On October 28, 2010, I blogged about the United States Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights issuing a “Dear Colleagues” letter addressing school districts’ obligations in regard to bullying and harassment of district students. In December 2010, the National School Boards Association wrote a letter to Office for Civil Rights to ask it clarify its position on several points in the “Dear Colleagues” letter, where the National School Boards Association found there to be potential conflict with existing laws and cases.
On March 25, 2011, the Office for Civil Rights issued a second “Dear Colleagues” letter in response to the National School Boards Association’s request for clarification.
The issuance of the latest “Dear Colleagues” letter is particular timely for Pennsylvania school districts. In 2008, Pennsylvania adopted an amendment to the School Code which specifically addressed bullying. The amendment required school districts to adopt or amend a bullying policy no later than January 1, 2009. School districts are required to review their bullying policy every three years. The Office for Civil Right’s new guidance can be considered by school districts conducting their three year review of the bullying policy in 2011.
For assistance with reviewing and amending your school district’s policies on bullying or harassment for compliance with federal and state law, please contact me in our West Chester Office.
Amanda J. Sundquist
Amanda Sundquist is an associate at Unruh, Turner, Burke and Frees. Amanda practices in the areas of Pennsylvania Municipal and School Law, and Pennsylvania Zoning and Land Use Law. The firm maintains law offices in Malvern, Phoenixville, and West Chester Pennsylvania which serve the Main Line, and many surrounding communities such as Devon, Exton, West Chester, Ardmore and others.
Two middle school students have brought a First Amendment law suit against the Easton Area School District in the United State District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The District banned the wearing of “I (heart) Boobies” bracelets distributed by the Keep A Breast Foundation. The students were suspended for failing to comply with the ban.
The two main issues that will likely be examined in the case are: (1) whether the wearing of the bracelets is protected under Tinker v. Des Moines School District, which prohibits a school district from punishing student speech unless it creates a material or substantial disruption and (2) whether the bracelets are sufficiently lewd or indecent to fall within the exception created in Bethel School District v. Fraser to the substantial disruption standard. An injunction hearing is scheduled in this case on December 16, 2010.
For disciplinary issues associated with your school district’s speech or dress polices, please contact Amanda Sundquist in our West Chester office.
Amanda J. Sundquist
Amanda Sundquist is an associate at Unruh, Turner, Burke and Frees, Amanda practices in the areas of Pennsylvania Municipal and School Law, and Pennsylvania Zoning and Land Use Law. The firm maintains law offices in Malvern, Phoenixville, and West Chester Pennsylvania which serve the Main Line, and many surrounding communities such as Devon, Exton, West Chester, Ardmore and others.
The Neighborhood Blight Reclamation and Revitalization Act (the “Act”) – signed into law on October 27, 2010, effective on April 25, 2011 – empowers municipalities to take legal action against owners of deteriorating properties and deny municipal permits in certain circumstances. The Act specifically provides for action against property owners whose property is in serious code violation or whose property is determined to be a public nuisance. The Act also provides for municipalities to deny municipal permits (included building permits and zoning approvals) to property owners who have other property within the municipality in similar violation or who are behind in taxes or other municipal service accounts such as water, sewer or refuse collection. This tool allows municipalities to hold property owners accountable for existing delinquencies or serious violations on other properties. Property owners must remedy existing violations and/or delinquencies with regard to other property they own in the municipality prior to being granted municipal permits for future projects.
For a full copy of the bill’s provisions, click here and search by Senate Bill No. 900 – SB 900.
Kimberly Venzie
For more on this valuable new resource for municipalities, contact Kim Venzie in our West Chester office. Kim is an attorney at Unruh, Turner, Burke and Frees. The firm maintains law offices in Malvern, Phoenixville, and West Chester Pennsylvania which serve the Pennsylvania Main Line.
On October 26, 2010, the United States Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, issued a “Dear Colleagues” letter addressing school districts’ obligations in regard to bullying and harassment of students. The letter encourages school districts to review their bullying and harassment policies and practices to ensure compliance with federal law. Pennsylvania also has its own law pertaining to student bullying.
For assistance with reviewing and amending your school district’s policies on bullying and harassment for compliance with federal and state law, please contact Amanda Sundquist in our West Chester Office.
Amanda J. Sundquist
Amanda Sundquist is an associate at Unruh, Turner, Burke and Frees, Amanda practices in the areas of Pennsylvania Municipal and School Law, and Pennsylvania Zoning and Land Use Law. The firm maintains law offices in Malvern, Phoenixville, and West Chester Pennsylvania which serve the Main Line, and many surrounding communities such as Devon, Exton, West Chester, Ardmore and others.
