Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

Posts Tagged ‘schools’

Dad Loses Suit Alleging Abusive Coach

Chalk another one up to the judicial ref.

A judge has made it safe again for high school coaches to lose their tempers, tossing out a lawsuit that accused a coach of inflicting “emotional distress” on a softball player by calling her “a 2-year-old.” (Arcadia, CA, Apr.4)

Attorney Michael Oddenino filed the lawsuit in October, alleging that Riggio yelled at his daughter when she played on the JV team last spring. He named Riggio, varsity Coach Ed Andersen and the Arcadia Unified School District in the lawsuit. He sought $3 million for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligence, a civil rights violation, and sex discrimination.The suit alleged that Riggio “took advantage of his position of authority to engage in an abusive pattern of excessive intimidation and humiliation of the female players, frequently calling them `idiots,’ and belittling them for minor errors.”

Oddenino is a family law lawyer who specializes in child custody issues. Go figure.

Filed under: , ,

School choice, the special-ed way

Regarding our Mar. 24 item on demands for accommodation of special-ed students, which has touched off a considerable discussion in comments, Warren Meyer at Coyote Blog makes the important point that special ed represents one of the few sectors in which the legal system has shown itself to be open to parental demands for school choice — unfortunately in a way that is far more expensive than ordinary school choice programs, since the amount of money that “follows the child” is left dangerously open-ended. Call it “school choice for legally savvy parents” (Mar. 29).

Filed under: ,

“Extra-special education at public expense”

The amazing industry that has sprung up to advance parents’ demands that schools accommodate their “learning-disabled” offspring is an old story around these parts (see here and here, for example). Even so, the San Francisco Chronicle’s recent investigative report can provoke a gasp:

* Even though federal, state and other sources already spend more than $4 billion a year to subsidize the provision of special education in the state of California, school districts in the state still shift more than a billion dollars out of their regular school budgets to pay for accommodation demands that include “private day schools, boarding schools, summer camps, aqua therapy, horseback therapy, travel costs, personal aides” and dolphin therapy.

* Administrators at Woodside High on the Peninsula offered a 15-year-old with learning disabilities and anxiety “daily help from a special education expert” as well as “a laptop computer, extra time for tests — and an advocate to smooth any ripples with teachers. If an anxiety attack came on, he could step out of class.” Not good enough for his parents, who decided to send him to a $30,000/year private school in Maine. Their lawyer demanded that the district pay not only the tuition but also for the whole family’s repeated cross-country travel costs to visit him there.

* Schools routinely buckle under to demands they regard as unreasonable, not only to avoid the expense of litigation but because the law tilts against them; a single procedural misstep in the hugely complicated process can leave them liable for damages and hefty legal fees. Since secret settlements are common, taxpayers may find it hard to grasp the extent of the monetary hemorrhaging.

* “It’s a blank check,” said [Paul] Goldfinger, vice president of School Services. “The system is stacked so that one segment of the population — disabled children — has first call on funding, and the others get whatever’s left.”

Infuriating reading (Nanette Asimov, San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 19). (& see Mar. 31 post, where comments continue).

Filed under: , , ,

Lawsuit over Denial of Federal Financial Aid to College Students with Drug Convictions

Students for Sensible Drug Policy and the American Civil Liberties Union have filed a lawsuit alleging that the federal law which denies federal financial aid to any student with a drug law conviction is unconstitutional. Personally, I think the federal law is atrocious, and would vote to repeal it. But I think the prospects for victory in court are very slim. The SSDP press release points out several good policy arguments, but raises only two legal points:

The law punishes individuals twice for the same infraction. Affected students have already been dealt with by the criminal justice system. Taking away their access to education after they’ve already paid their debt to society is unnecessary. This violates the “double jeopardy” clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Commenters are welcome to correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think that the Fifth Amendment has ever been interpretted to prohibit governments from choosing to make persons with criminal convictions ineligible for welfare programs, including student aid for higher education.
Second, SSDP argues:

Putting up roadblocks on the path to education does nothing to solve our nation’s drug and crime problems; it only makes them worse. Forcing students convicted of drug charges to drop out of school makes them more likely to fall into drug abuse or commit crimes (thus becoming costly burdens on the criminal justice system) and less likely to become productive taxpaying citizens (thus reducing the nation’s economic productivity). Congress has no rational basis to attach student aid eligibility to drug convictions, especially since murderers, rapists, burglars, and arsonists can still receive financial aid. This violates the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment’s “due process” clause.

The first half of the paragraph is really a policy argument. The second half — that it is irrational to deny aid to a person with a misdemeanor marijuana conviction, while giving aid to a person with a felony rape or arson conviction — seems more plausible. In an article in the Journal of Contemporary Law, I have argued for taking the rational basis test seriously. But whether courts will do is uncertain.

