to keep a proper lookout enabling him to see the boy sooner. Te boy was seriously injured. In a Connecticut case decided in April, a motorist hit a student as she crossed the street with her brother so that he could board the waiting school bus. Te complaint alleged that the driver failed: (1) to activate her stopping signal system; (2) to park her bus adjacent to the plaintiff ’s residence; and (3) to warn the plaintiff adequately of oncoming vehicles. She also claims that the bus company was liable because it failed to train and supervise the driver. Te court held that
it would be reasonably foreseeable to a bus driver in this situation that anyone crossing the street would be subject to danger by approaching vehicles. Te foreseeability of this danger is heightened if, as alleged,
a bus driver fails to activate the statutorily-mandated stopping signal system. And, in February, a
Louisiana school bus driver made an illegal turn into an intersection and into the path of a truck. Te truck driver and his passenger were injured when the truck driver took evasive action to avoid hitting the bus, lost control of the vehicle upon hitting gravel, and landed in a ditch.
3.
BULLYING: A CONTINUED
CONCERN A new study released in
November by the University of Virginia shows a signifi- cantly higher dropout rate in schools with high levels of teasing and bullying. While a number of students most severely impacted take to the courts, cases decided this year are notable for what they reveal about the
complexity of litigation when a school district al- legedly turns a blind eye to bullying and harassment. A June 12 decision In the Matter of Ithaca City School District v. New York State Division of Human Rights likely will pro- long litigation by “Epi,” a middle-school student at the time, who had allegedly been the victim of exten- sive and vicious racially motivated harassment by students on the bus and at school. Te vice principal admitted that the bus was a “hell hole,” and that the two-day suspensions he levied on repeat offenders who threatened her were “meaningless.” Her mother was rebuffed at every at- tempt to help her daughter. An administrative law judge from the State Division of Human Rights (SDHR) awarded large sums to both Epi and her mother. Although the rul- ing was reduced, the appel- late court allowed a $50,000 award to Epi’s mother and a $200,000 award to Epi to stand. But the June 12 decision this year was a de- termination that the SDHR did not have jurisdiction to remedy the “deplorable” attacks. Te court reminded the plaintiffs of their poten- tial remedies under federal and state law. Doe v. Trico Community
School District No. 176, de- cided in Illinois on March 12 involved name-calling and physical attacks on the school bus by one elementary school student against another. Although the victim’s federal lawsuit alleged harassment on the basis of gender, and acknowledgement by the court that the impact on her was clearly traumatic, her case failed. Te court
said that the abuse was not sexual but rather “run- of-the-mill hitting and pinching that unfortunately occurs on elementary school buses all too often,” there was no evidence that the district was aware of any- thing more than an example of “the kind of dizzying array of immature behavior by students common in elementary schools,” and the district’s response to the behavior was not clearly unreasonable.
4.
A VARIETY OF CASES AND
ISSUANCE OF EEOC PUBLICATIONS ARE REMINDERS OF “RED FLAGS” IN EMPLOYMENT SITUATIONS
In many districts and
companies, school transpor- tation supervisors must have expertise beyond the school bus: Tey serve as employers and personnel managers too. As I write this article, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s web-based “newsroom” lists recent cases in the areas of male-on-male sexual harassment, pregnancy discrimination, heterosexual harassment, religious dis- crimination, disability dis- crimination, and retaliation. Te dollar amounts involved range from $55,000 to nearly $5 million. Represen- tative cases in employment discrimination in 2012 involving school transporta- tion concern disability-dis- crimination and retaliation. A Montana case involv-
ing non-school transporta- tion (BSNF v. Feit, July 6) is likely to influence judges elsewhere. Te question is whether a school district or contractor unfairly treated a school bus driver who is æ
www.stnonline.com 47
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56