The Oldest Blog
A first amendment blog for school administrators and attorneys.
The Essential Title IX Action Plan for 2023
We are barely into 2023, and it’s shaping up to be the biggest year yet for Title IX. The Department
We are barely into 2023, and it’s shaping up to be the biggest year yet for Title IX. The Department
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals could soon broaden the scope of employment actions that may serve as grounds allowing an employee to file a discrimination claim. Currently, Fifth Circuit precedent requires plaintiffs to show they experienced a discriminatory ultimate employment decision, such as being hired, granted leave, discharged, promoted, or compensation issues. Those who claim they suffered other discriminatory conduct that falls short of the “ultimate” action bar cannot pursue a discrimination claim. The Fifth Circuit, however, may be in the process of reconsidering and eliminating that requirement.
Federal law under Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)—as well as parallel Texas state anti-discrimination law—prohibits employers from discriminating against any person with respect to their compensation or the “terms, conditions, or privileges” of their employment on the basis of the employee’s race, color, religion, sex, age, or national origin. The Fifth Circuit’s decisions—unlike most other federal courts nationwide—have limited the availability of discrimination claims to circumstances when an employee experiences an “adverse employment action” that constitutes an “ultimate employment decision.” In other words, Fifth Circuit precedent strictly defines and limits the types of events that alter the “terms, conditions, or privileges” of employment. The Court has repeatedly held that “ultimate employment decisions” only include events such as hiring, granting leave, discharging, promoting, or compensation. A plaintiff who has not experienced one of these adverse employment actions cannot bring a discrimination claim in Texas federal or state courts.
The post The Fifth Circuit Reconsiders What Workplace Actions May Form the Basis of a Discrimination Claim appeared first on Educated Employer.
On January 31, 2023, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights released a fact sheet clarifying that diversity, equity, and inclusion training and similar activities “are not generally or categorically prohibited” under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The OCR fact sheet provides a list of activities, such as DEI training, training on the impacts of racism or systemic racism, cultural competency and other nondiscrimination training, and using specific words, such as equity, discrimination, inclusion, diversity, systemic racism, or similar terms in school policies, programs, or activities. It says that Title VI does not “categorically” prohibit such activities and that deciding if there is a violation requires assessing the totality of the circumstances in each particular case.
According to OCR’s press release, it issued the fact sheet “in response to confusion regarding the legality of [DEI] activities in schools.” Although OCR does not elaborate, stories about the importance of conservative activism around how school teach racism abound. The issues are similar in the Title IX realm, with a small but mighty contingent of challengers to programs for girls such as coding camps, scholarships, grants, and mentorships claiming that such programs, which are aimed to remediate past and current discrimination against women in various spaces, are discriminatory against men.
Does OCR’s fact sheet remove the confusion? Not even close. Keep reading to find out why.
The post Not So Fast: OCR’s Fact Sheet on DEI Efforts is Only Half the Story appeared first on Title IX Tips.
Research shows that students of color, boys, and students with disabilities are more likely to experience disciplinary removals than their peers. Indeed, black students with disabilities are more than twice as likely as peers to be suspended out of school or expelled, and the rates in Texas are even higher. Exclusionary discipline means missed instructional time and is associated with an increased likelihood of dropping out of school and interaction with the criminal justice system. These disparities are troubling both for student outcomes and for district legal liability.
This summer, we posted about comprehensive guidance on discipline and students with disabilities from the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services (OSERS). We continue to anticipate guidance from the Department of Education and Department of Justice related to student discipline and race under Title VI. In the meantime, we want to talk about the intersection of disability and race: significant disproportionality.
The post Disability, Race, and Discipline. What do you know about significant disproportionality? appeared first on Special Education Spotlight.
Why Kennedy v. Bremerton School District was Not the Case that Some Judges Thought It Was
The post A Tale of Two Football Fields: Kennedy v. Bremerton School District appeared first on The Oldest Blog.
It’s no secret that the current majority on the United States Supreme Court is focused on expanding certain religious liberties.
In Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, the Court significantly expanded religious freedoms in the First Amendment context when it held that a school district could not discipline a football coach for publicly engaging in prayer on the football field immediately after games. The Court’s opinion rejected decades’ worth of cases that had attempted to balance the competing rights secured by the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause, and also demonstrated the majority’s willingness to cherry-pick the facts of a case when analyzing religious freedoms.
The post LEGAL 101: The Standard for Title VII Religious Accommodations May Be Changing, and Every Employer Should be Paying Attention appeared first on Educated Employer.
