Sentences with phrase «district school board v.»

Employers in Ontario will need to reconsider the manner in which they handle workplace issues involving disability management and human rights litigation after the Ontario Divisional Court recently upheld the 2012/2013 decision of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal in Hamilton - Wentworth District School Board v. Fair, wherein the tribunal ordered Sharon Fair be reinstated into suitable alternative employment with her previous employer after approximately a decade had passed since her dismissal.

In a case decided earlier this year by the Ontario division court, Lambton Kent District School Board v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2013 ONSC 839 (CanLII), the answer would appear to be not unless the worker consents.

Hamilton - Wentworth District School Board v. Fair, 2016 ONCA 421 Facts Ms. Sharon Fair started her employment with the Hamilton - Wentworth District School Board (the «School Board») in 1988.

In the recent decision of Hamilton - Wentworth District School Board v. Fair, 2016 ONCA 421, the Ontario Court of Appeal («ONCA») upheld the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario's 2013 decision to reinstate an employee, more than 10 years after her employment was terminated.

Arbitrator Larry Steinberg faced a plethora of issues in the recent case of Toronto District School Board v. CUPE, Local 4400 (Naccarato Grievance), [2015] O.L.A.A. No. 429.

In Hamilton - Wentworth District School Board v. Fair, 2014 ONSC 2411, the Divisional Court considered, among other things, whether the order to reinstate Fair after almost 10 years of employment was unreasonable.

Not exact matches

The two famous flag salute cases, Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940) and West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), illustrate the point.

-- Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687

At 12:45 p.m., the hearing in the case of Buffalo City School District Board of Education v. Carl Paladino, state Department of Education continues, Regents Room, 89 Washington Ave., Albany.

In September 2005, in Kitzmiller v. Dover, 11 parents sued the Dover Area School District over a pro — intelligent design disclaimer the school board required to be read when evolution was tSchool District over a pro — intelligent design disclaimer the school board required to be read when evolution was tschool board required to be read when evolution was taught.

Judge John E. Jones III wrote in the 139 - page decision for Tammy Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, named for one of the parents who brought the suit, that ID was not only unscientific but was also a front used by those on the school board with a religiously motivated, pro-creationist aSchool District, named for one of the parents who brought the suit, that ID was not only unscientific but was also a front used by those on the school board with a religiously motivated, pro-creationist aschool board with a religiously motivated, pro-creationist agenda.

In a new article for Education Next, Boston College professor Shep Melnick says OCR is on shaky legal ground, since its «Letter» fails to take into account the landmark Rodriguez v. San Antonio Board of Education (1973), which ruled that neither the Constitution nor the Civil Rights Act of 1964 require equal distribution of school resources across school districts.

In Garcia v. Board of Education of Albuquerque Public Schools (2008), Gorsuch upheld an earlier ruling that a student plaintiff was not entitled to compensatory educational services despite the district's failure to provide an individualized education program (IEP) after the student left school and evidenced no willingness to return.

The Court's 5 - to - 4 decision in Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico affirms an appellate - court decision returning the closely watched censorship case to federal district court foDistrict No. 26 v. Pico affirms an appellate - court decision returning the closely watched censorship case to federal district court fodistrict court for trial.

At least since the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954, this has been interpreted to give the federal government the power to intervene in cases of legally sanctioned discrimination, like the segregation of public schools across the country; to mandate equal access to education for students with disabilities; and, according to some arguments, to correct for persistently unequal access to resources across states and districts of different income levels.

Depending on its outcome, the case, Island Trees Union Free School District v. Pico, which has been in the courts for more than six years, could also establish a requirement that school boards base the removal of books from the school library or curriculum on more specific objective criteria than the school board used in thisSchool District v. Pico, which has been in the courts for more than six years, could also establish a requirement that school boards base the removal of books from the school library or curriculum on more specific objective criteria than the school board used in thisschool boards base the removal of books from the school library or curriculum on more specific objective criteria than the school board used in thisschool library or curriculum on more specific objective criteria than the school board used in thisschool board used in this case.

