April 23, 2017

Student Safety: Screening and Background Checks for School Volunteers

student safetySchools, after-school programs, summer camps, sunday schools, daycares and other agencies that supervise children are responsible for student safety of children in their care. Failing to apply the same attention to ensuring that non-licensed individuals, such as volunteers, meet the same standards as teachers and other paid staff can place students — and ultimately a school, district, or other agency — at risk. When the history of a volunteer or chaperone on an overnight school trip includes something that would raise a red flag but the school is unaware of it, school officials are not able to make an informed decision about whether or not that person should be allowed to interact with children.

The risks of not adequately screening individuals who have direct contact with children have been apparent in cases for which Education Management Consulting, LLC, has been engaged to review and provide expert witness services. Many such cases involve harm, injury, negligent supervision and even sexual abuse of children by volunteers. At times, our reviews of school policies, personnel records, and testimony have determined that failure to conduct a reasonably appropriate background check and screening was the proximate cause of harm to children.

In one such case, the school argued that there was no state requirement for a district to apply the same level of scrutiny to volunteers as when it hires teachers. The school had conducted a standard criminal background check, but unlike the standard it applied to teachers, the school did not conduct interviews with supervisors at past volunteer posts. The volunteer was allowed to participate in a classroom on a regular basis. Over time, he developed an inappropriate sexual relationship with one of the students. A case review discovered that he had served as a volunteer in another school district, where he was told not to come back because the administration was uncomfortable about his interactions with students. The volunteer had listed the prior school and his supervisor on his volunteer application, but the new school did not contact the prior school for a reference. Had the school done so, it likely would not have compromised their student safety and would have heard about the previous school’s concerns and rejected his volunteer application.

 

State Requirements for Volunteer Screenings and Background Checks

Background checks and screenings of teachers are required in every state, and school districts have developed procedures to provide reasonable assurance that only teachers of high moral quality come in contact with children. When a background check reveals that a candidate was convicted of domestic violence or another crime against a person, the school may be prohibited from hiring that person.

Conducting background checks on prospective teachers as a student safety measure has been established in the field of education administration for decades. However, it wasn’t until 2000 that states began to pass laws addressing background checks on volunteers, and to this day, a patchwork of legal requirements exists. New Mexico, for instance, mandates background checks on all school volunteers, while New Jersey “allows” but does not require boards of education to conduct criminal record checks on volunteers. Volunteers in Florida schools are screened only for criminal histories logged in the state of Florida but not in other states. When state law is less strict for volunteers than it is for teachers, schools are free to adopt their own policies that are more stringent.

National guidelines developed by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the National Association of School Nurses encourage schools to conduct criminal background checks on all volunteers. To help schools implement this guideline, Texas Education Code allows a school district to obtain from any law enforcement or criminal justice agency all criminal records that relate to a person who serves as or has applied to be a school volunteer. In Pennsylvania, schools must check volunteer applicants’ backgrounds through the state Department of Human Services and Pennsylvania State Police, and are also required to obtain a federal criminal history. Seattle Public Schools screen all volunteers who work directly with students through the Washington Access to Criminal History background check system — the same process used for teachers and other licensed staff — and conducts reference checks. Volunteers are allowed to begin service before the screening process is completed, provided there is proper supervision. The volunteer’s continued involvement with the school depends on the results of the check.

 

Student Safety in Specialized Programs and Placements

While schools have a responsibility to protect student safety on campus, on school-sponsored trips, and at school activities, are they also responsible for the protection of students who attend programs at a school that is not under its direct control, such as a special education or vocational school? Should the school that assigns students to such programs assure that the employees and volunteers at the receiving school meet certain screening standards? If a school allows a private after-school program to operate in its gym, should it assure that volunteers in that program meet the same standard as if they volunteered in the school?

These are among the many questions in cases for which we have been engaged. Every case is uniquely different, and an analysis leading to an expert opinion can be very complex. In each case, however, the ultimate standard of professional care is that the school, through its administration, has a responsibility to act appropriately and reasonably to protect the health, safety, and well-being of its children. It is reasonable for the home school to expect that an external program or service will effectively screen employees and volunteers who come in contact with its students.

Examining one of our cases involving a child with a disability will help to illustrate. A high school student was placed in a class for students with cognitive and physical disabilities. As she got older, it was necessary for the school to deliver vocational training services through a separate agency. School personnel, the student’s parents, and others involved in this decision understood that the student demonstrated inappropriate, sexually oriented behavior toward peers and needed careful supervision wherever she was educated. This also required that those working with her at the school, including teachers and volunteers, were appropriately screened. Knowing of her propensity for this type of behavior should have caused her school to consider whether those she would come in contact with at the new placement would allow or encourage this behavior. Shortly after the student was placed at this program, and in my opinion because she was not adequately supervised, an adult volunteer engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior with her. As part of the overall review of the case, the personnel file of the volunteer was examined and it revealed that he was not screened by the vocational program administration — in my opinion, a failure of the home school to meet the professional standard of care. Teachers at the program needed to be licensed, which required a criminal background check. Volunteers, however, were allowed to work in the program without a background check. It would have been reasonable for the school sending its student to the vocational program to inquire about the program’s policy regarding background checks for volunteers and then determine whether the student would reasonably be protected from harm.

 

Student Safety and Standard of Professional Care

When reviewing cases similar to those discussed above, we consider state law and school district policy as the standard, and then consider the overall responsibility of a school to protect its students. This is the overriding standard of professional care. If an adult staff member or volunteer who was not adequately screened should sexually assault a student, then an argument may be made that the proximate cause of the child’s injury was failure on the part of the school to fully investigate the person’s background in order to reasonably assure the protection of students. On the other hand, if the school followed state law and its own policy, applying the same standard to approving volunteers as it did for teachers and other staff, and yet an inappropriate relationship developed because of other circumstances, then it can be argued that the screening process was appropriate.

Does everyone in a school or other agency who has contact with children have to be screened? And what is an appropriate and reasonable level of screening? The distinction that should be made is whether a person is a visitor to a program or a volunteer who has a defined regular role in it. Parents have the right to visit their child’s school and to observe their child in class. They can have lunch with their child and attend classroom and school events. In this context, the parent is a visitor, and complete background checks are not required. When a parent or other person takes on a regular role in the classroom or supervises on an overnight class trip, more scrutiny is required. Providing assistance in these ways shifts the person’s classification from visitor to volunteer. If the person is in the school on a regular basis and others expect to see the person frequently, then he or she is considered a volunteer, and the school must make an informed determination as to whether or not to allow the person to interact with students.

Schools are held to strict requirements when hiring licensed school personnel. Applying the same standard to the screening of volunteers is one way to protect children from harm and keep them safe.

Recreational and Summer Camp Activity Injury Liability

Activity Injury LiabilityProtection of the health, safety, and well-being of children who participate in recreational activities at a summer camp, summer school program, or community and private recreation centers should be the standard operating procedure of all those who provide these services. The standard of care owed to children who participate in organized or sponsored recreational activities such as sports, dance, swimming, rock climbing and variety of other activities at a camp or other agency must be consistent with professional standards in the field. Ingraining standardized practices and responsible planning and supervision into the work habits of all employees will help to protect the employees and the agency from activity injury liability and costly litigation.

Many of the cases for which Education Management Consulting, LLC, provides consultation and expert witness services involve claims of negligence initiated by parents against a camp, school, or other activity center for injuries sustained while participating in sports or other physical activities. Criteria associated with the appropriate and reasonable care of children involved in recreational activities are generally of a higher degree than what would ordinarily be expected of the average person who cares for children outside of this context.

 

Reducing Risks of  Activity Injury Liability

In a 2013 article, “School and Summer Camp Liability,” I wrote that “meticulous planning will keep children safer and could help a camp or other agency avoid liability if they are sued for the injury of a child.” Camp administrators should instruct their staff to consider all the possible dangers that might cause injury to a child, then make a list of those dangers and how each can be avoided. The article concluded with a list of 10 elements elements that Education Management Consulting, LLC, considers when reviewing a case, including a camp’s risk management procedures. Having standards, certifications, policies, training, and adequate supervision in place is extremely important for minimizing risk for summer camps or other agencies that offer recreational activities that are generally accepted to be inherently more dangerous, such as boating, rock climbing, horseback riding, swimming, or water skiing.

At a minimum, recreational activity providers should [MD1] adhere to, and train staff in, the requirements of the authority that provides a license to operate and of the standards of the appropriate oversight organization. As an example of an oversight agency, the American Camping Association (ACA) publishes standards for ACA accreditation. These standards also serve to educate camp directors and personnel about practices and procedures that are generally followed within the camp industry. Although camps can choose to not be accredited, the ACA standards reflect the standard of professional care to which camps, certified or not, should adhere.

Individuals hired by camps to perform specialized functions, such as lifeguards or water safety instructors, powerboat operators, and horseback riding instructors, may also need to be certified or licensed. Certification or licensure implies that the person has received the requisite training. And yet, there is always room for the camp to provide additional training specific to the population being served or any unique activities. For instance, the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits camps from refusing admission to children with disabilities. This presents challenges that can be met with adequate training. Where there are children with disabilities, specialized training that extends beyond certification instruction is necessary so that staff know how to handle special circumstances, such as a child with a behavioral problem.

When a camp makes safety training its first priority, there is less chance that an accident will occur, though if a child does become injured, there is less chance the sponsor will be held liable. The methodical and systematized practice of safety education until all employees instinctively perform their functions with safety uppermost in mind will help to keep children safe.

Reasonably appropriate action under specific circumstances — grounded in the professional standard of care and the camp or other agency’s own policies — will protect the camp or agency from liability if a child is injured. The camp or agency must have policies that specify standards for staff hiring and supervision and for site- and equipment-safety monitoring. An organization’s policies should be reflective of standards in the field of child supervision, as well as those gained from laws, regulations, and standards of the applicable oversight agency, such as the ACA. If a claim is filed against the camp, these policies will be reviewed and a determination made as to whether the camp or its staff met standards in the field and its own standards. If a camp lacks policies that adequately reflect standards of an oversight agency — or if it has good policies but does not follow them — an expert witness may determine these deficiencies to be the proximate cause of a child’s death or injury.

 

Specialized Training and Supervision 

As mentioned above, the ACA is one of the oversight agencies that provides accreditation to operate a camp. If the camp provides a watersport program with swimming, according to the ACA, it must have an appropriately certified lifeguard for each swimming activity. Further, camps must have written documentation that every lifeguard has demonstrated skill in rescue-and-emergency procedures specific to the activity. If the camp administration doesn’t check the lifeguard’s certification to ensure that it’s up to date and a child drowns while that person was charged with the child’s safety, the camp may be held liable for the death because of negligent hiring.

