Court Cases

Makenzie Floyd

EDU 210

College of Southern Nevada

 Freddie Watts, principal, and Jimmy Brothers, assistant principal, are African American

administrators assigned to administer a predominantly black high school. Ann Griffin, a white

tenured teacher, during a heated conversation with the two administrators stated that she

“hated all black folks.” When word leaked on her statement, it caused negative reactions

among colleagues both black and white. The principal recommended dismissal based on

concerns regarding her ability to treat students fairly and her judgment and competency as a

teacher.

The first court case I found was Pickering vs Board of Education. In this court case

Marvin Pickering who was a teacher decided to write a letter saying how the board was using

funds that should have been going to education but instead were going to the athletic

department. He also stated in the letter that the superintendent of the district was not letting

people know why he needed more money for the schools. In response the board pressed

charges against Marvin. Once the charges were pressed it was reviewed and decided by the

Supreme Court that Marvin Pickering was using his Amendment Rights. This relates to the case

about Ann Griffin because she was also using her Amendment Rights and both Ann Griffin and

Marvin Pickering were not let go of from their positions.

The next court case I will be using is Connick vs Myers. This court cases shows how

Sheila Myers an assistant district attorney said that she will not transfer to a different part of

the section of the office. When Sheila found out about being transferred, she started to

question things. At the end of the day Sheila Myers refused to transfer. Harry Connick who is

the district attorney which is also Sheila Myers supervisor decided to terminate her because she
refused to transfer. When this case went to the Supreme Court the decision was made to allow

Sheila Myers to keep her current position.

The third court case is Tinker vs Des Moines. This court case is about how students in

Des Moines wore black armbands to show support for the truce in the Vietnam war. The

principals of the schools in Des Moines met and decided that any students wearing the

armbands would be asked to take them off and if they refused, they would be suspended.

When some students wore the armbands and did not take them off, they were sent home. The

parents became upset and sued the school district. When this case was discussed in court it was

decided that the schools were in the right to suspend the students. This case is in favor of the

Ann Griffin case because they both chose to suspend.

The last and final court is Bethel School District vs Fraser. This case is about how at a

school assembly where Matthew Fraser gave a speech to elect another student for an office. In

the speech many people thought that there was sexual metaphor used in it. In result Mathew

was suspended from school for two days. When this case was reviewed the school was in favor

of the suspension because of what Mathew said. Like Ann Griffin’s case the student should

been punished for using inappropriate language.

References

"Pickering v. Board of Education." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1967/510. Accessed 9 Sep. 2019.

"Connick v. Myers." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1982/81-1251. Accessed 9 Sep. 2019

“Tinker v. Des Moines Podcast.” United States Courts, www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-

courts/educational-resources/supreme-court-landmarks/tinker-v-des-moines-podcast.

"Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1985/84-1667. Accessed

9 Sep. 2019.
 Ray is a middle school student. He recently got suspended due to the fact that he had too

many unexcused absences. The suspension was for three days. The school district Ray attends

requires the school to notifies the parent or guardian through telephone and written notice by

mail. The school only contact Ray’s parent and/or guardian through a written notice. The school

sent the letter home with Ray which lead Ray to throwing the letter away, so the parent and/or

guardian wasn’t notified. While Ray’s parents thought he was at school he was really visiting his

friend’s house which led to Ray being accidently shot.

The parents do have a right to pursue liability charges against the school. There are a few

reasons why they do have the right to pursue liability charges one of them being the school did

not follow the districts rules and call home to let the parents know that their student was being

suspended. In June of 2013 it was decided that the court cases for mother of a ninth-grade special

education student was proven to affirm with the mother. The student was sexual assaulted by

another student after school and off campus. However, the school failed to notify the parent that

the student was not in her sixth period class. This particular court cases sides with Ray’s mother

because both time the school failed to notify the parent.

In October of 1979 Royce a student at a school in Thousand Oaks and sister Regina at

another school in thousand Oaks walked home together. At the end of the school day Royce’s

teacher asked her to stay after school to help grade some papers. After the grading was done

around 3 pm Royce and Regina walked home together. As they were walking home, they had to

cross a busier street. When they approached the street, the cross guards had already left, as they

were crossing the street the sisters were hit by a car. The court case ended in siding with the

family of Royce and Regina. This is very similar to the scenario with Ray because both times the

school was at fault for not letting the parent know what was going on.
 September of 2002 some students of Westview High School were coming back to school

during a closed lunch and struck another vehicle. The students had lunch from 11:20 am to 12:10

pm. Westview had changed their campus to a closed campus meaning that students had to check

in and out of school with parental permission. When students decided to go against this rule there

was discipline action taken. None of the students in the. Car had permission to leave campus for

lunch. This case ended in the parents and students being found guilty. This goes against the

Ray’s scaring because Westview High School took action to prevent things like this happening.