Anthony Verwey discusses the “Public Officials and Employee’s Ethics Act” in the video below. Give Anthony a call if you have any questions about this Act at (610) 692-1371.
Anthony Verwey is a partner at Unruh, Turner, Burke and Frees. The firm maintains law offices in Malvern, Phoenixville, and West Chester Pennsylvania which serve the Main Line, and many surrounding communities such as Devon, Exton, West Chester, Ardmore and others.
In a matter of first impression, the Commonwealth Court has concluded that the Sunshine Act may be violated when property owners are permitted to participate in an executive session for litigation purposes related to a tax assessment appeal. In Trib Total Media v. Highland School District, at the conclusion of a regular public meeting, the school board announced it would meet in a closed executive session to discuss litigation and invited the property owners involved in the litigation to participate in the executive session. The local newspaper was denied access to the meeting, and filed a complaint alleging the school district had violated the Sunshine Act.
After a review of Section 708(a)(4), which permits an executive session regarding litigation matters, the Commonwealth Court found the plain language of the section indicated only attorneys and advisors are permitted to participate in executive sessions held for this purpose. If you have questions regarding your municipal procedures for executive sessions and compliance with the Sunshine Act, please contact Amanda Sundquist.
Watch the above video to find out why it is important for your school district to review student handbooks and school board policies for consistency. Give Amanda a call at (610) 692-137 if you would like to discuss your district’s student handbook and school board policies.
Amanda J. Sundquist
Amanda Sundquist is an associate at Unruh, Turner, Burke and Frees, Amanda practices in the areas of Pennsylvania Municipal and School Law, and Pennsylvania Zoning and Land Use Law. The firm maintains law offices in Malvern, Phoenixville, and West Chester Pennsylvania which serve the Main Line, and many surrounding communities such as Devon, Exton, West Chester, Ardmore and others.
This week’s budget approvals in Harrisburg included legislation that will have an effect on landowners, as well as state and local government entities across Pennsylvania. Senate Bill 1042, signed into law as Act 46, will extend the life of many land development and related approvals, if the approvals are in place on or after January 1, 2009. The extension period runs through July 1, 2013.
The extensions may not apply or will involve special rules as to certain state permits, for example some Department of Environmental Protection and PaDOT approvals. Unique provisions also apply to Philadelphia.
Local governments retain the power to suspend or revoke approvals for non-compliance with written conditions, and enforce conditions that are imposed as a pre-requisite in moving from preliminary to final plan approval. Developers are, however, protected in many cases from changes in law, regulation or policy during the extension period.
For a full copy of the bill’s provisions, click here and go to Article XVI-I, “Permit Extensions,” beginning at page 99.
For more information, contact Andrew Rau in our West Chester office.
The United States Supreme Court has issued a decision in City of Ontario v. Quon, which was discussed in my May 13, 2010 blog entry. At issue in the case was whether a member of the police SWAT team had a reasonable expectation of privacy in text messages transmitted on a SWAT pager.
Given the continuing evolution of workplace norms for communication technology, the Court declined to make a determination regarding employees’ privacy expectations for employer-provided technological equipment. Instead the Court determined the case on Fourth Amendment search law.
The Court determined, even if the employee had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his text messages, the Fourth Amendment was not violated in reviewing the messages. The Court utilized the “special needs” of the work place exception. The search was found to be justified as it was reasonably necessary for a noninvestigatory work-related purpose; the determination of whether employees were being forced to pay for work-related text message overages. The scope of search, the review of the transcripts, was found to be reasonable, as the review was limited to certain months and only to messages sent during work hours. Finally, the Court found the employee was reasonably aware that an audit of messages to determine whether the pager was being appropriately used was possible. The Court found the search to be reasonable.
While this case involved public governmental employees, the Court also concluded that this search would have been reasonable in the private employer context.
If you have questions regarding this decision and how it may impact your technology policies, please contact Amanda Sundquist in our West Chester office.
The United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in City of Ontario v. Quon, regarding whether a member of the police SWAT team had a reasonable expectation of privacy in text messages transmitted on a SWAT pager. The Court’s decision in this case may have wide spread impact on public and private employers and in the area of discovery. Please check back for the Court’s decision or if you have questions regarding this case, please contact Amanda Sundquist in our West Chester office.
Thank you for visiting our blog, make sure to add our rss feed (located below) to your favorite news reader. If you have a question about this area of the law, please drop us an email, we might even post your answer on this blog.