Even if the lifeguard has appropriate, up-to-date certification, it is the responsibility of the camp to adequately supervise the lifeguard. Certification doesn’t guarantee that the lifeguard won’t be easily distracted from closely watching the children in the pool. A person responsible for supervising the lifeguard should observe the person on a regular schedule, informally and formally, to be reasonably sure that he or she is adequately performing the job duties that will protect children. If a child drowns and a parent sues the camp, witnesses might testify that the lifeguard on duty at the time regularly left the lifeguard station, engaged in lengthy conversations with people standing next to him, or generally did not pay close attention to the children in the pool. If this is the case, it is likely the camp will be found liable for negligent supervision of the lifeguard. On the other hand, if the camp administration is able to show that it conducted regular observations of that person and that at no time did the lifeguard demonstrate inattention to his duties, the camp may be able to show it was not negligent in supervising the lifeguard. In this case, the claim of negligent supervision will likely fail.

Where a camp uses motorized boats for any activity, the boat drivers must be trained on state laws, rules of the water, safe loading and unloading of passengers, mechanical failure, and refueling. On-the-water training also is required, according to the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators (NASBLA). Anyone who operates a power boat at a camp must have the appropriate state-required license. The license assures that its holder has been trained. If an accident occurs involving a motorized boat that causes injury to a camper, and the driver of the boat does not meet state requirements of having a license and appropriate training, this will become one of the elements of negligence that might entitle a plaintiff to damages.

In a case reviewed by Education Management Consulting, LLC, a camper was seriously injured when he was pushed from an inflatable pontoon boat being towed behind a motorized boat. Upon review of the deposition testimony, police reports, and other documents, it was learned that the driver of the powerboat was not state-licensed and, therefore, should not have been operating the boat. The camp did not adequately train the driver about camper safety. Additionally, the inflatable boat was carrying too many passengers, according to the manufacturer’s warning, and there was no adult on the pontoon boat to supervise the campers. Testimony of the camp staff revealed that they were not trained in boat safety and they did not know how to supervise campers who engaged in horseplay on the inflatable boat. Together, these elements led to the expert opinion that the camp breached the standard of care.

 

Components of Child Personal Injury Cases

Those responsible for the safety of children in every setting — school extra curricular activities, daycare programs, summer camps and other recreational after school activities — have a responsibility to prevent children from being exposed to unreasonable risk. Thus, teachers, coaches, and camp counselors who are charged with instructing shop, physical, or other high-risk activities must provide the children with the best possible instruction, along with appropriate and safe supplies, materials, and equipment suitable to the age of the child while following manufacturer warnings guidelines and precautions. Some of the components we address when reviewing child-injury cases is whether the child received appropriate and reasonable instruction; whether the equipment was inspected, safe, and appropriate for the age of the child; and whether the level of risk associated with the activity given the experience of the children was acceptable.

An important element to be considered is whether an injury or death could have occurred or been prevented if the person in charge of the child had performed supervisory duties properly. In other words, did the person act appropriate and reasonably under the particular circumstances? If improper conduct or failure to appropriately supervise can be shown, then proximate cause is usually associated. If the person in charge of a group of young campers was told that the children can never be left unsupervised, and that person deliberately leaves the group alone for any period of time, an injury can occur. This injury may be directly related to the failure of the staff person to adhere to the standard set by the camp.

For example, in a case for which Education Management Consulting, LLC, was engaged, a public school was operating a summer camp and the counselors were instructed that no child was to enter the school building unattended. The claim in this lawsuit was that a child entered the school bathroom unsupervised and was sexually assaulted by an older student. Upon review of the testimony, the camp’s policy, and the factors that led to the children being in the building, it was my opinion that the camp breached its own policy with regard to students entering the building and that the counselor failed to adequately supervise the children in his charge. This lack of appropriate supervision though implementation of established policy was the proximate cause of injury to the camper.

Courts have consistently held that camp counselors and persons supervising children in schools or other agencies have several responsibilities for those who are placed in their care. The first responsibility is to provide adequate supervision. The second is to provide appropriate instruction, and the third concerns proper maintenance of buildings, grounds, and equipment so that accidents can be avoided. These are parts of the degree of care necessary to avert unnecessary risk. To avoid injury to children, those in charge at a camp must know the safety rules and practice them diligently — throughout the day, day after day — to protect children from injury and the camp from costly litigation.

In Loco Parentis: Duty of Educators and Professionals in Residential Programs for Children

Educator DutySome of our most vulnerable children are relegated to a life away from parents, family, and their school to live where other adults take the place of their parents and are responsible for their custody or care – legally defined as in loco parentis. This occurs when children are placed in residential centers for the treatment of mental illness, schools for the deaf and blind, or similar facilities for children who require extensive medical care and management.

In my September 2015 article, I discussed parental and professional standards of care when considering supervision of children in residential placements. The reasonable and prudent parent uses judgment in making decisions about their children’s care. Parents usually make decisions carefully, weighing the benefits and potential risks to come to a sensible decision that is in the best interest of the child. When professionals care for children, they have a duty to meet the same standard, but they also have a higher duty to meet the standards of a reasonably prudent professional. Professionals such as teachers, program administrators, psychologists, counselors, doctors, and nurses have the legal responsibility to exercise the level of care, diligence, and skill prescribed in the code of practice of their profession, the legal requirements of the government, and in the policies of the residential program.

When a child has a condition or disability that is not common and when the child’s disability cannot adequately be addressed in the local school, community, or at home, placement at a specialized facility to meet these needs may be required. These placements provide educational, medical, and residential programs. Staff who supervise children where they live act in place of parents. These adults are expected to protect the child from dangers and prevent the child from engaging in harmful or irresponsible behaviors. This responsibility fulfills the reasonably prudent parent standard of care. In addition, the care of these children extends beyond the simple need to house them, and meeting the professional duty extends in tandem with their needs and disabilities.

 

Duty Under In Loco Parentis

In a residential facility, in loco parentis refers to how a supervisor or caregiver who directly oversees the actions of a child deals with the child’s conduct. This is the same as when a parent sets boundaries for his or her child, then instructs, guides, or disciplines the child. In a residential setting, the person who is standing in place of the parent holds authority over the child, acting in loco parentis.  Elements of in loco parentis define the duty that educators and caregivers owe to their students.  This includes principles of negligence and the duty to anticipate foreseeable dangers and take reasonable steps to protect students from those dangers.

When an adult acting in loco parentis steps over the line with regard to the role of a reasonably prudent parent, the residential facility may be liable for the adult’s actions. As an example, a caregiver’s use of undue force that would fall under the definition of assault and battery may be cause for liability if the child is injured. If a child assaults and injures another child during a moment of inadequate supervision, this also may also be a cause for liability. The Ohio Supreme Court has stated that although a teacher may stand in loco parentis with regard to enforcement of authority, the teacher does not stand in loco parentis with regard to one’s negligent acts and thus is not accorded the same tort immunity given parents (Baird v. Hosmer, 46 Ohio St. 2d 273, 75 Ohio Ops. 2d 323, 347 N.E. 2d 553 (1976)). In the same way, while a person in charge of a child in a residence is considered acting in loco parentis, that person is not safe under tort immunity if he or she failed to act as a reasonably prudent parent.

 

Professional Standard of Care

A residential program becomes that child’s world. All his or her needs must be met, including shelter, food, medical care, counseling, and recreation, just as if the child was living at home and attending school. In this all-inclusive setting, there are people trained as professionals — teachers, counselors, psychologists, and supervisors — who have total responsibility for the health, safety, and well-being of the child. These programs must have adequate plans for meeting the needs of the children in their care, and these plans should be shared across disciplines and departments.

For example, if a student has demonstrated behavioral problems while on a school trip, that information should be provided to the adults who are in charge in the residence and are acting in loco parentis. This process is similar to a schoolteacher informing a parent at home about a child’s behavior. The intent is to work together with the parents in the child’s interest. When this system is nonexistent or breaks down in a residential setting, resulting in student injury, the program may be open to liability. If a teacher observes a student running away during a class trip but fails to share that information with those in charge of the residence, the agency might be liable if the child wanders off and is injured. The agency had knowledge of the student’s behavior, failed to report it to those in charge of the residence and, overall, failed to enact a cross-departmental plan to protect the child.

To protect children from harm and the agency from liability, it is important to conduct the required evaluations and assessments, have as much information about a student as possible, seek additional information when warranted, assess and evaluate behaviors and symptoms, share that information with key staff in residential, school, and health departments, and develop comprehensive plans that account for safety and supervision. All professionals involved, including residential staff, should pay attention to a child’s new behaviors, manifestations of challenges, and conditions that are part of their disability or diagnosis, and use that information as part of a coordinated approach for meeting the standard of care for the child in their custody.

For example, I was engaged as the education administration and supervision expert witness in a case involving a child who had been receiving extensive counseling through a residential program’s health department. His tendency toward violent behavior and information about triggers for such behavior were not shared with other adults in the program, nor was this information used to develop a safety plan. Treating professionals did not assess and evaluate the student’s key signs of mental health deterioration, despite many instances that should have caused them to provide additional care. Eventually, the student suffered a mental breakdown, broke into an administrative office, grabbed scissors, and escaped the building. Police who arrived on the scene shot the student when he did not respond to their demands to put the scissors down. Mentally, he was not aware of what was going on and did not understand the police’s instructions.

My review and analysis of this case led me to conclude that the program had sufficient information about the student’s emotional and behavioral issues but failed to address those manifesting behaviors, and on the day of the incident, staff was unable to communicate effectively with him to de-escalate the behaviors. Before being shot, the student was confronted by a teacher who did not have complete information about the student’s behavioral issues or how to deal with them. The teacher’s actions escalated the behavior, placed other students and school staff in harm’s way, and ended in student being shot. If the program had an overall safety plan for this student that included staff training in how to deal with him, it is less likely that he would have been shot. It was my opinion that the program, through its administration and other staff, breached the standard of professional care when it failed to address the student’s mental health issues, failing also to inform and train all staff about the student’s problems and how to protect the student and others from harm.