More recently, The Third Circuit, in a case from Pennsylvania, affirmed a school board's motion for summary judgment in response to a teacher's claim that officials violated her free speech rights for terminating her employment over comments she posted on her blog (Munroe v. Central Bucks School District, school board's motion for summary judgment in response to a teacher's claim that officials violated her free speech rights for terminating her employment over comments she posted on her blog (Munroe v. Central Bucks School District, School District, 2015).

Similarly, the Second Circuit affirmed an order in favor of a school board in New York that suspended an eighth - grader after officials learned that he used an instant messaging icon on his parents» home computer to send an image of himself to fifteen friends depicting him shooting his English teacher (Wisniewski v. Board of Education Weedsport Central School District, school board in New York that suspended an eighth - grader after officials learned that he used an instant messaging icon on his parents» home computer to send an image of himself to fifteen friends depicting him shooting his English teacher (Wisniewski v. Board of Education Weedsport Central School District, 2board in New York that suspended an eighth - grader after officials learned that he used an instant messaging icon on his parents» home computer to send an image of himself to fifteen friends depicting him shooting his English teacher (Wisniewski v. Board of Education Weedsport Central School District, 2Board of Education Weedsport Central School District, School District, 2008).

The district pointed to a 1982 Supreme Court decision, Board of Education v. Rowley, which held that schools must merely provide «some educational benefit» for children with disabilities.

After the 1954 Supreme Court decision, Brown v. Board of Education, called for the desegregation of schools in the United States, districts worked to begin integration, but many areas, like Little Rock, Arkansas, remained resistant.

Their ultimate ruling in the joined cases Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (05 - 908) and Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education (05 - 915) will have far - reaching implications for integrated schooling in the United States.

«A Time for Sight: The Debate over Color Blindness and Race - Consciousness in School Integration Policy,» Curriculum Connections In light of the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District and Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education, ADL offers this comprehensive lesson that examines the debate over school integration within the broader context of the Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954 and the desegregation of Central High School in Little Rock, AK inSchool Integration Policy,» Curriculum Connections In light of the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District and Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education, ADL offers this comprehensive lesson that examines the debate over school integration within the broader context of the Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954 and the desegregation of Central High School in Little Rock, AK inSchool District and Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education, ADL offers this comprehensive lesson that examines the debate over school integration within the broader context of the Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954 and the desegregation of Central High School in Little Rock, AK inschool integration within the broader context of the Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954 and the desegregation of Central High School in Little Rock, AK inSchool in Little Rock, AK in 1957.

Alexandria, Va. (November 24, 2015)- The National School Boards Association (NSBA), joined by the Nevada Association of School Boards (NASB), filed a «friend of the court» (amicus) brief in the First Judicial District Court of Nevada in the case of Lopez v. Schwartz, urging the Court to grant a preliminary injunction to halt the pre-registration process Nevada has initiated to use public funds to provide savings accounts for private education.

Alabama also enacted tuition grant state laws permitting students to use vouchers at private schools in the mid-1950s, while also enacting nullification statutes against court desegregation mandates and altering its teacher tenure laws to allow the firing of teachers who supported desegregation.50 Alabama's tuition grant laws would also come before the court, with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama declaring in Lee v. Macon County Board of Education vouchers to be «nothing more than a sham established for the purpose of financing with state funds a white school system.»

Alexandria, Va. (February 1, 2016)-- The National School Boards Association (NSBA) applauds the recent Nevada District Court decision granting a preliminary injunction in the case of Lopez v. Schwartz, halting the state's Education Savings Account Program (ESAP), that would divert general funds appropriated for public schools to fund private school tuSchool Boards Association (NSBA) applauds the recent Nevada District Court decision granting a preliminary injunction in the case of Lopez v. Schwartz, halting the state's Education Savings Account Program (ESAP), that would divert general funds appropriated for public schools to fund private school tuschool tuition.

about NSBA Amicus Brief - John M. v. Board of Education of Evanston Township High School District 202.

In 1965, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District in Virginia found in Griffin v. State Board of Education that vouchers from the state's tuition grant program could not lawfully be used to fund schools that discriminate based on race.27 While not citing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a legal basis for its ruling, the court nonetheless relied on the law's definition of a public school — any institution that was «operated wholly or predominantly from or through the use of governmental funds or property.»

Large - scale school integration mandated the busing of students in Swann v. Charlotte - Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971), as active integration plans were put into effect within school districts.

