Ensuring the safety and security of students and staff is a priority at every school. However, school officials cannot forget
On August 30, 2022, the Southern District of Texas issued its opinion in Love v. University of St. Thomas, a case that highlights the significant burden that employees must overcome in the burden shifting analysis used by courts in employment discrimination and retaliation claims. In the absence of direct evidence of discrimination or retaliation, courts follow the United States Supreme Court’s McDonnell-Douglas framework to determine whether an employer engaged in illegal conduct. Under this framework, an employee challenging an adverse employment action must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation before the burden shifts to the employer to provide a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the action taken. Once the employer proffers such a reason, the burden shifts back to the employee to show that the stated reason is a pretext for discrimination or retaliation.
The post Just How Hard is it to Prove Pretext? SDTX Holds that EEOC “Cause” Finding and Allegations of Falsified Evidence are Not Enough appeared first on Educated Employer.
The recent teacher shortage has caused districts to get creative regarding schedules, student grouping, and staff assignments. But just how creative can you be when it comes to the employees in your special education classrooms? The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) issued guidance on this topic on October 4, 2022, indicating that proper credentials will be an area of focus as we continue to navigate the post-COVID era.
The post Despite Teacher Shortage, OSEP Says IDEA Compliance Requires Certified Teachers, No Waivers appeared first on Special Education Spotlight.
School nurses serve a vital role in supporting the health and well-being of thousands of children each day in the
Over the summer, we posted about the importance of and tips for successful IEP implementation and progress monitoring. This school year, we will post a series of articles focusing on the components of a great IEP. Today, we want to discuss an often-misunderstood related service: transportation.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires public schools to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to students with disabilities through the provision of special education and related services designed to meet qualifying students’ unique needs. The IDEA defines related services as “transportation, and such developmental, corrective, and other supportive services … as may be required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education.” In practical terms, this means that the ARD committee must determine if a student with a disability requires transportation in order to benefit from special education, and if so, the IEP must include transportation and the district must provide that transportation at no cost to the parent
The post IEP Spotlight: Transportation as a Related Service appeared first on Special Education Spotlight.
While we hope it never happens, sooner or later you may be faced with a situation in which a teacher, or other Chapter 21 contract employee, engages in behavior that warrants the employee being placed on administrative leave. Most school districts have adopted Board Policy DFBA (Local), which allows a term contract employee to be suspended with pay and placed on administrative leave by the Superintendent during an investigation of alleged misconduct by the employee or at any time the Superintendent determines that the district’s best interest will be served by the suspension. Often, however, it is hard for administrators, employees, or others to understand why the school must continue to pay a misbehaving employee. Under § 21.211 of the Texas Education Code, an employee who is under a Chapter 21 contract must be paid while on administrative leave unless the Board of Trustees has determined good cause exists to suspend the employee without pay pending discharge or in lieu of termination. This provision has been interpreted by the Commissioner to require districts to follow the termination procedures prior to suspending without pay. What this means in practical terms is that most school districts do not seek to suspend without pay due to this procedural burden and instead move forward with either the termination or nonrenewal process if it is determined that the employee has engaged in the misconduct. This often results in the district having to pay the employee for a lengthy amount of time while the legal processes are pursued. Recently, this process has been challenged and districts have attempted to place a Chapter 21 employee on leave without pay prior to the completion of a hearing. So far, districts have been unsuccessful in their attempts.
The post Misbehaving Teachers: Do We Really Have to Pay Them? appeared first on Educated Employer.