 

Training and Oversight are Essential to Avoid Residential Program Liability

Numerous case reviews by Education Management Consulting, LLC, have concluded that a residential facility or agency had access to policies and provincial, state, or federal rules, but those policies were not implemented nor was staff adequately trained to use them. In some of these cases, the result was that children were injured, sexually abused, or physically assaulted by other students. Prevention, detection, and reporting of child abuse, knowing how to administer appropriate restraints without injuring a child who acts out, and understanding the requirements for continuous supervision of children are just a few of the areas that require training and oversight. If an injured plaintiff can demonstrate that the facility had in-house policies or that government policies were available but it failed to train staff in those policies and supervise their work, then the program may not be able to avoid liability.

Frequently, when I review a case as an expert witness, I find that the facility had adequate policies, the supervision of children and staff-to-child ratios were good, and the discipline code and rules for children were well thought out and reasonable, but there was a breach in the system. In one such case, for example, a child in a residential school sexually assaulted another in the bathroom. On paper, the policies and supervision procedures looked good. The missing link was that staff responsible for supervising children had knowledge that the predator had done this before, yet made no attempt to provide additional supervision when this particular child was alone with another.

Policies are only as good as the training and monitoring of staff responsible for implementing them. In this case, the facility had knowledge of one resident’s sexually aggressive behavior, but failed to take any reasonable steps to prevent her from harming another child. They failed to provide her with any counseling or heightened supervision, and in fact one of her first offenses was not reported to outside authorities for investigation. In essence, she was allowed to continue her inappropriate behavior. If the facility provided her with appropriate follow-up counseling, reported the first incident to the authorities, and stepped up its supervision of her, it would have been, in my opinion, less likely that this incident would have occurred. 

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry provides guidelines for residential treatment programs in its 2010 publication, Principles of Care for Treatment of Children and Adolescents with Mental Illnesses in Residential Treatment Centers. The Academy offers an approach for professionals about the provision of services and some important training and educational standards, such as hiring staff with appropriate credentials and experience.  There are other similar publications, training programs and professionals available to assist residential care centers with training and keeping up with the standards in the field.

 

Summary

On December 3, 2014, the Chicago Tribune reported that thousands of children in residential treatment centers in Illinois are assaulted, sexually abused, and run away. The residential centers promise round-the-clock supervision and therapy to children who are wards of the state and who have histories of abuse and neglect, as well as to other disadvantaged youths with mental health and behavioral problems. The Tribune reported that patient-on-patient sexual assault is commonplace at some facilities, and vulnerable children are terrorized by older ones. Some are preyed on sexually by adults paid to care for them. In the three years ending with 2013, Illinois residential facilities reported 428 alleged cases of sexual assault or abuse of children in their care to the state Department of Children and Family Services. The state and program administrators said they are underfunded and overwhelmed by too many children, many of whom don’t belong at the facility. In a legal assessment of whether a program, its administration, or staff acted appropriately and reasonably in a specific circumstance, however, these are no excuses.

Adults in schools, camps, daycare centers, and residential programs have a duty to protect children from harm. But when children are placed away from home, out of sight of parents in residential programs, it isn’t unusual for them to be subjected to harm.  Unfortunately abuse and mistreatment typically comes to light after years of poor management, lack of training, lack of government oversight, and staff incompetency. In so many institutions and residential programs, children are often forgotten — out of the sight of the public and their parents. Some programs began in the 1800’s when social capabilities and awareness, along with frustration and lack of resources, forced them into existence. We are just realizing now that so much mistreatment and abuse has taken place but kept quiet and children were hurt.

Title IX and Sexual Abuse in K – 12 Schools

Hostile School EnviromentAs difficult as it might be to accept and understand, abuse of children is occurring at an alarming rate in our nation’s schools, daycare centers, camps, and other institutions. Even with state laws that require child abuse reporting and institutional policies that address sexual abuse prevention, identification, and reporting, abuse is not going away. More civil lawsuits are filed with each passing year, and schools and other organizations are not always appropriately responding to this epidemic.

At a school or any institution responsible for protecting the safety of children, the existence of a policy isn’t enough. It is evident from my involvement in such cases that when schools have adequate policies that are living documents — supplemented by training and a culture where all reports and rumors are taken seriously —children tend to be better protected. Children are more frequently harmed in a climate where reports of sexual abuse are discouraged, rumors are not taken seriously, and staff training is lacking.

According to a 2014 federal report, U.S. schools are failing to protect students from sexual abuse, and instances of district cover-ups, lack of staff training, and incomplete teacher background checks are not uncommon. The U.S. Government Accountability Office determined that K–12 schools lack a systemic approach to preventing and reporting sexual abuse of students, despite longstanding evidence of widespread sexual abuse at the hands of educators. A previous federal report had estimated that 9.6 percent of students are sexually abused by school personnel.  A school district may be liable for damages under Title IX if it fails to take action to stop known sexual abuse and harassment.

 

Appropriate and Immediate Response Is Critical

Based on my experience as an expert witness in school and institution administration, virtually every school district in the United States and Canada is, at some point, likely to hear rumors or receive a complaint about the sexual abuse of a child by a staff member. The safety of children depends on several elements. One such element is an adequate response by the administration, including prompt and adequate investigation and taking appropriate action to protect children from harm.

The professional standard of care requires that those responsible for the safety of children respond appropriately when there is an observation, report, or rumor of inappropriate sexual behavior between an adult and a child in a school. For example, when a librarian sees a teacher kissing a student in the gym, the librarian’s observation provides clear notice that the teacher is breaching the professional code of conduct and school policy. Any reasonable staff member would also conclude that it is more likely than not that the teacher and student are engaged in an inappropriate sexual relationship. The librarian’s responsibility would be to report the observation immediately to her supervisor, usually the building principal, and to report the behavior to the state agency that investigates allegations of child abuse.

Likewise, any observation, report, or rumor that children in school may be engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior with each other warrants an immediate response to protect children from harm. In some circumstances, student-on-student sexual behavior will be considered typical depending on the age of the children. For example, two 5-year-olds may expose themselves to each other with no intention of sexual abuse. On the other hand, if a vulnerable child with a disability is sexually touched by a nondisabled child of the same age, it might be considered abuse because of the imbalance of power between the two children. This also might be true when a much older child is sexually active with a younger child. Age, in this situation, creates the imbalance of power.

 

Supreme Court cases defining Title IX liability Following Sexual Abuse

In Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, (524 U.S. 274 (1998)), the U.S. Supreme Court established standards for school district liability under Title IX when a sexual relationship occurs between a teacher and a student. The court found that a school district will not be liable unless: (1) an appropriate school official has actual knowledge of discrimination; (2) the school official has authority to take corrective action to address the alleged discrimination: (3) the school official fails to adequately respond; and (4) the inadequate response amounts to deliberate indifference.

In Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, (526 U.S. 629, 119 S.Ct. 1661, 143 L.Ed.2d 839 (1999)), the Supreme Court established that a school district may be liable for damages under Title IX if it fails to take action to stop known student-on-student harassment. In Davis, the alleged conduct of the perpetrator student was outrageous, and despite repeated complaints of sexual harassment over five months, the student was not disciplined. In fact, the victim was not even allowed to change classes to escape the harassment of her classmate. Moreover, the board of education had not instructed its personnel on how to respond to peer harassment and had not established a policy on the issue.

Actual notice. Since the Davis decision, there has been a pattern of cases granting summary judgment to school districts on the basis of insufficient evidence of actual notice. However, the issue of what constitutes sufficient notice to the school is not yet settled. For example, in Doe v. School Administration District N. 19 (66 F. Supp. 2d 57 (D. Me. 1999)), it was found that the school had sufficient notice when a substitute teacher met with the principal to report that a female teacher “might be” having a sexual relationship with at least one male student. The principal allegedly told the substitute that she could be “sued for slander for saying those things” and declined to investigate. The court believed this verbal notice was sufficient where the alleged sexual misconduct was severe and where the school community was small (the high school’s faculty numbered 15). From the substitute teacher’s report, the administrator had a duty to conduct a sufficient investigation and, likely, to file a report with the appropriate child protective service in the state as well.

Insufficient notice was found in Turner v. McQuarter (79 F. Supp. 2d 911 (N.D. Ill. 1999)) where a female basketball player claimed to have been coerced into a sexual relationship with a female coach. Because the student and coach had the same home address, the plaintiff alleged that the university’s athletic director knew of the relationship. A district court concluded that it was difficult to imagine under what circumstances the identical addresses would have come to the attention of school officials. In this case, the court determined that unless there is sufficient notice or a report that a sexual relationship was taking place and that the coach and student resided at the same address, it would have been unlikely that the school would have found out on its own.

Deliberate indifference. The adequacy of a school or institution’s response once the appropriate officials have actual notice also has been examined. For example, in Kinman v. Omaha Public School District (171 F.3d 607 (8th Cir. 1999)), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals found that prompt investigation, corrective action, and ultimate termination was a sufficient response by a school district in response to allegations of a sexual relationship between a teacher and a student. After the student graduated, the relationship resumed, and the teacher was terminated for violating the district’s policy that prohibited teachers from engaging in sexual relationships with former students within two years of graduation. The court dismissed the Title IX claim.

How various courts respond to the issue of deliberate indifference is illustrated by Flores v. Saulpaugh (115 F. Supp. 2d 319 (N.D. N.Y. 2000)). A student’s petition survived the school district’s motion for summary judgment because a fact issue existed regarding the administrator’s response to the student’s complaints. In this case, the student and her parent complained to the principal of a teacher’s suggestive behavior toward the student. The principal promised to investigate the matter but did not do so, nor did he notify the Title IX coordinator of the complaint. Harassment, according to the student, continued for about a year after the complaint. In this matter, the court found a fact issue regarding the alleged indifference of the principal’s response. The court found that the principal had actual notice, effective at the time the student and her parent made their complaint. The principal also had corrective authority over the teacher. The court ruled that failure to investigate and to notify the Title IX coordinator constituted deliberate indifference, and the continued inappropriate behavior of the teacher may have caused harm to the student.

 

Rumors and Suspicions of Child Sexual Abuse are Enough to Warrant Action

How should a school respond to rumors of an inappropriate relationship between a child in its care and a staff member? Is a rumor sufficient to be considered notice? Schools can be sidetracked by the “logistics” of the rumor mill, short-circuiting a thorough investigation of what may, in fact, be an actual abusive relationship. For example, when a school principal knows that students are talking about a sexual relationship between a teacher and a student and are saying that the teacher and student have been texting and sending pictures to one another, the school must take these rumors seriously. Taking them seriously — that is, focusing on the alleged behavior as the genesis of the rumors rather than focusing on the way students are communicating (the logistics) — is key. I have seen too many situations where rumors were considered not credible — brushed off as children bullying each other — while an inappropriate relationship went on. It is important that reports of this nature are made to the state child protective agency so that specially trained and experienced individuals can conduct a thorough investigation. School officials are not trained to make a determination as to whether an allegation of sexual misconduct is substantiated or to determine that rumors can be dismissed.