Alexandria, Va. (September 30, 2015)- The National School Boards Association (NSBA), joined by the Texas Association of School Boards (TASB) filed a «friend of the court» (amicus) brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit regarding Salazar v. South San Antonio Independent School District, urging the Court to overturn the trial court's decision.

Alexandria, Va. (June 9, 2015)- The National School Boards Association (NSBA), joined by the Louisiana School Boards Association (LSBA), the Mississippi School Boards Association (MSBA), the Texas Association of School Boards» (TASB) Legal Assistance Fund, and the National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE), filed a «friend of the court» (amicus) brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (LA, MS, TX) in support of the school district in Seth B. v. Orleans Parish School DisSchool Boards Association (NSBA), joined by the Louisiana School Boards Association (LSBA), the Mississippi School Boards Association (MSBA), the Texas Association of School Boards» (TASB) Legal Assistance Fund, and the National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE), filed a «friend of the court» (amicus) brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (LA, MS, TX) in support of the school district in Seth B. v. Orleans Parish School DisSchool Boards Association (LSBA), the Mississippi School Boards Association (MSBA), the Texas Association of School Boards» (TASB) Legal Assistance Fund, and the National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE), filed a «friend of the court» (amicus) brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (LA, MS, TX) in support of the school district in Seth B. v. Orleans Parish School DisSchool Boards Association (MSBA), the Texas Association of School Boards» (TASB) Legal Assistance Fund, and the National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE), filed a «friend of the court» (amicus) brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (LA, MS, TX) in support of the school district in Seth B. v. Orleans Parish School DisSchool Boards» (TASB) Legal Assistance Fund, and the National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE), filed a «friend of the court» (amicus) brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (LA, MS, TX) in support of the school district in Seth B. v. Orleans Parish School Disschool district in Seth B. v. Orleans Parish School Ddistrict in Seth B. v. Orleans Parish School DisSchool DistrictDistrict.

In her remarks she stated, «More than 60 years have passed since Brown v. Board of Education and our nation's schools and communities still suffer from the vestiges of school segregation and many of our largest school districts remain starkly separated along racial and economic lines.

At stake in the case of Doe v. Board of Education of Prince George's County was the standard by which school districts could be held liable for monetary damages under Title IX [1] in cases of alleged student - on - student harassment.

In Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District and Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, the Court ruled that schools were not liable for damages in sexual harassment cases unless they displayed «deliberate indifference.»

This was first established by the U.S. Supreme Court 50 years ago in Tinker v. De Moines Independent Community School District and even before then in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (which first recognized the First Amendment rights of students by declaring that they couldn't be forced by districts to recite the Pledge of Allegiance against their religious and social consciences).

In the Supreme Court brief, which addresses two consolidated cases, Tustin Unified School District v. K.M. and Poway Unified School District v. D.H., NSBA and the California School Boards Association encourage the U.S. Supreme Court to hear these cases, contending that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit misapplied the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), rather than correctly applying IDEA, to a case involving a California student with a hearing impairment.

In a third case, Boone County Board of Education v. N.W., NSBA is joining with the Kentucky School Boards Association in urging the Sixth Circuit to reverse a district court decision involving a student with autism and a speech disorder.

«The decision in Boone County Board of Education v. N.W., as it stands, would force cash - strapped school districts to bear the high costs of private placements during litigation, even when a court ultimately rules that the district has made FAPE available in a public school setting,» said NSBA General Counsel Francisco M. Negrón Jr. «The lower court's decision sets a terrible precedent that prolongs due process and court proceedings and discourages informal resolution of special education disputes through mediated settlement.

«The mission of the National School Boards Association to advocate for equity and excellence remains ever - vigilant as we mark the 60th anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education decision,» said NSBA President Anne M. Byrne, a school board member from New York's Nanuet Union Free School DisSchool Boards Association to advocate for equity and excellence remains ever - vigilant as we mark the 60th anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education decision,» said NSBA President Anne M. Byrne, a school board member from New York's Nanuet Union Free School DistBoard of Education decision,» said NSBA President Anne M. Byrne, a school board member from New York's Nanuet Union Free School Disschool board member from New York's Nanuet Union Free School Distboard member from New York's Nanuet Union Free School DisSchool District.

