuit is being handled pro bono by the law firm of Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim, Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C. We will be watching this lawsuit carefully; a victory here could mean that charter schools throughout the State of California could also avoid paying these same types of taxes.

LAUSD Rejects Parent Trigger Application

We were disappointed to read recently that LAUSD has rejected a parent petition to take over a failing elementary school in South Central Los Angeles, reversing district policy and essentially asserting that no California school qualifies under the state “parent trigger” law. Parents of 20th Street Elementary School were informed of the district’s rejection in a letter late Saturday, the last day the district had to notify the parents. They had hoped to be able to take over the school and possibly create a charter through the state’s Parent Empowerment Act, or parent trigger, which has been used twice to help under-performing LAUSD schools.

Charter School Suspension/Expulsion Rates

No doubt you’ve read the news about a recent study that claims that charter schools suspend students at a much higher rate than non-charter schools, some of which have suspension rates north of 70 percent. The study’s authors claim that a disproportionate amount of those suspensions fall on black students, who are four times more likely to be suspended than white students, and students with disabilities, who are twice as likely to be suspended as their non-disabled peers. This study was authored by the Center for Civil Rights Remedies at the University of California, Los Angeles.

CRPE has blasted the report, alleging that "violates most of the research principles that are key for fair, accurate, apples-to-apples comparisons between charter schools and traditional public schools around discipline."

Brown Act and Website Posting of Agenda

Recent changes to the Brown Act now require public schools with websites to post meeting agendas online for 72 hours before a regular meeting. Recently, the California Attorney General made clear that the failure of an agency to meet online posting requirements for the full 72-hour notice period due to technical difficulties with its website, did not necessarily prohibit the meeting from being held and action from being taken. (__ Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. __ (Jan. 19, 2016, No. 14-1203).) (1)

The Attorney General concluded that while a failure to meet the website posting requirement technically could be a violation of the Brown Act, provisions of the Brown Act uphold agency actions if the agency has “substantially complied” with agenda posting requirements. The Attorney General reasoned that the more relevant question in this situation is whether a local agency has substantially complied with the posting requirements and provided the public with adequate notice in other ways. Thus, absent facts suggesting that the public is uninformed or misinformed about the meeting, the meeting may proceed despite the failure to meet the online posting requirement.

Uniform Complaint Policy Changes

All of our readers are likely aware that charter schools MUST follow the Uniform Complaint Policy procedures with regard to student fees.
New laws have expanded these requirements.
Specifically, AB 302 requires public schools, including charter schools, to provide reasonable accommodations for lactating pupils on campus. Complaints of non-compliance with AB 302 are filed under the UCP.

Further, two new laws (applicable to charter schools) expanded the list of CDE-administered programs covered by the UCP. SB 81 states that complaints related to Adult Education Programs and Regional Occupational Centers and Programs are filed under the UCP. In addition, AB 379 states that complaints related to Foster and Homeless Youth Services are filed under the UCP.