In my practice, I have reviewed and analyzed the issues in numerous civil lawsuits as to whether a school or other agency met the professional standard of care in responding to rumors of sexual abuse. One of these cases involved the Texas City Independent School District in 2004. The district was accused of a breach in the professional standard of care, resulting in the sexual abuse of a preschool child by a classroom aide. This female student, because of her gender, was discriminated against when she was sexually abused. This was cause for a federal lawsuit under Title IX.

As the expert witness, I reviewed the case material, including sworn depositions, policies of the school district, records of the student, and information about the classroom teacher and aide. I determined that the teacher was not trained in the prevention, detection, and reporting of child abuse, including sexual abuse; the aide was hired without a proper background check and was not trained; the teacher allowed the male aide to supervise “bathroom time” with this girl, who had a disability, and the teacher wasn’t there to supervise. Another instructional aide in the class admitted having observed physical evidence that caused her to believe that the child was being sexually abused, but she failed to notify anyone about it and the abuse continued.

Although there was a policy in the school that addressed sexual abuse and reporting requirements, it was not implemented. Training was insufficient or nonexistent. The aide did not know how to report her concern. She did not know that she had a duty to report her observations to state child protective services and to the school administrator. The abuse continued until another professional also became concerned, at which time the matter was reported, investigated, and the aide was arrested. It was my opinion that this breach of the professional standard of care was a proximate cause of the girl’s abuse. Adequate training and supervision, in my opinion, would have prevented abuse of this child.

 

Summary
Sexual abuse of students is tragic, and its rate of occurrence is unacceptable. Schools and other institutions have a responsibility to protect the children in its care. Beyond policies, a culture of training, supervision, and adequate follow-through on reports of abuse against students is a proactive strategy for reducing the potential for harm to children.

Violation of Right to Bodily Security and Student Injury at School Resulting from Seclusion and Restraint

injury from restraints at school

Liability for Student Injuries at School

The first responsibility of educators and those who supervise children in residential programs, day care centers, before- and after-school programs, and other settings is to make sure that these programs foster learning and care in a safe environment. Asking third graders to move a cart with a heavy TV on top, inadequate staff instruction in safe techniques to quell disruptive students, not carefully checking that the door to the pool closes and locks the way it is supposed to, excessive discipline, playground aides talking among themselves but failing to pay attention to the children, not providing a sufficient number of nighttime supervisors in a dormitory, and a school police officer not trained on how to interact with children with behavioral disorders — any of these circumstances can lead to student injury at school or death of a child and high litigation costs. The overriding professional standard of care is to protect children’s health, safety, and well-being. Under this umbrella fall the development and implementation of policies, adequate staff training, and a level of supervision reasonably calculated to keep children safe.

Children in public and private schools and residential programs can be subjected to harm by the very adults charged with protecting them. Preventing this from occurring requires getting to know a student, his or her emotional status, and what circumstances might trigger certain behaviors. For example, a child who has an Individualized Education Program (IEP) is recognized as someone who needs special accommodations. The IEP must be adequately developed and then implemented by all staff who come in contact with the student, including teachers and classroom assistants, bus drivers, cafeteria staff, school police, and custodians. When staff is neither informed about a student with special needs nor trained in techniques for de-escalating combative behavior, the stage is set for disaster. And if results are student injury at school, the school can be held liable.

Understanding the child’s abilities and limitations, knowing how to interact positively with the child, establishing clear policies, consistently following the rules, and adequately training staff will go a long way toward avoiding interactions that end up resulting in student injury at school.

Student Injury at School and Failure to Meet Standards of Care

Let’s look at some examples from my own work as an expert witness on standards of care in schools and residential facilities. In California, a child who had autism and mild mental retardation was forcibly restrained by as many as four people who held her at her classroom desk while forcing her to color a sheet of paper for one to two hours. She was also placed in a locked seclusion room for as many as five hours a day, during which she experienced severe duress and wet herself. She was told she could not change her clothes until she finished her time out and then finished the work she had refused. Even when time out was over, the child was kept in the seclusion room because it was designated as her classroom by the school. This case was litigated before a hearing officer and a court, with both holding that the school had violated her rights.

In this case, the school had a duty to develop an IEP that was reasonably calculated to help this student benefit from her education and to deal with any behavior or disability issues that could prevent her from learning. If she was being forced to color and was locked in seclusion for hours, she was not benefiting from her education. The school breached the professional standard of care that requires it to revise the IEP if it is not working. Any time a student must be overly disciplined, the IEP and any behavior plan are not working. In this example, the school failed to assess the child’s placement in an adequate way; failed to conduct a behavioral assessment to determine why the student was behaving the way she did; failed to develop a plan to de-escalate her behavior; and failed to train staff how to intervene appropriately to protect her from harm. In my opinion, the combination of these failures led to the physical restraint of the student, her placement in a seclusion room, and psychological, emotional, and educational harm.

In another example, a school resource officer in New Jersey shot a child numerous times when the student allegedly acted aggressively toward him. No one had told the officer that the student, who was in a special education program at a public school, had a disability that manifested as aggressive tendencies, nor did the school train the officer in how to de-escalate aggressive behavior of this student or others with similar behaviors. The student was carrying a knife. The officer ordered him to put it down several times, and when he did not, the officer fired his semi-automatic pistol at the boy nine times. The police department that hired the officer and placed him in the school in collaboration with the board of education investigated. Ultimately, it determined that the officer had acted properly and according to police protocol under the circumstance.

This example brings into focus the role of police and school resource officers. Many schools either directly employ police officers or have agreements with police departments to allow officers in the school to work alongside staff. These arrangements are generally positive. Officers on campus are able to observe students in the context of the school and get to know them, as well as interact with them in the community after school, which can strengthen community/police relations.

In schools, the key to effective police work is training. Officers who interact with students must understand the school behavior code, information about specific children who need special supervision, and the developmental stages of children. Many seventh and eighth grade children, for instance, are developing social maturity — and they don’t always think before acting. High school students, on the other hand, can be quite mature and may have other goals when interacting with one other. More importantly, students with disabilities may need to be communicated with in a different way than non-disabled students and might react unpredictably if they are frustrated or perceive that they are being bullied.

The police officer who emptied his weapon at this student had seen the student around the school but had no idea about his disability. He was never informed that under some circumstances, this student was capable of becoming aggressive — not because of his nature but because of an emotional immaturity that caused him to act before thinking. School staff understood how to de-escalate this student’s behavior when he began to show signs of frustration or anxiety, and they had been successful at protecting him and other students in such circumstances. The professional standard of care requires that all school personnel who are likely to encounter the student’s behavior be trained in how to deal with it by de-escalating the situation. The school resource officer was not trained to deal with the student in this way, however. His only training was from the police department: If a person coming at you with a weapon does not follow a command to drop the weapon, you may protect yourself with deadly force. Police are trained to focus on crime, and when a school does not adequately train a school resource officer to deal with students who have behavioral issues, a child can be harmed.

In another case for which I was the designated education administration and supervision expert witness, a judge ordered a school district to place a teenage student in a residential school that specialized in services for severely emotionally disturbed children. The school disagreed with the order but was obliged to comply. On the student’s second day at this facility, he ignored a staff person’s directive. Interaction between the student and the staff member escalated to the point where the staff person forcibly “placed” the student on the floor and sat on his back to restrain him. When the student struggled violently, the 200-pound male staff member pressed harder with his body to keep the student in place. Eventually, the student stopped struggling. He was dead when the EMTs arrived. The staff member was fired.

This case was complicated because the state, through the administrative law judge, ordered placement at the residential facility. The state was immune to a lawsuit, leaving the public school, the facility, the staff member, and his supervisors as defendants. The public school did not agree with the placement but complied under a legal order. The questions in this matter, then, were whether the residential facility met the professional standard of care and whether it acted appropriately and reasonably under the circumstance to protect the safety, health and well-being of the plaintiff.

My analysis of the facts led me to the opinion that the facility was negligent in its training. The school created a situation that otherwise would not have existed had the staff member been adequately trained and supervised. The staff member was minimally trained but no one assessed his ability to restrain a student in a safe manner. This was the first time the staff member had restrained a student in this manner. According to witnesses, the staff member did not attempt to de-escalate the situation — as is recommended by most accepted training in the use of physical restraint — before applying the deadly restraint. In my opinion, the staff member did not exercise reasonable care when it was quite apparent that disastrous injury could result from his action. His failure to de-escalate the confrontation and, in my opinion, failure to exercise care that even a careless person would use amounted to reckless disregard of the consequences of sitting on a student’s back. It is likely that the trier of fact in such a lawsuit would determine this behavior gross negligence. My expert opinion was that the school’s failure to provide adequate training was a proximate cause of this child’s wrongful death.

Student Rights to Bodily Security

Schools and other programs responsible for children can misuse punishment, and the effects of that misuse can cause years of damage to a child. Any new teacher, camp counselor, or child care worker knows that teaching children appropriate behavior is important for their own safety. What I learned as a teacher and school administrator is that establishing a mutual sense of respect is the first step on that path. Without question, everyone needs to know how to get along with others and to interact in a socially appropriate manner. However, one must be extremely careful when using punishment to change behavior — especially the behavior of an often temperamental or non-communicative child with a disability. Ill-timed, vengeful, and capricious punishment without incentives only creates a negative template for children to follow. Punishment that places kids in isolation only provokes counter aggression. When teachers deal with a student’s frustration or misbehavior by putting him in isolation, it is likely that the student would respond by expressing aggression through screaming, disrobing, soiling himself and, in some cases, hurting himself. Because of their disability, some students are unable to express themselves verbally, so they express their frustration the only way they were taught — through aggression.

When a child is restrained or forcefully taken to a time-out room, slammed into a chair, and yelled at to “sit still,” or encounters a teacher who slaps, pinches, or spanks her, her constitutional right to bodily security has been breached. The right to security of one’s person and body is generally protected when there is no justification for physical contact. This does not prohibit physical contact that is justified by a need to protect others or school property or to maintain order, and when the manner and degree of authorized physical force or restraint is reasonable. While some incidents of student abuse give rise to multiple constitutional, statutory, and common law claims of injury to bodily security, those sources create different standards of student rights and school district liability. Title IX indirectly supports the view that sexual abuse of students is a serious invasion of a constitutional civil right.

