videotaped friends at a cafe, egging them on as they laughed and made mean-spirited, sexual comments about another eighth-grade girl, C. C., calling her “ugly,” “spoiled,” a “brat” and a “slut.” J. C. posted the video on YouTube. The next day, the school suspended her for two days.

Now, before clicking the link, guess who collected the resulting $107,150.80. Right. Ken at Popehat thinks the judge decided the case in favor of the right party, more or less, which doesn’t keep the right party from also being a deplorably wrong party (strong language, invective, etc.)

Related posts

• YouTube, Flickr in peril? (0)
• YouTube users at legal risk? (0)
• YouTube user: Google wouldn’t let me into its partner program (0)
• YouTube takedowns (0)
• Wisconsin considers curbing “one-way” attorney fees (3)

As part of its plan to comply with a federal desegregation order now decades old, Tucson’s school district adopted racial quotas in school discipline this summer. Schools that suspend or expel Hispanic and black students at higher rates than white students will now get a visit from a district “Equity Team” and will be expected to remedy those disparities by reducing their minority discipline rates.

What? They can’t comply by collaring and disciplining a random selection of additional white students?

Related posts

• Quoted more on Sotomayor (6)
• May 26 roundup (2)
• Wildfires and land management litigation (5)
• Voters in Arizona (0)
• Vioxx coverage (and more) at Point of Law (0)

Related posts

• September 2 roundup (2)
• Wakefield, of autism/vaccine scare, struck off UK medical rolls (1)
• Update: Fields v. Allstate (1)
• UK religious insult bill (0)
• UK free speech, cont’d (4)

“It’s not as if I think Obama’s incapable of nominating someone who is more adventurous and more activist by nature,” said Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute. “Maybe we should save the all-out blast for when he nominates that one.”

I also have a comment on Ricci v. DeStefano, the lawsuit that arose from relatively blatant discrimination by the city of New Haven against non-minority firefighter applicants. I would not be surprised to learn that Sotomayor’s views on reverse discrimination differed widely from my own, but still note that it’s vaguely incongruous to treat as Exhibit A for a charge of judicial activism an instance in which the judge and her colleagues ducked a case.

Finally, my postings on the Sotomayor nomination continue at Point of Law, including an item on a Connecticut school discipline case where the nominee has drawn fire for (as part of a unanimous panel) siding with the school authorities. More: Jake Tapper, ABC.

Related posts

• School discipline quotas in Tucson (6)
• Welcome New York Times readers (1)
• U.K.: Woman’s hobby of filing bias complaints costs others dearly (2)
• U.K.: “Serial litigators cash in on ‘errors’ in job ads” (0)
• U.K.: “School ‘no touch’ rules to be scrapped” (1)

Related posts

• September 2000 archives, part 1 (0)
• September 1999 archives, part 1 (0)
• October 1999 archives, part 2 (2)
• November 2000 archives, part 3 (0)
• Microblog 2008-11-25 (0)

The mother of a former Creekview High School cheerleader has filed a federal lawsuit against Carrollton-Farmers Branch schools, arguing the district did not sufficiently discipline cheerleaders who she says bullied her daughter.

The lawsuit, brought by Liz Laningham, argues that the district discriminated against her daughter and “turned a blind eye” to the harassment. The lawsuit could result in a jury trial.

So far as I can tell from the linked story, the main element of damages appears to be that Liz Laningham’s daughter did not make the cheerleading squad in her senior year, after being a member in her junior year.  And there are the usual allegations of Facebook frippery, rumors and innuendos within the team, biased judging during senior year tryouts, etc. etc.

What I can’t tell from this Dallas Morning News story is what possible basis Liz Laningham’s lawyer could have for bringing this action in federal court.  While various civil rights acts prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, religion, disability, etc., none of those are named as putative grounds for the suit.  As for sex and age discrimination, presumably the victim and her harassers are all young women.  Does Title IX prohibit girls from being girls?

And does any girl, no matter how spoiled and entitled her mother has made her, have a right to lead cheers?

Related posts

• Lawsuit: school district was wrong to discipline cheerleaders over nude cellphone pics (3)
• Should cheerleading count as a sport? (5)
• School discipline quotas in Tucson (6)
• Quoted more on Sotomayor (6)
• Mean-girl YouTube video (16)

Related posts

• Cheerleading: Serious Business (5)
• Whoops: “DUI attorney explains her own DUI charge” (10)
• Who’s suing whom in the mobile business (3)
• When companies’ hot products are stolen (8)
• Washington state: can parents monitor children? (2)

Related posts

• March 2000 archives, part 2 (1)
• December 2001 archives, part 1 (1)
• September 1999 archives, part 1 (0)
• October 2002 archives, part 2 (0)
• October 2000 archives, part 1 (0)