Filed under:

“Serial” litigant told to pay $270K

If you drive your SUV into someone’s picture window you’ll be expected to pay for the damage, and — even in this country, at least in extreme circumstances — the same can hold true if you drive your lawsuits into them: “A federal judge has ruled that a Rochester School District teacher — who has been labeled a ‘serial’ litigant by district lawyers — must pay $270,000 in legal fees to the district and the Rochester Teachers Association. City school teacher Donald Murphy, who has been embroiled with the district in litigation for more than a decade, filed multiple frivolous actions claiming his civil rights were violated, U.S. District Judge David Larimer ruled.” (Gary Craig, “Teacher must pay $270,000”, Rochester Democrat & Chronicle, Mar. 14).

Filed under: ,

“Not About The Money” Files: Ronan Public Schools lawsuit update

Updating our Nov. 8, 2004 entry, plaintiffs’ attorney Gary Zadik made our favorite argument when asking a jury to award $1.7 million of damages against the school district for the parents of schoolchildren who cut class and died after imbibing a half-gallon of vodka.

“This case is not about money,” plaintiffs lawyer Gary Zadik of Great Falls told the jury in his closing statements Wednesday morning.

Members of the jury apparently took him at his word, because they awarded none.

The parents argued that if the school had called them earlier, they would’ve been able to find the boys, a claim that is somewhat weakened by the fact that their bodies weren’t found until three days after they died, as well as the fact that one of the parents was called. Justin Benoist’s mother testified that “she was an alcoholic, that one of her sons had recently died in a fire because he had passed out drunk at a party and failed to smell the smoke, that none of her surviving children remained in her legal custody, and that Justin at age 11 already had a probation officer supervising him because of behavioral problems.” (John Stromnes, “Jury finds Ronan School District not liable for drinking deaths of two boys”, The Missoulian, Mar. 2; John Stromnes, “Trial over boys’ drinking deaths opens”, The Missoulian, Feb. 28).

Filed under: , ,

Soda suits: Banzhaf browbeats school officials

More skirmishing in preparation for the expected lawsuit against soft-drink vendors over sales in Massachusetts schools (see Dec. 5, Dec. 7, Feb. 7, etc.), via a Boston Globe editorial (“Vending against obesity”, Jan. 30):

In advance of the suit, Washington lawyer John Banzhaf sent an e-mail to 50-100 school committee members in Massachusetts ”to warn of your inevitable involvement in these law suits as a named party or otherwise…”

A couple of years back, Banzhaf threatened to sue the Seattle school district for renewing a $400,000 vending-machine contract with Coca-Cola (Jul. 3, 2003). Prof. Banzhaf’s other doings, which have ensured him regular appearances on this site, include proposing lawsuits against parents of obese children and against doctors who fail to warn their obese patients about overeating (Dec. 3, 2004).

Filed under: , , , ,

Sexual harassment, ITOD

In The Old Days (ITOD for short) it was very unlikely that a six-year-old would draw a three-day suspension from first grade on grounds of “sexual harassment”, as one just did, says Ned Crabb of the Wall Street Journal (“Schoolyard cred”, OpinionJournal, Feb. 24). More: Wendy McElroy comments (“Sexual Harassment Policies Need Reform”, iFeminists/Independent Institute, Feb. 17).

Filed under: ,

California school exit exams

“If you’re passing all of your classes but you can’t pass the state’s high school exit exam–even after many tries and even though it’s based on 8th, 9th, and 10th grade skills–do you blame the school system that passed you despite your lack of knowledge or do you blame the test? A group of California parents and students have chosen the latter and are suing the state.” They’re represented by a lawyer from high-toned Morrison and Foerster, too. (A Constrained Vision, Feb. 20; Debra Saunders, “Passing the High School Test”, San Francisco Chronicle/RCP, Feb. 16; Ruben Navarrette Jr., “Lunacy in Our School Districts”, San Diego Union-Tribune/RCP, Feb. 19). Update May 15: judge rules in favor of plaintiffs.

Filed under: ,

Why they aren’t running the cartoons

The Boston Phoenix (“World of Pain”, Feb. 9) tells readers that “frankly, the primary reason” it isn’t going to run the Danish Muhammed cartoons:

Out of fear of retaliation from the international brotherhood of radical and bloodthirsty Islamists who seek to impose their will on those who do not believe as they do. …Simply stated, we are being terrorized, and as deeply as we believe in the principles of free speech and a free press, we could not in good conscience place the men and women who work at the Phoenix and its related companies in physical jeopardy. As we feel forced, literally, to bend to maniacal pressure, this may be the darkest moment in our 40-year publishing history.

Somewhere there’s probably an issue of vicarious/employer liability lurking in here — if printing the cartoons did lead to violence, the Phoenix’s owners might well end up having to pay. But of course the venerable alt-weekly’s stance is practically a profile in courage compared with that of editors, publishers, governments and university officials in many other places, including South Africa (bans publication of images), Sweden (reported to have shut down website carrying them), Canada’s Prince Edward Island (university confiscates student newspaper, edict forbids weblog comments) and so on (Michelle Malkin roundup, Feb. 9). Commentaries worth reading: Krauthammer, Kinsley, and, from a different perspective, a commenter at Andrew Sullivan’s. (More on the cartoons here and here.)

Filed under: , , , , , , , , ,