EdLawConnect Blog

In a decision of first impression, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has held that a public school employee is not immune from a lawsuit for disclosing a Suspected Child Abuse Report (“SCAR”) to anyone other than those specifically listed in the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (Penal Code §§ 11164, et seq.; “CANRA”). Additionally, public school employers may be liable for an employee’s negligent disclosure of a SCAR.

Once again, the California Legislature is considering making changes to the current teacher evaluation process set forth in the Stull Act (Education Code Section 44660 et seq.). One item of particular interest that is common to several of the pending legislative proposals is the use of pupil progress data as a significant part of the evaluation of teacher performance.

Senate Bill 453 (Huff) proposes, among ...

Concerned about an instructor’s behavior and teaching methodologies, a student complains through email to a college.  Is the instructor entitled to a copy of the student’s email in its entirety?  A county office of education deletes emails during the course of routine network maintenance.  Is a parent entitled to electronic copies of emails regarding a student?  These are just two of many scenarios that ...

On July 2, 2013, the United States Treasury Department announced that implementation and enforcement of employer mandates under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Act”) will be delayed by one year.  Until today, school district employers were preparing to be in compliance with the Act starting on January 1, 2014.  As a result of today’s announcement, the new deadline for compliance is ...

It is widely accepted that the time and cost to terminate a permanent certificated employee in California is excessive and presents an undue burden on public school employers.  Accordingly, the Legislature is presently considering changes to the teacher termination process.  While it is premature to speculate whether the changes under consideration will improve or further complicate the process, here is a brief overview of the existing process.

On May 31, 2013, the California Court of Appeal reversed the conviction of Karen Christiansen for violation of Government Code section 1090, which generally prohibits public officials from being financially interested in contracts they make in their official capacity. (People v. Christiansen, see decision here.) Because the Court concluded that Christiansen was an independent contractor, not an ...

The California Public Records Act (CPRA) provides for the disclosure of public records kept by the state, local agencies, school districts and community college districts, and county offices of education. On April 19, 2013, the Commission on State Mandates (Commission) adopted a statement of decision and parameters and guidelines regarding state-mandated reimbursement for certain costs local ...

The Supreme Court’s decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012) 132 S.Ct. 2566, settled any question surrounding the so-called “Individual Mandate” under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (“Act”). Accordingly, effective January 1, 2014, individuals, subject to limited exceptions, are required to be covered by a minimum level of health ...

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) introduced a new Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, on March 8, 2013, for immediate use, along with a new Handbook for Employers. The new form, which is identified with “version (Rev. 03/08/13)” in the lower left corner, features several new revisions:

• Expands the form from one page to two pages. The first page is to be ...

A plaintiff claiming permanent disability stemming from on-the-job injuries suffered a significant blow to his case as a result of deleting his Facebook account. A New Jersey federal district court ruled the plaintiff’s actions merited an “adverse inference” jury instruction, meaning the jury that will eventually hear the plaintiff’s lawsuit will be notified that the plaintiff intentionally destroyed evidence he believed would harm his case. (Gatto v. United Air Lines, Inc. (D.N.J. 2013) 2013 WL 1285285.)