A recent Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision should serve to remind schools of the importance of engaging in the “interactive process” with employees
who may request work-related accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and comparable state laws.

In this case, the plaintiff was a special education teacher living with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).  The School District that employed her became aware of her diagnosis when she requested a leave of absence and transfer to another school due to a deteriorating relationship with the school principal that led to a PTSD relapse. Her requests were granted, and the teacher was transferred to teach in a program for children with learning disabilities as well as behavioral and emotional disorders.

The Supreme Court of the United States somewhat unexpectedly agreed on Oct. 28, 2016, to take on the question of whether Title IX requires public school districts to allow transgender students to use single-sex restrooms corresponding to their gender identity rather than that of their birth sex. The issue has generated widespread controversy between the…

Tomorrow is the last day to submit comments to the Department of Justice (the DOJ) in response to the 123 questions the DOJ posed in its supplemental advance notice of proposed rulemaking (SANPRM) regarding the regulation of web accessibility under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The SANPRM was released in May 2016, after the DOJ previously elicited comments on this issue back in 2010.

The United States Education and Justice Departments recently released companion Dear Colleague Letters providing guidance on implementing School Resource Officers (“SROs”). In those letters, the Departments explained how school districts should use memoranda of understanding (“MOUs”) with local law enforcement agencies in order to clarify their expectations for SROs. Among other things, the MOUs should require training for officers working in schools and should explicitly state that their proper role is not to administer day-to-day discipline. This guidance comes in response to media scrutiny on situations involving SROs, like the infamous case last year in which a video of a sheriff’s deputy throwing a high school student out of her chair attracted nationwide attention.

On Friday, the U.S. Department of Education (the “Department”) released guidance regarding services and resources for English learners (“ELs”) to be provided under the Every Student Succeeds Act (“ESSA”). ELs are among the fastest-growing populations in public schools in the United States, making up nearly 10 percent of the student population nationwide. A growing concern for the Department is the graduation rate of ELs; in the 2013-2014 school year, the high school graduation rate for ELs was 62.6 percent, which was almost twenty percentage points lower than the graduation rates of all students at 82.3 percent.

The FCC recently provided additional guidance about the kinds of school-initiated text messages and automated calls that are exempt from liability under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Below is a brief background of relevant portions of the TCPA, a summary of new guidance from the FCC, and a few open issues to consider.

The TCPA

The TCPA was passed in 1991 to curb the rampant and harassing telemarketing practices of the time, and established relatively high-dollar civil liability – $500 to $1500 per violation – as its enforcement mechanism. In relevant part, the TCPA makes it unlawful to use “an automatic telephone dialing system” to call (or text) any number assigned to a cellular telephone service, and allows the recipient to sue the caller if he/she received such a call. There are two statutory exceptions to liability under the TCPA:

  • where the recipient of the call provided his or her prior express consent to be called, or
  • where the call was placed for an “emergency purpose,” defined as “any situation affecting the health and safety of consumers.”

47 U.S.C. § 227 (b)(1); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(4).

Yesterday, the White House released a Fact Sheet: Ensuring Safe and Supportive Schools for All Students. The White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault in partnership with the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) announced additional materials to help school districts address sexual assault misconduct in elementary and secondary schools. These resources demonstrate the continued commitment of the Department and White House to addressing the issue of sexual assault on campus. It also underscores that the Title IX requirements to prevent and address sexual misconduct are not just an issue for colleges and universities, but also for public school districts as well.

The U.S. Department of Education (the “Department”) yesterday published proposed regulations in the Federal Register concerning the supplement-not-supplant requirement of Title I of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). This is the first time that the Title I supplement-not-supplant requirement contains an express legislative directive regarding how a local education agency (LEA) must demonstrate compliance. For this reason, the Department proposed the regulations to provide clarity about how LEAs can demonstrate that the distribution of State and local funds satisfies the statutory test. Based on the Department’s Fact Sheet, the proposed regulation would mean up to $2 billion annually in additional funding for the highest need schools and students.

On July 26, 2016, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) issued a Dear Colleague Letter and Resource Guide on Students with ADHD. The Dear Colleague Letter and Resource Guide confirm that, under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, school districts are required to provide equal educational opportunities to students with attention deficit disorder (“ADD”) and students with attention deficient hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”).

Labor unions are still able to collect “agency fees” (at least for now) following a 4-4 split decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Friedrichs v. The California Teachers Association, lead plaintiff and public school teacher Rebecca Friedrichs argued that a California state law violates the First Amendment right to free speech and association by compelling financial support for an organization with which she disagrees. This argument is premised on the idea that agency fees laws require public sector non-union member teachers – as a condition of their employment – to pay agency fees to the union that goes to support the union’s collective bargaining efforts; and because public-sector bargaining is inherently a political activity, non-union members are effectively being forced to finance political activity that they do not support. Friedrichs argued that non-union member public sector teachers should not be forced to pay hundreds of dollars each year to unions to which they did not belong, and in some instances did not agree with or support. Defendants – and unions who stood to lose significant funding – argued that without being forced to pay agency fees for collective bargaining work, non-union members would get the benefits of collective bargaining from the union (e.g. increased compensation, better benefits, etc.) without paying any union fees for these benefits.