EdLawConnect Blog

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of the people against unreasonable searches and seizures of their person, property, and home.  A recently-decided federal court case has explored the application of this important constitutional right to an emerging technological tool employed by schools and institutions of higher education: at-home examination proctoring.  The holding in the case (Aaron M. Ogletree v. Cleveland State University) could provide insight into how similar cases may be decided across the United States.

Education institutions face a number of challenges as they gear up for and start the 2022-2023 school year including, but not limited to, lack of adequate staffing in a number of departments.  These staffing shortages are common in technology departments, where staff and resources have been spread thin trying to meet the increased technology demands of remote workforces, virtual learning by students, and ever changing instructional technology.  To this landscape, the threat of cyberattacks is added.

While employers can realize significant time savings or improvement in the hiring process by implementing technology, employers must ensure that the selected technology is designed and implemented in a way that prevents discrimination based on protected classes such as disability, race, sex, national origin, color, or religion.  Employers may be responsible for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and/or the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) even if the discrimination is not intentional or the technology was developed by an outside vendor.

Students arrive to school with different resources and levels of preparedness, thus, the systems put in place to ensure each student succeeds must be different and take into account this underlying inequity. To put effective systems in place requires understanding of the unique challenges and barriers faced by students in the school community, and providing additional supports to assist students in overcoming barriers.  While educational equity does not ensure equal outcomes, educational equity is designed to ensure each student has an equal opportunity to be successful in school through the provision of appropriate and necessary support.

Flying somewhat under the radar (bad pun not intended), the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) approved new rules that went into effect at the end of December 2020 allowing drone operators to fly a broader range of missions without the need to obtain a certificate of authorization (“COA”).  These new regulations will have the force and effect of allowing school and community college districts to expand their existing drone operations.

Within the past month, California courts have issued rulings expanding the types of lawsuits that may be filed against website operators for failing to maintain certain accessibility standards.  Given these rulings and the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights’ recent trend towards focusing on website accessibility for local educational agencies (LEA), it is more important than ever to assess whether your websites meet industry standards for accessibility.

School districts are no longer authorized to grant permission to persons to carry firearms in school zones and on school campuses, closing a longstanding loophole under the California Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995 (Penal Code § 626.9). Now, with certain limited exceptions, no one is permitted to possess a firearm in a school zone or on a school campus

While some predicted agency fees would be invalidated through this highly publicized lawsuit, the Supreme Court’s 4-4 split decision today in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association means California’s mandatory agency fees laws withstand the most recent challenge.

As we commented last October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge from 10 California teachers alleging the mandatory ...

In a decision of first impression, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has held that a public school employee is not immune from a lawsuit for disclosing a Suspected Child Abuse Report (“SCAR”) to anyone other than those specifically listed in the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (Penal Code §§ 11164, et seq.; “CANRA”). Additionally, public school employers may be liable for an employee’s negligent disclosure of a SCAR.

A plaintiff claiming permanent disability stemming from on-the-job injuries suffered a significant blow to his case as a result of deleting his Facebook account. A New Jersey federal district court ruled the plaintiff’s actions merited an “adverse inference” jury instruction, meaning the jury that will eventually hear the plaintiff’s lawsuit will be notified that the plaintiff intentionally destroyed evidence he believed would harm his case. (Gatto v. United Air Lines, Inc. (D.N.J. 2013) 2013 WL 1285285.)