Student suicides and sexual abuse of students have brought to light another theory of constitutional right, namely that public schools, as state-created, state-operated institutions with full, though temporary, control and custody of their students, have a “special relationship” with an affirmative constitutional duty to protect students from harm which includes student injury at school. It is easier to prove a violation of this duty than to prove that a school was grossly negligent or deliberately indifferent to student harm. Students injured at school by school employees while in the custody of the school may argue that their public school relationship is more like the situation of a prison, where inmates are substantially required to be there and controlled by the state. However, in public schools, the duty-to-protect argument is open to further clarification and case development and is often the subject of many lawsuits against schools and other programs in charge of caring for children. In two federal cases (Walton v. Alexander [1994] and Pagano v Massapequa Public Schools [1989]), for instance, courts have issued contradictory opinions on the circumstances around which a “special relationship” exists.

Duty to protect is often the subject of cases involving wrongful death and serious student injury at school. The concept of constitutional breach of protecting children and their bodily integrity may be argued in such cases. To mount a strong defense against such a claim, the school or agency must show it had and implemented, at the time of the alleged injury, clear and concise policies, a comprehensive training program, and diligent supervision that assured that through its administration and/or other employees, the school or agency is protecting the health, safety, and well-being of children.

School Liability for Student Field Trip Injuries or Death

field trip injuries

Adequate supervision is essential for prevention of field trip injuries.

For schools, summer camps, and day care centers, one of the key functions of student supervision is to identify dangerous conditions and then either stop the activity or warn of the danger. The supervisor must take appropriate action for the protection of the children. Duty to warn contemplates both having knowledge of danger (actual or constructive notice) and having time to communicate it.  Field trip injuries are very common and there is an equal duty to protect when children are off campus but still under school supervision, such as when children are on a school-sponsored trip. Excursions off school property present special challenges. Careful planning ahead of the trip, knowing about potential safety hazards, and creating a plan to avoid or mitigate them can help to protect a child from field trip injuries and a school from liability lawsuits.

The best defense against a claim of negligence is that has one or more of the four elements of negligence has not been proven: that a duty was not owed the injured, that reasonable care was exercised in performance of the act, that the act was not the proximate cause of the injury, or that there was no injury to the plaintiff. There will be times that the school will have done everything appropriate but a child still is injured. If the school can show that it exercised reasonable care, it will go a long way toward protecting the school from a lawsuit.

 

Adequate Planning is Essential  to Minimizing Risk of Field Trip Injuries

Being alert to potentially dangerous conditions at an offsite activity starts long before the activity itself. If a trip is planned for a picnic at a local park, for instance, the teacher or administrator should visit the park ahead of time to learn the layout and identify potential dangers on the property that may lead to field trip injuries. Are there any streams a child can fall into? Are there rough trails with loose rocks and tree trunks that can cause a child to trip? Is there a highway nearby that poses a risk to a child who wanders off from the group?

Informing the chaperones and children of the terrain, the hazards, and the safety rules ahead of time is most important. In providing written rules for the children, parents, and chaperones, a school articulates its policy and the behavior it expects from adult and child participants in order to protect students from field trip injuries. Through this type of planning and communication, the school creates a foundation for protecting it from liability should something go wrong.

It also is important to ensure that there are enough adults to provide adequate supervision at the event. In thinking about how many adults are needed, consider how many children will attend, their ages, and whether they have any disabilities or behavioral issues requiring special attention. A higher duty of care exists for a student with a disability or when a child’s Individual Education Program (IEP) requires specific attention to details to keep the student safe.  If a student requires a one-on-one aide at school for additional supervision, the same requirement extends for fieldtrips and other activities to minimize risk of field trip injuries.

 

Negligent Supervision of Students on School Field Trips

One of the cardinal rules of supervision on school field trips is to ensure that children do not leave sight of chaperones. The question of liability for injuries when children leave adult supervision without permission presents two factors. First, was there negligence in supervision on site that permitted the child to leave? If so, then that breach of duty would be the proximate cause of the injury. Second, was that type of injury foreseeable? If so, then failure to supervise a child in a way that could have prevented the injury would be negligence. For the school to be held open to liability, there must be proof that lack of supervision or that negligent supervision was a proximate cause of the accident.

Individuals who perform supervisory functions must conduct themselves as a reasonable person would under similar circumstances. Inappropriate behavior on the part of the supervisor may lead not only to a negligence suit in the case of student field trip injuries or death, but also to disciplinary action against the supervisor. As an example, in a Missouri case, two coaches took six high school boys and four female cheerleaders to a meet, where they stayed overnight. Evidence indicated that the coaches left the students unsupervised and the coaches attended a party and drank alcoholic beverages, and had allowed male and female students to sleep in the same rooms. The coaches were found to have engaged in inappropriate conduct when they abandoned the students and went partying and drinking. The court found that this behavior rendered them unfit to teach or supervise students.

Special attention must be given to the planning of off-campus trips with young children. In one such case, a kindergarten teacher planned a “safety day” class trip to a city-owned parking lot. The teacher planned this event in the same way she had for years, following board of education policies and seeking parent volunteers. Parents and children met at the school and rode with the teacher on a bus to the event. Just before arrival at the event, the teacher addressed the chaperones and said, “Please keep an eye on the children. We don’t want anyone to get lost.” What she did not do — and this turned out to be the proximate cause of a student’s death — was to assign specific students to each volunteer in order to prevent the risk of student field trip injuries.

At the event, the fire company brought a fire truck, the rescue squad brought an ambulance, and the police department set up “roads” with stop signs and walkways for children to practice safe street crossing. The police brought several electric golf carts to use as “cars” to make the scene as realistic as possible. After police officers finished conducting their demonstration of safe street crossing, three children climbed onto a golf cart, one hanging onto the front of the cart. An officer had left the cart idling, key still in the ignition. The cart drove straight ahead into the ambulance, crushing and instantly killing the child hanging on the front. Because several entities were involved in the event — the school, teacher, principal, volunteer chaperones, the police and fire departments, the EMT staff, and the municipal government that provided the parking lot, assignment of liability would likely be shared. The school, however, through the teacher who organized the event, was ultimately responsible for acting within the professional standard of care for supervision of children. Had chaperones been directed to supervise specific students at all times, it is likely that when the students climbed onto the golf cart, their chaperones would have stopped them.

Cases involving class trips can become quite complex when several agencies are involved. In a drowning case, a school had selected students to attend a leadership training program off campus. The school rented a nearby YMCA campsite that had several buildings suitable for overnight guests. There was also a third agency, the company providing the training program.

In this case, several students left the dormitory in the middle of the night, went to a nearby riverbank and took several boats into the river, even though signs strictly prohibited anyone from going into the water. When several students drowned, each of the three entities and many individuals became defendants. Sorting out supervisory responsibilities between the school, the training agency and the YMCA, assessing the capacity of the students to watch out for their own safety, and many additional elements became important when determining foreseeability, responsibility for supervision, proximate cause, and liability. In this case, proximate causation was determined through an assessment of whether the students’ misconduct would likely have been prevented had the duty to supervise been discharged.

 

Contributory Negligence for Student Field Trip Injuries

Questions of liability may arise from any number of unforeseen situations. Who bears the burden of liability when a student on a daytrip rents a bicycle, fails to wear a helmet, and sustains a head injury when he runs into a tree? What is the school’s liability if a child runs ahead of her group onto a highway, only to be seriously injured by a passing car? When a child’s own actions contribute in whole or part to wrongful death or serious injury, such circumstances can be a defense in certain situations.

As a court stated, a determination of contributory negligence involves several considerations:

  • Characteristics of the child (e.g., age, intelligence, experience, knowledge, or physical condition) that would influence her ability to detect dangerous conditions or appreciate the danger of a hazard observed
  • Physical facts, i.e., the extent to which the hazard is noticeable and the degree of alertness required to avoid such a hazard
  • The environment, be it the physical activities of the individual who was injured or killed or the movement, sound, or placement of other persons and objects in the setting.

For example, in the river drowning case described earlier, the question of contributory negligence was raised because the students who drowned were 17 and 18 years old, were determined to be intelligent because they had been selected for leadership training, were physically fit, and had the ability to detect the dangerous conditions of the river. A sign prohibiting swimming was clearly visible to a reasonable person, and there were no distractions at the scene that would have caused either of the students to lose concentration or momentarily forget that entering the river presented a danger of harm.

 

Summary

Supervision of children on the premises of a school, camp, or other entity is essential for protecting the health, safety and well-being of participants. Supervision of children at school-sponsored trips presents unique challenges and must be addressed in a different way. This is especially true when a group is planning to go to a place that is unfamiliar and may present challenges and dangers not typically considered.

Start with a clear, strong policy requiring administrative approval and a plan for the trip that includes safety and emergency responses. Consider how many children will attend, their ages, and how many adults are needed to supervise the children and protect them from harm. If the area is unfamiliar, the person in charge should visit in advance, making note of potential hazards and developing a plan to protect children from those hazards. Chaperones must know as much as possible about where the group is going, the potential hazards, who the children are and whether any have a particular disability, behavior problem or other characteristic requiring special attention, and which children are under their responsibility during the trip.

As an expert witness providing services for plaintiff and defendant attorneys on issues of negligent supervision and liability, I review the policies of schools and other entities and compare them against the facts of the case. This process provides insight as to whether the entity met its own standards by following its policies and whether contributory negligence was involved, leading us toward answers about questions of liability. When the facts are clear, an opinion may be rendered as to whether the entity acted appropriately and reasonably under the circumstances and within the professional standard of care.

Public and Private School Employment Discrimination Lawsuits

School Employment Discrimination

Employment decisions in public and private schools should be based on qualifications, performance, merit, and seniority, rather than race, national origin, gender, religion, age, or disability.

Employment decisions in public and private schools should be based on qualifications, performance, merit, and seniority, rather than race, national origin, gender, religion, age, or disability. Teachers and other school personnel can sue for employment discrimination if they are wrongfully dismissed or demoted, if they were prevented from initially obtaining a job, or not appropriately accommodated for a disability or medical condition. Most employment discrimination violates either state or federal law, and legal protections are found in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Additionally, two primary federal statutes prohibit disability discrimination in employment: the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990.

Statutes are extensive, complex, vary considerably, and can be confusing. As such, there is no simple solution to every case involving employment discrimination. But a careful review of the progression of events associated with a complaint often will bring litigation to a reasonable conclusion. In such cases as a teacher being fired or an applicant being excluded from a job interview, attorneys representing plaintiffs and schools must present a clear timeline of events leading up to a decision. Often, this task is accomplished in retrospect after a lawsuit has been filed, and any lack of documentation can make it difficult for plaintiff to argue employment discrimination or for a school to defend its decisions.

