Archive for April, 2010

New Title IX Compliance Guidance

Monday, April 26th, 2010

By: Amanda J.  Sundquist

The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) for the U.S. Department of Education has issued new guidance regarding Title IX compliance for intercollegiate and interscholastic athletic programs. The new guidance withdraws OCR’s 2005 guidance and provides additional clarification on compliance with part three of the three part Title IX test. For help determining if your school’s athletic program is compliant with Title IX or how this new guidance may affect your program, please contact Amanda Sundquist in our West Chester office.

En Banc Rehearing on Free Speech Decisions Granted

Monday, April 12th, 2010

By: Amanda Sundquist

As discussed in my February 18, 2010 and April 12, 2010 blog entries on free speech, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reached conflicting results in two student free speech cases: Layshock v. Hermitage School District and J.S. v. Blue Mountain School District.  The Third Circuit has granted the request for rehearings before a full panel of the Court for each case, which will occur on June 3, 2010. It is unclear if the cases will be consolidated.

Contact Amanda Sundquist in our West Chester, PA office for more information on student free speech.

Municipalities and Developers: Take A Closer Look At Settlement Agreements

Monday, April 5th, 2010

By: Kimberly P. Venzie

The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court’s recent decision in BPG Real Estate Investors v. Newtown Township may cause developers and townships to more carefully consider whether settlement agreements are reaching too far. The ultimate result may be courts refusing to approve such settlements.

In the BPG decision, the Commonwealth Court determined that a settlement agreement between the developer and Newtown Township was too expansive because it included land which was not part of an original conditional use proceeding. The conditional use involved a 51 acre portion of property upon which commercial development was proposed. The developer appealed the conditions attached to the conditional use approval. Certain entities owning 168 acres adjacent to the developer’s 51 acres intervened in the appeal. The settlement agreement ultimately reached by the parties addressed the commercial development upon the 51 acres but also addressed development upon the 168 acres which were not part of the conditional use proceeding. The Court said the settlement should not have included the additional 168 acres, but then sent the case back to the lower court to consider whether to approve the portion of the settlement agreement relating to the 51 acre tract. You can explore media coverage about the case by visiting the Delaware County Daily Times.

For more information on how to draft appropriate settlement agreements, please contact Andrew Rau and Kim Venzie at our West Chester office location.