The case eventually made it to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which determined that the district would not be required to reimburse the family because it had met the standard of providing «some educational benefit,» which the 10th Circuit said was consistent with the standard established in 1982 in the Supreme Court's Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson School District v. Rowley (Rowley) ddistrict would not be required to reimburse the family because it had met the standard of providing «some educational benefit,» which the 10th Circuit said was consistent with the standard established in 1982 in the Supreme Court's Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson School District v. Rowley (Rowley) dDistrict v. Rowley (Rowley) decision.

The National School Boards Association (NSBA), joined by the Louisiana School Boards Association (LSBA), the Mississippi School Boards Association (MSBA), the Texas Association of School Boards» (TASB) Legal Assistance Fund, and the National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE), filed a «friend of the court» (amicus) brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (LA, MS, TX) in support of the school district in Seth B. v. Orleans Parish School DisSchool Boards Association (NSBA), joined by the Louisiana School Boards Association (LSBA), the Mississippi School Boards Association (MSBA), the Texas Association of School Boards» (TASB) Legal Assistance Fund, and the National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE), filed a «friend of the court» (amicus) brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (LA, MS, TX) in support of the school district in Seth B. v. Orleans Parish School DisSchool Boards Association (LSBA), the Mississippi School Boards Association (MSBA), the Texas Association of School Boards» (TASB) Legal Assistance Fund, and the National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE), filed a «friend of the court» (amicus) brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (LA, MS, TX) in support of the school district in Seth B. v. Orleans Parish School DisSchool Boards Association (MSBA), the Texas Association of School Boards» (TASB) Legal Assistance Fund, and the National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE), filed a «friend of the court» (amicus) brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (LA, MS, TX) in support of the school district in Seth B. v. Orleans Parish School DisSchool Boards» (TASB) Legal Assistance Fund, and the National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE), filed a «friend of the court» (amicus) brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (LA, MS, TX) in support of the school district in Seth B. v. Orleans Parish School Disschool district in Seth B. v. Orleans Parish School Ddistrict in Seth B. v. Orleans Parish School DisSchool DistrictDistrict.

For example, in Young - Gibson v. Board of Education (2011), an Illinois appellate court upheld the district's removal of a principal from her position because of her lack of progress in correcting the probationary status of her school, including the students» low test scores.

Today Justice Roberts quoted from a 1982 precedent on special education called Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley:

Resegregation Although substantial progress was made in the desegregation of schools in the years following the landmark Supreme Court decision, Brown v. Board of Education (1954), North Carolina has several districts that have since resegregated, and others that never fully desegregated after Brown.8 Ayscue, J. B., Siegal - Hawley, G., B. W., & Kucsera, J. (2014, May 14).

Alexandria, Va. (December 22, 2016)- The National School Boards Association (NSBA) along with the California School Boards Association and its Legal Alliance Fund, the Colorado Association of School Boards, and the Horace Mann League have filed an amicus brief in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1 asking the court to uphold the standard the Court established in the Rowley case decades ago that provides for students to receive an educational benefit from their special education.

But board member Tamar Galatzan said that the timing of the proposal was suspicious, coming as it does while the school district and the teachers and administrators unions are negotiating a new set of evaluations as part of the Doe v. Deasy lawsuit.

On December 29, 2017, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (the «Tribunal») released its decision in U.M. v. York Region District School Board.

If a person establishes that he or she has experienced disadvantageous treatment because of a prohibited ground, then, at that point, the respondent can avoid liability under the Code if it can justify the disadvantageous treatment, including by establishing that the individual's Code - related needs could not be accommodated without undue hardship (see s. 11 and s. 17 of the Code, as well as Baber v. York Region District School Board, 2011 HRTO 213 (CanLII) at para. 88 to 95).

At his blog Decision of the Day, Robert Loblaw reports on a student speech decision issued yesterday by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Wisniewski v. Board of Education of the Weedsport Central School District, coming close on the heels of the Supreme Court's June 25 decision in Morse v. Frederick, better known as the «Bong Hits 4 Jesus case.»

Didn't it take Brown v. Board of Education to integrate some school districts?

Now that Brown v. Board of Education has turned 50, have you ever wondered how the decision has fared in your child's school district?