Reconstructing the file — an employee’s discrete, day-to-day personnel issues or the employment interview and process, for instance — is necessary to be able to determine whether the school, through its administration, acted appropriately, reasonably, and within the professional standard of care. Knowledge of employment law and the nuances that often exist in the school context is helpful to attorneys in representing the best interests of their clients in employment discrimination claims. Above all, however, a timeline of events and analysis of each significant entry are most important in determining whether a school met the law.

Anatomy of an Employment Discrimination Lawsuit

The importance of a timeline is illustrated in a recent case in South Carolina. Spartanburg School District Seven reportedly will pay $62,000 to settle a former teacher’s employment discrimination suit. Frances Grady claimed she faced discrimination over her disability, race, and age. Full details of the case were not disclosed publicly; however, court documents reveal the basics.

Grady, who was employed by the district for more than 30 years, was diagnosed with a condition that weakened her immune system. Grady said the school made accommodations for her, allowing her to teach smaller groups of students as an “interventionist.” In my opinion, such an accommodation would be appropriate and reasonable, and would have met the needs of the employee and the school at that time. Of course, a district’s needs may change over time, possibly necessitating a restructuring of staff. In other words, Grady’s accommodation might be viable one year but not the next. The following year, the school reassigned her to teach first grade.

This brings up a question: When did the school know of Grady’s disability? Did it make an accommodation for her by assigning her to teach as an interventionist — or did Grady disclose her disability after the school reassigned her to teach first grade?

In her employment discrimination lawsuit, Grady claimed to have told school officials that her condition prevented her from teaching first grade. Further, she said, the school told her it would no longer use interventionists, forcing her to go on leave without pay because, in her belief, the school would no longer accommodate her disability. Subsequently, Grady was not offered a teaching contract.

Later, Grady, who is white and in her 50s, learned that a younger, less-experienced African-American male was hired as an interventionist, thus prompting her claims of race and age employment discrimination.

If it could have been demonstrated that the school knew of Grady’s disability, accommodated her by assigning her to the interventionist position, then reassigned her to first grade — knowing that her disability would not allow her to be effective in that role — and finally replaced her with someone else, the school would have had difficulty justifying its position.

In its own defense, the school denied that Grady had been offered the interventionist position because of her health. The school also claimed that it was only after her reassignment to first grade that Grady submitted medical documentation about her diagnosis and requested an accommodation. The school acknowledged that Grady was not offered a teaching contract after granting her request for medical leave, but denied its action stemmed from any discriminatory or retaliatory reason.

If the school can show that it declined to offer her a contract because of a change in the school’s staffing structure — and not because of her disability — then it is likely the school would have been able to justify its position.

Title VII School Employment Discrimination Protections

Title VII prohibits entities with 15 or more employees from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, or national origin. The statute covers hiring, promotion, and compensation practices, as well as fringe benefits and other terms and conditions of employment. Discrimination in hiring can be established by showing that the applicant is a member of a protected class, applied for and was qualified for the job, and was denied the position while the employer continued to seek applicants with the plaintiff’s qualifications.

When a public or private school posts a position for a teacher, lists the qualifications, interviews several qualified candidates but denies the position to a highly qualified individual who discussed her religious affiliation with interviewers, this individual might believe she was subjected to religious discrimination. In this example, the candidate would need to show, at a minimum, that she met the posted requirements for the positions, that other candidates were not as experienced and thus not as qualified, that the school did not offer her the position, and that it continued to interview.

In its own defense, the school would need to state a reason for its decision that does not violate Title VII. A reason for not hiring may be objective, such as the requirement that the candidate possess a graduate degree; subjective, such as an assessment of interpersonal skills; or a combination of both in determining which applicant is best qualified. If the school is unable to show a nondiscriminatory reason for its action, a decision for the plaintiff most likely would be granted. Additionally, the school should present a timeline of events from the time the position was posted (including a copy of the posting), through the interview, reference check, and finally a decision to hire another person. If the timeline reveals gaps in documentation and the school is not able to account for actions that should have been taken, this will strengthen a decision for the plaintiff.

Given the ease of presenting a nondiscriminatory reason, schools should be able to provide a satisfactory response in nearly every instance. For example, if the school hiring the teacher can show that discussions with past employers revealed that a candidate was not liked by fellow staff and often argued with them in an unprofessional way, these are valid considerations in the hiring process. How much weight this should have, however, is often argued in litigation. The school should develop a process for documenting interviews with former employers, particularly with respect to specific statements provided by an interviewee and the impressions of the person making the call.

If the school argues that nobody who interviewed the candidate knew of her religious affiliation and that it was not included on the application, then it has a good chance of showing that it acted appropriately, reasonably, and within the professional standard of care, and that it met the requirements of Title VII. On the other hand, if one of the interviewers pointedly asked the candidate about religious holidays she would be likely to take during the school year, this may be interpreted as obtaining information about the person’s religion that later factored into a hiring decision. In a situation where events during the interview might be the subject of disagreement, the jury will address the credibility of the witness.

After the school provides a rebuttal, the plaintiff then has the additional burden of proving that the school’s stated reason for not hiring is false and is but a pretext for prohibited intentional discrimination. In most instances, it is difficult to show a pretextual basis for discrimination. The plaintiff is likely to be successful only when it is clearly articulated, verbally or in writing, that the candidate was not hired because of a protected factor. This information may be found in a thorough document review during discovery. Notes made by people who interviewed the candidate might reveal bias through comments such as “too many religious holidays.”

Protection against discriminatory employment practices is not absolute. Facially discriminatory practices on the basis of religion, gender, or national origin (but not on race or color) may be permitted if they relate directly to a bona fide occupational qualification, such as a requirement that the head of a Catholic school be Catholic.

Disability Employment Discrimination

Another area that often comes forward in employment lawsuits is disability, either that of an individual applying for a position or that of a current employee. Federal disability law protects individuals who can show that they are “otherwise qualified” for a job, although reasonable accommodations may be needed at times. If a person meets the requirements for a position but uses a wheelchair, for instance, the school must consider how it can make an accommodation so that the individual can function successfully in the job.

When a person with an identified disability applies for a position at a school, the school must determine whether he or she is otherwise qualified. To be an otherwise qualified individual with a disability, the applicant must be able to perform the essential functions of the job in spite of the disability, although reasonable accommodation at times may be necessary. Consider, as an example, a school that posts a position for a high school social studies teacher. The announcement attracts the attention of a junior high school social studies teacher who has taught in the district for seven years. When it first hired her, the district assigned the teacher to a classroom on the second floor of a three-story building. Because of her disability, the teacher used a wheelchair and used an elevator to get to her classroom. The high school is in an older building with three floors but no elevator. In this situation, the school must first consider the applicant’s qualifications for the position, regardless if she uses a wheelchair. If she is otherwise qualified, then the school must consider reasonable accommodations necessary for her to function in the position.

Would it be reasonable, in this case, for the school to construct an elevator to accommodate the teacher if she were to be assigned to a classroom on the third floor? Alternatively, would it be a reasonable accommodation to move the social studies class to the first floor so she would be able to get to the classroom? Assuming she was otherwise qualified but not offered the position, the teacher would have a valid claim that she was discriminated against because of her disability and could present the position that simply moving the class to the first floor would have been a reasonable accommodation.

In defense against such a suit, the school should produce documentation that during the interview process and afterward, it considered what accommodations would be necessary for the person to be successful in the position. Suitable documentation would include a checklist of potential accommodations and/or modifications, such as moving a class to the first floor for a teacher who uses a wheelchair or constructing a handicapped-accessible bathroom on the first floor of an older building.

Conclusion

Basing employment decisions strictly on qualifications, performance, merit, and seniority, rather than race, national origin, gender, religion, age, or disability is the law. However, prospective employees or current teachers or staff can interpret employment decisions any number of ways, raising questions of equity. Sorting out what is in the best interest of the school while assuring that an individual’s rights are maintained can be confusing. Sometimes, decisions need to be made for the school, but not to the exclusion of the employment rights of the individual. It is not easy to balance the institution’s needs with its provision of an adequate education for students and the employment rights of its teachers and staff.

For both plaintiff and defendant attorneys, clearly documented timelines are essential. These are necessary for reviewing and analyzing whether a school acted within the law when making employment decisions. Documentation of candidate interviews, reference checks, and of issues leading to a decision to bypass a candidate for a job is essential for determining whether a school acted within the professional standard of care.

The important thing to remember is that treating all potential or current employees the same may not accommodate individual needs and may inadvertently result in discrimination resulting in employment discrimination lawsuits. Alternatively, treating each person differently may provide advantages to some over others. There is no simple solution for every case.

Campus Sexual Assault and Harassment Lawsuits: Title IX Standards and Questions of Liability

Campus Sexual Violence

When students are sexually assaulted or harassed, they are deprived of equal and free access to an education.

In 2011, the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued a “Dear Colleague” letter to college and university administrators about implementation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 in regards to campus sexual assault cases. Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs or activities in schools that receive federal funding. The letter explains that schools are required to develop and distribute policies regarding sexual harassment, designate a Title IX coordinator to oversee the school’s duties, train staff and students in sexual harassment and violence issues, and establish an investigation procedure and an adjudication process. The letter did not articulate specific procedural safeguards, rules for the examination of evidence, or guidelines for the conduct of adjudication or hearing processes for cases of campus sexual violence.

This lack of specificity allowed colleges and universities to develop and implement their own procedures, which vary widely from campus to campus. As a result, some schools have implemented procedures that, however well intended, may ultimately be judged as arbitrary and capricious — opening the gate for lawsuits from either an alleged victim who may feel that he or she was not adequately heard or from an accused individual who feels unjustly punished. In the end, determination of the believability of the alleged victim and the punishment of the accused is in the hands of school officials.

Title IX Standards and Campus Sexual Assault Liability

Campus sexual assault and violence in higher education institutions is a pressing civil rights issue. When students are sexually assaulted or harassed, they are deprived of equal and free access to an education. It is also a matter of law; sexual harassment of students, which includes acts of sexual violence, is a form of sex discrimination prohibited by Title IX.

A report of student-on-student sexual harassment on campus is not enough to demonstrate a Title IX violation. The school’s actions in response to a complaint are key to a school’s liability. Federal courts have held that there is no violation of civil rights laws if harassment occurs, as long as the school investigates an allegation in good faith. Disputes often rest on this question. In a recent article, I discussed Title IX as it applies to elementary and secondary schools. In this article, I reinforce that Title IX is also applicable to colleges and universities that accept federal funding, and that its misapplication can result in a lawsuit against the school.

