Skip to main content

Shara Johnson's School Law Page               



Problem Solving Exercises

    
ISSUE 1   Four third grade students during the morning recess period play on the elementary school's large swing set.  Two tenured and three non-tenured, third grade teachers are sitting on a concrete abutment almost 30 feet from the swings and sliding board; it is regarded by the teachers as THE prominent place to sit, to chat, and to observe and supervise all of the playground activities.  Joey Harris, a second grade student, walks in front of another student swinging; he is struck in the face by the seat of the swing of Tommy Cole.  There are severe head and body injuries to Joey Harris.  None of the teachers observed Joey being struck by the swing; they relied upon the comments of the students around the swings.
 
QUESTION:  To Sue, or NOT to sue?
I would sue the teachers on duty. They displayed peer negligence and breach of duty by not properly supervising the playground area. ROLLINS v. CONCORDIA PARISH SCHOOL BOARD
465 So.2d 213 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1985) and Lopez v. City of New York, 163 N.Y.S.2d 562, 565 (App. Div. 1957)
 
ISSUE 2   James Jenkins, a 9th grade science teacher, likes girls; he likes them a lot.  He is very popular with the female students; he is especially popular with the girls who love all of the attention they receive from him.  Neither the boys nor the girls not selected by him appreciate his affectionate behavior.  He constantly praises, hugs, and physically strokes his selected, female students.  Mr. Jenkins places his arms around Cathy Snow to demonstrate a proper technique used in adjusting the flame to the bunsen burner.  He accidentally touches Cathy's breast; she stands immediately and registers her anger to one and all.  She and her mother are not happy; this is the third time this week for this type of accident.  The students enjoying Mr. Jenkins affection believe that Cathy Snow a trouble-maker; not all of the students support this position.
 
QUESTION:  To Sue, or NOT to sue?
 
It appears that Mr. Jenkins may have a problem. I think that there is a legal issue involving sexual harassment, unwanted or wanted affection be a student still is defined as sexual harassment on the part of the teacher. I think if I were the parent I would sue the teacher for sexual harassment. Mary M. v. N. Lawrence Cmty. Sch. Corp., 131 F. 3d 1220 (7th Cir. 1997) and Seneway v. Canon McMillan Sch. Dist., 969 F. Supp. 325 (W.D. Pa 1997)
 
ISSUE 3   Margaret, Morgan, and Sean are all new fourth grade teachers at Griley Middle School.  Since the enrollment of the school has been slowly declining; the principal indicated that ONE of the fourth grade teachers would be RIF (reduction in force) for the new school year.  Joan Fellen, the middle school principal, told the teachers to ?work it out? among themselves; she wanted the name of the person to be RIFed for the new year by the end of the day.  Ms. Fellen reasoned that the people most knowledgeable of the requirements of the fourth grade students should determine who was to be RIFed.  Following some heated debate among the three teachers Margaret Meadows was the person selected to be RIFed.  Margaret is not a ?happy camper.? 
 
QUESTION:  To Sue, or NOT to sue?
SUE..the principal... It is the responsibility of the administration not the employee to determine who received RIF notices. Substantive due process is owed to all three teachers. There needs to be a process adopted by the school district to handle this situation. Nickel v. Saline County Sch. Dist. No. 163, 559 N.W.2d 480 (Neb. 1997) and Palone v. Jefferson Parish Sch. Bd., 306 So. 2d 679 (La. 1975).
 
 
 
ISSUE 4   Coach Matthews is a chain-smoker trying to kick the habit.  Her fourth period volleyball class is a very large class of senior girls; they are typically a very well disciplined group of students.  Coach Matthews starts the class with no problems, then stands by the office door to watch the four teams play each other with two groups of girls waiting to play the winners; they are standing and sitting around the playing area.  The phone rings; as Coach Matthews talks to the principal, she lights up a cigarette, hands up the phone, and continues to smoke the cigarette.  Jackie Hall spikes the ball into Denise Walls face; there is considerable physical damage to Denise?s face.  The girls surround Denise for about ten minutes.  There is blood everywhere; also there are lots of screams and shouts.  The janitor discovers the scene.
 
QUESTION:  To Sue, or NOT to sue?
 
Denise Walls family should SUE Coach Matthews for nigligence. A hightened standard of care is owed due to the high level of activity occurring. Coach Matthews was negligent of providing that standard of care. Albers v. Cmty. Consol #204 Sch., 508 N.E.2d 1252 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987) and Gonzalez v. Mackler, 241 N.Y.S.2d 254(N.Y. App. Div, 1963)
 
         


   

n98