Bridge V. Okla. State Dept. of Educ., (U.S. District Court, Okla. Jan. 2024)
CLAIMS: This case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of Okla. Senate Bill 615, which was signed into law in May 2022. The law mandates that public schools separate the use of restrooms and changing areas based on students' biological sex. The plaintiffs, who are transgender students, argued that the law violates their constitutional rights, specifically the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972.
EVIDENCE: Okla. S.B. 615 required public schools to “ensure privacy and safety,” by requiring all restrooms and changing areas designed for multiple occupancies to be designated as exclusively male or female, as such gender is identified on each student's birth certificate. A reasonable accommodation could be a single occupancy restroom or changing area. The transgender students had been using the restrooms at their schools for the opposite sex from which they were biologically originated. With the passage of S.B. 615, the students were informed that they could no longer use the restrooms of the sex they identified with but were not biologically aligned with.
COURT HOLDING: The Court reminded that “Physical differences between men and women ... are enduring” and the “two sexes are not fungible” and that “sex, like race and national origin, is an immutable characteristic.” Further, separating students based upon biological sex such “that they are able to use the restroom, change their clothes, and shower outside the presence of the opposite sex is an important governmental objective.” “Understanding why is not difficult—school-age children are still developing, both emotionally and physically.” The Court also noted that the federal Title IX states that it shall not be construed to prohibit a recipient from providing “separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex”, so long as they are comparable. The Court determined that if it had held otherwise then it would be a “major safety concern” such that any biological male could simply claim to be transgender and then be allowed unrestricted use of any female restroom or changing area. The Court concludes that the law serves an important governmental interest and is substantially related to achieving that objective, and thus upheld the constitutionality of S.B. 615.
Arnold V. Weld County Sch. Dist., (U.S. District Court, Colo. Dec. 2023)
CLAIMS: Ms. Arnold, a former Superintendent, sued her school District and several members of its Board of Education, alleging that they unlawfully retaliated against her by terminating her employment following her complaints about discriminatory conduct by a Principal at the District’s Roosevelt High School.
EVIDENCE: In 2018, the District hired Arnold on a 3-year contract as Superintendent. During her tenure, Arnold was never disciplined, warned, or formally counseled about her job performance by the Board. In early 2021, Arnold received multiple complaints that a Principal had engaged in misogyny, and homophobic comments, and failed to address allegations of racism and bullying. Arnold informed the Board. In March 2021, a Board investigator found the allegations against the Principal to be substantiated. Around the same time, the Board received complaints about Arnold on several unrelated issues, but also including her targeting employees for supporting the Principal. Eventually, the Board decided to keep the Principal after issuing him a written warning. Arnold disagreed with the decision and criticized the Board. The Board eventually terminated Arnold.
COURT HOLDING: The Court analyzed that U.S. Code Section 1981 prohibits discrimination in the “making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.” And that it can include “a complaint of retaliation against a person who complained about a violation of another person's contract-related right.” A prima facie case for retaliation involves: (1) protected opposition to discrimination, (2) an adverse action, and (3) a causal connection between them. The Court premised that there are no “magic words necessary to qualify an activity as protected opposition; instead, an employee simply must convey to an employer his or her concern that the employer has engaged in an unlawful practice prohibited by discrimination law.” The Court ultimately agrees that there is enough evidence of Arnold acting in an effort to protect against the alleged discrimination by the Principal. With that finding, along with other analysis, the Court directs the case to go on to trial. Arnold wins and is allowed to move forward on all claims.
EDUCATION LAW 101 - SNIPPETS
Shellem V. Gruneweld, (Okla. Supreme Court, Sept. 2023)
An Oklahoma statute providing that schools could not require a vaccination against COVID-19 coronavirus as a condition of attendance to school did not prohibit school district from placing an unvaccinated student into quarantine if that student was symptomatic or tested positive for COVID-19. As such, school district retains statutory authority to exclude a student from the school premises if afflicted with a contagious disease.
Bailey V. State ex rel. Bd. of Tests for Alcohol & Drug Influence, (Okla. Supreme Court, Sept. 2022)
Evidence need not show an official factually intended to violate the Open Meeting Act before actions at public meetings are judicially invalidated due to noncompliance with the Act, under provision stating any action taken in willful violation of the Act shall be invalid.
J.W. V. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 10 of Dewey County, (Okla. Court of Appeals, Sept. 2021)
Governmental Tort Claims Act (GTCA), which provided exemptions from liability to government for certain discretionary acts, did not immunize acts of district employees when involved in the daily execution of district's anti-bullying policy. Rather, a school district can be held liable for the negligence of its employees who are implementing a school district policy.