Critical Elements of a Title IX Lawsuit Applied to Campus Sexual Assault Cases

A Title IX lawsuit  will focus on the college’s handling of sexual misconduct, complaints, investigations, and training of staff. As an example, in J.K. v. Arizona Board of Regents, a federal court in 2008 rejected Arizona State University’s argument that it was not responsible under Title IX when a campus athlete raped a student, even though ASU had previously expelled the athlete for severe sexual harassment of multiple other women on campus. Under the settlement, ASU awarded the plaintiff $850,000 and agreed to appoint a student safety coordinator to review and reform policies for reporting and investigating incidents of sexual harassment and assault. In a 2006 case, Simpson v. University of Colorado, a federal court found that there was sufficient evidence to suggest that the university acted with deliberate indifference toward two students who were sexually assaulted by student football players and recruits. In settling the case, the university agreed to hire a new counselor for the Office of Victim’s Assistance, appoint an independent Title IX advisor, and pay $2.5 million in damages.

Implementation of Professional Standards

A July 12 New York Times article, “Reporting Rape, and Wishing She Hadn’t: How One College Handled a Sexual Assault Complaint,” illustrates what can go wrong when schools fail to adhere to professional standards, don’t train staff, or in appropriately investigate a complaint.

Professional standards include implementation of federal and state statutes, regulations and advisories, and institutional policies, as well as explicit and implicit contracts and the reasonable administrator standard (whether a reasonable administrator agree that the college or university had a duty to act in a certain way under the circumstance). College policies must adequately reflect these standards. School officials’ conduct must be consistent with good policy.

The question of whether a college or university met the professional standard of care is determined by answering the question: “Did the school, through its administration and/or other employees, act appropriately and reasonably under the circumstance?”

The question of appropriateness is answered by reviewing the professional standards and comparing them against the school’s actions. As an example, the federal standard (34 CFR §106.8[b]) requires a college or university to adopt and publish grievance procedures providing for prompt and equitable resolution of complaints. Did the school adopt and publish a grievance procedure? Did it provide for prompt and equitable resolution of a complaint?

The question of reasonableness is answered by analyzing the facts as gleaned through a review of such documents as the grievance report, police reports, transcripts of the disciplinary hearing, and training documents. Did the school act promptly once it knew or had reason to believe that a student was sexually harassed or assaulted? Did the school provide an equitable resolution to the complaint of campus sexual assault? Was the process of investigation thorough and fair to all parties? Was the disciplinary hearing impartial, unbiased, and evenhanded?

Inadequate Due Process in Cases of Campus Sexual Violence

In the Times article, reporter Walt Bogdanich described the plight of an 18-year-old freshman on the campus of Hobart and William Smith Colleges in central New York. In describing the process followed by the school, Bogdanich demonstrated — and I agree — that the school was ill prepared to evaluate an allegation of a campus sexual assault. I also agree with the reporter’s assertion that this case illustrates how school disciplinary panels are “a world unto themselves, operating in secret with scant accountability and limited protections for the accuser or the accused.”

In this case, three football players were accused of sexually assaulting the freshman at a party. Later the same night, a friend found the student in another location on campus, arriving to see one of the athletes raping her. No one, including the victim and the student who observed the assault, initially reported the behavior. Because the school had no actual knowledge of this behavior, it had no duty to act at that time.

The Title IX standard is that if a school knows or reasonably should know about student-on-student harassment or abuse, the school must take immediate action to eliminate the harassment, prevent its recurrence, and address its effects.*  Shortly after this incident, the student reported events to campus security. Security completed a report, and the college disciplinary committee convened to determine the believability of the victim, witnesses, and alleged assailant and to dole out discipline.

The college investigated the campus sexual assault report, held a hearing, and cleared those allegedly responsible in a space of 12 days. Even though one might praise the school for acting swiftly, a closer look must be given to the process of the review and training of those making the decision.

The “Dear Colleague” letter mentioned previously clearly sets the standard: The school’s inquiry must in all cases be prompt, thorough, and impartial. The three elements — prompt, thorough, and impartial — should be executed in the context of the professional standard of care. In this case, the investigation was prompt. But I would argue it was not thorough and impartial.

A three-member panel convened behind closed doors to adjudicate the student’s complaint. According to the Times, the panelists “acted as prosecutor, judge, and jury, questioning students and rendering judgment.”

There is no evidence in the record, the Times reported, that those sitting on the panel were trained in sexual harassment and abuse issues. The victim’s attorney scoffed at the “absurdity” of the questions asked during the review by one panelist, who asked the witness whether he had seen the accused student’s penis in the victim’s vagina or if he had just seen them having sex. Any reasonable school employee who is appropriately trained to participate in such a panel would agree that this question demonstrates lack of training — implying a breach of the professional standard of care.

Members are supposed to be trained for this type of assignment. Indeed, OCR states that training for administrators, teachers, staff, and students can help to ensure that they understand what types of conduct constitute sexual harassment or violence, identify warning signals that may need attention, and know how to respond.

According to OCR, all persons involved in implementing grievance procedures, including investigators and adjudicators, must have training or experience in handling complaints of sexual harassment and violence as well as knowledge of the school’s grievance procedures. In sexual violence cases, the fact finder and decision maker also should have commensurate training or knowledge about sexual violence. For instance, if an investigation or hearing involves forensic evidence, that evidence should be reviewed by a trained forensic examiner.

Summary

If a college has appropriate policies, adequately distributes those policies, appropriately trains its staff to investigate complaints of campus sexual assault or harassment, and conducts an unbiased hearing, then there is little an alleged victim can present if he or she disagrees with the decision of the disciplinary panel. If, on the other hand, the facts demonstrate that policies were nonexistent, not representative of the professional standard of care, or not adequately distributed to staff and students, or that those sitting on the panel were inadequately trained and the hearing was conducted contrary to the professional standard of care, then the victim or the perpetrator might present a convincing argument for appealing a panel’s decision.

In this case, the school may have failed to meet the professional standard of care. If it happened at this school, it is likely happening at colleges and universities around the country. That failure can leave schools liable for incidents involving campus sexual assault and harassment, and can result in expensive lawsuits and settlements.

____________________________________________________

*This is the standard for administrative enforcement of Title IX and in court cases where plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief.  The standard in private lawsuits for monetary damages is actual knowledge and deliberate indifference. See Davis v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. Of Ed., 526 U.S. 629, 648 (1999).

School Liability and Negligent Supervision of Children with Disabilities

school liability for student injury

Schools and other agencies have a greater duty to supervise and care for the students in a manner specifically appropriate for the child’s disability.

For schools, daycare centers, after-school programs, and camps, children with disabilities often present significant supervisory challenges. If these children’s needs are not adequately addressed and a child is seriously injured or killed, negligent supervision may be viewed as a proximate cause. But what constitutes reasonable supervision of children with behavioral or physical disabilities? It depends on the unique needs of the student and a school’s standards for protecting that student from harm.

Students with developmental disabilities, autism, mental illness, or a physical disability require specialized programs and services, highly qualified personnel, or one-on-one assistance to protect them from harm. Thus, when a school is aware of the characteristics and needs of a child with a disability, its duty to supervise the student in a way that ensures his safety extends beyond the professional standard of care for the general student population. A student death or serious personal injury stemming from a failure to adhere to this higher standard may constitute negligent supervision and render the school liable for damages.

Student Safety and Supervision Standards

Consider a school or other agency that enrolls a child with behavioral or physical conditions that require specific interventions to keep him safe. In this case, the school or agency’s duty to supervise exceeds general or even specific supervision. General supervision is provided in a situation like recess on the playground, where two or three teachers supervise a group of students. Specific supervision is required when a student is engaged in an activity that presents an inherent danger if the student doesn’t receive careful instruction, such as the use of power tools during woodshop. For a child with a disability, however, the standard of care extends to a much more child-centered, individualized focus. In liability cases, the known characteristics of the child’s behavior or physical limitations frame an assessment of the reasonableness of supervision.

Is it reasonable for an elementary school principal to assign three playground aides to supervise 85 fifth-grade children, none of whom have any special needs, on a fenced-in playground after lunch? Is it reasonable for a residential treatment center administrator to approve an afternoon walk in a forest with 15 children and one teacher with the knowledge that one of the children has a history of running and leaving the protective supervision of staff?

The answers are “yes” in the first example and “no” in the second.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requires that a child with a disability who qualifies for special education and related services must have an individualized education program (IEP) tailored to his or her needs. When the child exhibits behavior problems that interfere with her education or the education of others or that might cause injury to her or other students, the IEP must include a behavioral plan. Once the school identifies the behavior issues and an intervention plan is developed, this becomes the professional standard of care specific to the student. The IEP addresses the type and level of supervision that the school has determined necessary to protect the child from harm.

Because the child in our example above has a history of running off during class trips, the appropriate professional standard would likely require that an additional aide accompany her on trips. If another child has a history of getting out of his seat on the bus, running up and down the aisles, and distracting the driver, the appropriate professional standard of care might be to assign a bus aide to him.

If the defined standard is breached and the child or others are injured, that breach might be considered a proximate cause of injury — and the concept of sovereign immunity would not apply. In the absence of immunity, courts have held upheld student injury lawsuits stemming from the negligent failure to provide a reasonably safe environment or adequate supervision.

Negligent Supervision

Last month, a 12-year-old student with autism disappeared from a Bronx, N.Y. school for hours before he was found in Times Square. He left his classroom and was seen running down a staircase. The details of this student’s history are publicly unknown, but if the school had any prior experience of this student leaving his classroom unsupervised, it would have been the school’s duty to provide individual close supervision for the student. It might have been necessary for a classroom aide to be with him, one-on-one, during the day to supervise his movements through the school. The school had an obligation to consider the student’s capacity, determine whether any related behaviors would likely place him in harm’s way, and take reasonable steps to prevent harm through appropriate supervision.

In this case, the student was found and no harm came to him. But his story could have been much different, as with the case of Avonte Oquendo, the 14-year-old boy who slipped past a security desk and disappeared from his Queens, N.Y., school last October. Oquendo, who has autism and cannot speak and was missing for months before he was found dead. The investigations into the circumstances of both cases continue.