After looking at all the cases and reading the scaring with Ray I believe that the school

should be held accountable for the shooting. Ray’s family should be able to press charges for

liability because the school did not notify the parents by both telephone and written.
 References

“FindLaw's Supreme Court of Iowa Case and Opinions.” Findlaw, caselaw.findlaw.com/ia-

supreme-court/1635949.html.

“FindLaw's California Court of Appeal Case and Opinions.” Findlaw, caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-

court-of-appeal/1839914.html.

“FindLaw's Court of Appeals of Arizona Case and Opinions.” Findlaw, caselaw.findlaw.com/az-

court-of-appeals/1291266.html.
 Bill Foster who is a high school student. The school he attends to recently made a policy

to prohibit the wearing of any gang related items. That includes jewelry, emblems, earrings, and

athletic caps. After the policy was made and put into act Bill wore an earring to school because

the thought the girls liked it. Bill Foster was no way related in any gang related activity.

Bill believed that his freedom of self-expression was violated. In December of 1965 some

students in Des Moines decided to gather to talk about how they can show their support of for a

truce made in the Vietnam war. The students decided to wear black armbands in support of the

truce. When the school district heard of the plan they met and decided that they would ask the

students to remove the bands then if the students refused to remove the band they would be

suspended. This plan was excited, and the parents were not happy about it. When this case was

discussed with the court the school district ended up winning.

In 1986 at a high school assembly a student made a speech to nominate another student for an

elected office. During the speech the student use a sexual metaphor. As part of the discipline the

administration decided that the student was going to be suspended for two days. The parents did

not think this was right so the pursued in a lawsuit. After the lawsuit was taken to court it was

found that the schools’ actions to suspend the student were appropriate.

In June of 1943 it was decide that the West Virginia Board of Education were going to be

overruled. The argument was that the school district was requiring all students and teachers to

salute the flag every morning. For some students this wasn’t a problem but for those students and

teachers who were Jehovah Witnesses it was. Those students and teachers who were Jehovah

Witness refused to salute the flag were sent home for being noncompliant. The parents of these

students were not happy and chose to press charges. The court decided that it wasn’t okay for the

district to require this and sided with the parents.

 On January 13th of 1988 students in the Journalism class as Hazelwood East High School

wrote articles about their peer’s experiences with teen pregnancy and divorce. After these articles

were published the principal read the articles and decided to deleted them without telling the

students. The students became very mad and took their problems to the District Court. Once the

cases were reviewed in court it was found that the principal was in the right to delete them since

they were written for the class.

I believe that the consequence that Bill Foster received was fair. I believe that is fair

because the school made it clear that no jewelry, emblems, earrings, and athletic caps were to be

worn. Since the school district made it clear and Bill still chose to wear the earrings his

consequence was fair.

 References

“{{Meta.pageTitle}}.” {{Meta.siteName}}, www.oyez.org/cases/1968/21.

“{{Meta.pageTitle}}.” {{Meta.siteName}}, www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/319us624.

“Facts and Case Summary - Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier.” United States Courts,

www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-
summary-hazelwood-v-kuhlmeier.

“{{Meta.pageTitle}}.” {{Meta.siteName}}, www.oyez.org/cases/1985/84-1667.

 Debbie Young is a high school principal. Before becoming a principal Debbie was a

special education teacher and an assistant principal. Debbie Young was approached by a parent

of a student with disabilities. The student was Jonathan who has multiple disabilities. The

disabilities that Jonathan was faced with requires constant care and help by a nurse. Jonathan’s

disabilities are include mental retardation, spastic quadriplegia, and a seizure disorder. After

Debbie has looked at the request made by Jonathan’s parent, she has declined the request

because of the expensive and the school is not the appropriate place for Jonathan.

In the year of 1936 Donald Gains Murray applied to attend the University of Maryland

School of Law. His application was rejected solely bases off the fact that he was African

American. Murray wanted to attend Maryland’s School of Law because it had a far better

education than any “black” law school. Donald decided he was going to fight for his right. He

pursued a court case and took the University of Maryland to court. When this case was taken

before a judge it was found that the school needed to appeal their rejection to Donald Gains

Murray. Donald was accepted to attend University of Maryland School of Law and two years he

graduated.