In another example of potential negligence, the City School District of New Rochelle, N.Y., was ordered last August to pay compensatory damages after it failed to evacuate two students in wheelchairs during a fire emergency. The U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York found that New Rochelle High School violated the Americans With Disabilities Act in not having an evacuation plan for students with mobility impairments. The students, one of whom has cerebral palsy, were left in a third-floor classroom while the rest of the school was evacuated. School officials, who have contested the U.S. Attorney’s findings, said their plan for dealing with students with disabilities in an emergency was to get them to a “safe room” where first responders can find them, but the safe room closest to the students required maneuvering down stairs. New York State law, however, requires a full evacuation during an actual emergency.

Even if the school had been found in compliance with the law, clearly, this plan was inadequate for a child in a wheelchair. The school had a duty to consider the students’ disabilities and their inability to navigate stairs, and to plan adequately for their evacuation in the event of an emergency.

Court Rulings on School Liability

Though a school has a higher duty to supervise students with special needs, not every student injury is the result of negligence on the part of the school or its personnel. Again, liability depends on the circumstances. Let’s take a look at two cases.

In Montana, a teacher had forbidden a developmentally disabled student from using certain equipment in the playground. Her “rule” became the professional standard of care specific to this child. On the day he slid down a pole on this equipment, fell, and fractured his tibia, his teacher was absent. At the time of the accident, the substitute teacher and another were on the playground supervising students. The boy’s parents sued the district for failing to supervise their son properly. A jury determined that the substitute teacher had not acted negligently and held for the district.

The parents appealed to the state Supreme Court, which observed that a verdict cannot be reversed when it is supported by substantial credible evidence. In this case, the substitute teacher testified that she was watching five students — all of whom required special attention. All parties agreed that the substitute teacher had a duty to supervise the student closely. However, the fact that the substitute had failed to see this student climbing the equipment did not constitute a breach of duty (Morgan v. Great Falls School Dist. No. 1, 995 P.2d 422 [Mont. 2000]).

In this example, the professional standard of care was that the student was not to play on the equipment. However, the focus in this case was not this standard, but on the general supervision that was provided at the time. Regardless of the standard, the court determined that because the substitute teacher was providing supervision, as required, the school was not liable for his injury. In other words, the teacher was doing her job. Would the result have been different if the complaint focused on the playground rule set by the teacher and the duty of the school to ensure that the substitute teacher enforced the rule?

In Louisiana, a student with spina bifida and hydrocephalus was unable to walk. The school provided transportation in a specially equipped bus. A bus aide was required to secure the student in the wheelchair with a lap restraint, but neither the wheelchair nor the bus provided the means of securing his upper body. After picking up the student, the bus driver backed the bus into a car as his mother watched. She asked the child if he was hurt. The boy didn’t respond, and the mother permitted him to continue to school. When he returned home with a bruised forehead and complained of head and back pain, however, the family took him to an emergency room. The family sued the school board, seeking reimbursement for treatment costs. A court found the school liable for the boy’s injuries.

An appeals court found ample evidence that the student’s injuries were caused by the accident. There was also sufficient evidence to show that the student had suffered ongoing physical pain as the result of the accident. The court affirmed the judgment (Marshall v. Caddo Parish School Bd., 743 So.2d 943 [La.Ct.App. 1999]).

In this case, would the student have been protected from harm if the child’s upper body had been secured? More than likely, he would not have been injured. This raises an important question: Would a reasonable person know that if the child’s upper body was not secure in his wheelchair and there was an accident, the child would likely become injured? If injury is foreseeable, it is the responsibility of those in charge to assure safety. This student’s safety could be reasonably assured if those in charge had provided him with a wheelchair and a bus equipped to secure him both across his lap and upper body.

Summary

When schools and other agencies responsible for the care of children have knowledge that a student’s behavioral or physical disability may place that student or others at higher risk of being seriously injured or killed, they have a higher duty to supervise students in a manner specifically appropriate for the child’s condition. A reasonable standard of care is tailored to the student’s unique history and needs. Failure to establish and follow such a standard may leave a school liable in the event of a casualty.

If the symptoms of a child’s disability suggest to a reasonable person that the student might be injured or even killed without special supervision and the responsibility for providing it is not carried out, the school will likely be held liable in the event of a student death or injury. If, on the other hand, the school provided an appropriate IEP and level of supervision but an injury still occurred, the school is unlikely to be held liable. Assessing the individual characteristics, emotional, and physical needs of students with disabilities and developing an appropriate safety plan is a clear duty of the school.

Student Injury and Reasonable Professional Standard

Student Injury and School Liability

Student Injury and School Liability

Unquestionably, schools have a responsibility to protect children from harm. The same goes for agencies such as day care centers, summer camps, and after-school programs. Schools and agencies, however, are not the ultimate protectors; that role falls to employees, who must act on behalf of the school in a way that is reasonably calculated to maintain children’s health, safety, and well-being. The key word here is reasonable — and in the totality of a situation in which a child was injured or died, an analysis and assessment of what was reasonable can be challenging but it is the key to assesing school liability.

The distinction between a school or agency’s duty to protect and who is the ultimate protector from harm in a given situation is important, because it provides an avenue for determining liability. This is the starting point for analyzing a case involving student injury or death and assessing what kind of behavior would be expected to keep children safe. Behavior that is deemed reasonable under the circumstances leads us to the question of whether those in charge acted appropriately and within a professional standard of care that is calculated to protect children from harm.

Determining either the merit of filing a lawsuit or the strength of a defense boils down to two key questions. Attorneys need to know “What would a reasonable administrator, or other employee, do in the same or similar circumstance?” and “If this person acted differently, would the injury or death have occurred?”

School Safety and Security: Tips for Assessing Liability in School Violence Lawsuits

Student Safety: What should be done?

Ensuring children’s safety requires that those in charge be both proactive and reactive in a meaningful way. At a general level, a reasonable school or program administrator would conduct a safety survey of the facility, the equipment, and the community; assess the supervisory requirements of the children based on their age, number of children, and any unique characteristics; and develop policies and specific procedures for staff implementation. Specific circumstances may compel a reasonable administrator to take additional measures or instruct staff to be vigilant and prepared to disarm a situation, even if no statute or regulation requiring specific action exists.

As an attorney, place yourself in the classroom where a child slipped and fell. Or in the daycare center where the teacher asked a child to carry hot soup across the room. Or at an agency-sponsored trip where a child ran into the street. Then ask yourself: What should the administration and staff have done to protect children in these circumstances? Were reasonable and appropriate steps taken, and if a child was hurt, would the injury have occurred even with these precautions? Let’s consider these questions in the context of two real cases.

Wrongful Death Lawsuits against Schools and Agencies

Applying the Reasonable Standard to School Accidents

The first case involves a 300-pound cafeteria table that fell on a second-grade student. This was an 18-foot table that folded in the middle and stood upright, on wheels, when folded. When the folded table was put away, it was rolled to a wall, where it would be securely fastened by a manufacturer-supplied device. Recognizing the need to protect students from a falling table, the school developed a procedure by which the custodian, immediately after lunch, would clean the tables, fold them, move them to the wall, and secure them to the wall. This was in his job description. The latches along the wall were functional, but the custodian failed to latch one table to the wall. When a student walked through the cafeteria, he leaned against the table — causing it to topple onto his head, killing him.

Any reasonable school or agency administrator would understand that if a 300-pound table was not securely fastened to the wall, it might tip and fall on a student. The school recognized this danger, developed a careful procedure, and placed it in the custodian’s job description. The manufacturer warned that the tables must be latched to the wall with the supplied mechanism to prevent accidental tipping and injury or death. The manufacturer provided this mechanism and the school properly installed it and required the custodian to use it to secure the tables. The school, through its administration, was also responsible for ensuring that its standard was followed.

In this case, the test for actual causation is whether the plaintiff could establish that this student’s death would not have occurred without the negligent conduct of the school through its employee. Viewing this through the eyes of a reasonable school administrator provides the answer. A reasonable administrator would have developed a review-and-supervision system whereby she would regularly observe to ensure that the school’s own standard was being met — that is, that the custodian latched tables to the wall as required. If the administrator saw that the custodian failed to fasten a table to the wall, it would be her responsibility to correct the custodian’s behavior by bringing this deficiency to his attention. The administrator failed to ensure that the proper procedure was being followed and that contributed to the custodian’s failure.  In this case, it was determined that if the table was securely fastened to the wall — as per the professional standard of care — the student would not have been killed.

The second case involved a television that sat atop a movable cart. Teachers used the cart regularly to move the TV from one room to another and then into a hallway storage closet at the end of the day. In the morning, the teacher wheeled the cart with the television to her classroom and set it up for a small group of children to watch. Later, she was busy with another group when she instructed two third graders to take the loaded cart down the hall and put it in the closet. Along the way, the children began to play on the cart — one standing on the bottom shelf, holding onto the sides, while the other pushed. When the child pushing the cart let go of it, the cart tipped in the direction of the student hanging off the front. The 55-pound TV slipped off the cart and fell on the child’s head, causing permanent brain injury.

As with the case involving the table, the test for actual causation in this instance is whether the plaintiff could establish that the child’s injury would not have occurred if not for the administrator’s and the teacher’s negligent conduct. A reasonable administrator would have notified teachers that children would not be allowed to push carts with TVs on top of them. In fact, in this case, the cart had a sticker on it stating “only to be moved by an adult.” Moreover, this particular cart earned the distinction as a dangerous piece of equipment by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) because of numerous injuries resulting from its design. Although the manufacturer was notified of the CPSC warning and provided this information to those who purchased the cart, the school either did not receive the warning or did not consider it when assessing the overall safety of the facility and equipment. The cart was not taken out of service and teachers were not warned to prohibit students from pushing it.

Elements of Tort Law and School Liability

Summary

Schools and agencies have a responsibility to care for and protect children from harm. They must act in a way that is reasonably calculated to maintain the health, safety, and well-being of children. An analysis and assessment of what was reasonable in the totality of the circumstances surrounding the death or injury of a child can be challenging. Determining what was reasonable under the circumstances addresses the question of whether appropriate actions within the professional standard of care were taken to protect the child from harm.

Applying the reasonable professional standard within the context of the situation provides a focus. This is best done by someone with a thorough understanding of how schools and agencies work and how a reasonable and prudent administrator would act in a specific circumstance. Attorneys who don’t have a clear picture of how systems work — or should work — in these settings often misjudge the merit of filing a lawsuit or the strength of a defense against one in cases involving a student injury or death. The two examples in this article illustrate the complex analysis required for a full understanding of a situation and its implications for determining liability.

Remember the two key questions: “What would a reasonable administrator or other employee do in the same or similar circumstance?” and “If this person acted differently, as a reasonable administrator, would the injury or death have occurred?” Attorneys who have the answers to these questions may be able to improve their assessment of a case.