The court case Smith vs Robinson of 1984 parents of a child who had cerebral palsy

were fighting for the right for the child to be placed at her current school. The school

committee decided that they no longer were going to pay for the child’s placement at the

school in their special education class. When the parents were informed, they became

extremely frustrated and filed a report which turned into the court case Smith vs Robinson. As

this case was discussed in court it was found that the school committee in fact was still going to

continue to pay for the student to attend the school and stay in the special education program.
Both the Donald Gains Murray cases and Smith vs Robinson case support the parents or

students to not be affected by their disabilities or race. Which supports Jonathan’s parents and

not Debbie Young.

In the Beth B vs Clay case, a student was fighting to stay caught us in a general

education classroom. This was due to the fact that Beth had a few mentally and physical

challenges. It was in Beth’s best interest that the school administration moves Beth to a special

education classroom. Beth’s parents did not like that and decided to fight it. When this case

was brought to court it was decided that the school had every right to move Beth to a special

education class that was going to be at a different school.

In the year of 2003 a case called Mclaughlin vs Holt Public Schools Board of Education

was created and decided on. This case came about because the daughter of Carl and Mary Sue

Mclaughlin did not agree with their daughter having to move schools. The reason behind the

student moving to a new school was so that she could be in the appropriate program to fit what

was in her IEP. When this case was taking to a judge it was decided that it was fair for the

school to move the student to the new school.

Based on the court cases I have read I think that Debbie Young should have to find a way

to pay for the nurse but if there is no way for the school to pay for it then Jonathan should be

moved to a school where there are the best resources for him so he can receive the best

education he can.
References

“Maryland, Murray.” Pearson v. Murray (Md. 1936),

law.howard.edu/brownat50/brownCases/PreBrownCases/PearsonvMurrayMd1936.htm.

DAUGHTREY. “FindLaw's United States Sixth Circuit Case and Opinions.” Findlaw,
caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1253429.html.

“Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992 (1984).” Justia Law,

supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/468/992/.

“FindLaw's United States Seventh Circuit Case and Opinions.” Findlaw,

caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1250134.html.
 Karen White who is a teacher at an elementary school recently let the parents of her

students know that she no longer would be celebrating any holidays, singing happy birthday, and

recite the pledge of allegiance with her students. This was because she was a Jehovah Witness.

When her principal Bill Ward heard of this news from the parents protesting, he decided that it

was time to dismiss Karen White as a teacher at the school. Karen White has every right to

exercise her religion freedoms and beliefs, but Many people think that she should not. In the

Minersville School District vs Gibitis in 1940, Lillian and William Gobitis were expelled from

school because they refused to salute the flag which every student did every morning as a part of

the school’s daily routine. The children did not participate in the saluting of the flag because they

were Jehovah Witnesses and they believed that it was forbidden by the Bible to salute the flag.

When the court made the decision, it was decided that the school had every right to expel the

students. Like Principal Ward their principal too had to make a decision of what the student’s

punishment was going to be for their actions of following their religious beliefs.

Bill Ward had to make the choice to dismiss Karen Ward since she would not celebrate

holidays, birthdays, and recite the Pledge of Allegiance with her students. In 1962 the case of

Engel vs Vital took place. In this case it was decided that students in New York were not allowed

to say a prayer at the start of each day. The state said that schools are not allowed to have prayers

said in public schools and could not be required.

Karen Ward was dismissed by her principal because she was not meeting her students

and the parent’s standards. Kentucky was challenged by Sydell stone and other parents showing

that a state law required that a copy of the Ten Commandments in each public-school classroom

must be posted. It was decided that the law was being violated and the parents won the case. This
goes to show that Karen Ward has every right to not participate in anything that goes against her

religion.

In 1942 in West Virginia the Board of Education required public schools to have students

and teachers salute the flag every day. At some public schools there were students who were

Jehovah Witnesses and they refused to salute the flag which led for them to be sent home for

being noncompliant. When the decision was made in court it was found that the students had

every right to not salute the flag due to their religious beliefs.

Karen Ward should not have been dismissed from teaching because of her religious

beliefs. Karen never said that she wouldn’t allow her students to participate in those acuities she

chose not to she just said she would not be doing any of them. The parents of the students in

Karen Ward’s class did not understand everything before they went and companioned and Bill

Ward the principal did not have the full story before dismissing her. I believe that Karen Ward

has every right to choose to sit out of activities that interfere with her relies beliefs.
References:

“{{Meta.pageTitle}}.” {{Meta.siteName}}, www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/310us586.

“{{Meta.pageTitle}}.” {{Meta.siteName}}, www.oyez.org/cases/1961/468.

“{{Meta.pageTitle}}.” {{Meta.siteName}}, www.oyez.org/cases/1980/80-321.

“{{Meta.pageTitle}}.” {{Meta.siteName}}, www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/319us624.