| A | B |
|---|
| Brown V. Board of Education (1954) | segregated schools are unconstitutional |
| San Antonio Independent Schools V. Rodriguez 1973 | allowed more relaxed standard for justifying their funding policies and 14 amendment equal protection clause permits any kind of school finance system as long as it provides a min. education for everyone |
| Lau V. Nichols 1974 | held that Title VI required school districts to take affirmative steps to rectify language deficiency of students with limited English--left at local levls-most have ESOL |
| Board of Ed V. Rowley 1982 | Individuals with Disability Act's entitlement of "free and apprpriate public education" for all including disabilites** means schools must comply with the act's procedural requirements, which include developing individualized ed. programs for disable students |
| School Board V. Arline 1987 | considered whether an employee with a serious illness can be discriminated against by a school because of the illness--outcome-it depends requiring info. about the disability and whether the employee could reasonably accommodate him in most cases accommadation rather than segregation is reasonable |
| W. VA State Board of ED V. Barnette 1943 | school officals may not force students to salute the flag-lower courts extend Barnette to include teachers |
| Tinker V. Des Moines Indep. Community School District 1969 | schools may not censure or censor student speech unless it causes a substantial disruption of school operations (political free speech) |
| Hazelwood School District V. Kuhlmeier 1988 | for school sponsored activities involving student expression public school officals may exercise content-based control as long as their actions are related to legitimate educational purpose |
| Mt. Healty City School District V Doyle 1977 | (teacher speech) employee must prove that expression concerns a public not intramural issue and the right to speak outweighs the employer's responsibility to provide effective public service.2nd employee must show that the expression was a substantial factor in the adverse action being challenged 3rd the employer must prove it would have taken the adverse action regardless of hte employee's protected expression** Bottom line- employees have 1st amendment rights of expression but must think thrice before engaging in such expression in the face of adverse action like firing |
| B. of Ed. Island Tree Union Free School District No. 26 V. Pico 1982 | school boards may not remove books from school libraries simply because they dislike the books' idea-reason must reflex rational grounds such as educational suitability |
| Gross V. Lopez 1975 | to suspend a student for up to 10 days school officals must provide at least oral notice and if the student protests an explanation of the evidence and an opportunity for student to tell his side |
| Ingraham V Wright 1977 | if corporal punishment is excessive and violates the 14th amendment's guarantee of due process, the student can bring a civil suit or criminal prosecution for assault and battery |
| New Jersey V. T.I.O. 1985 | public school authorities need only reasonable suspicion to initiate searches depending on the objectives of hte search, age, gender, and the nature of the infraction |
| Vernonia School District 47J V. Acton 1995 | urinalysis of public school student athletes meet the reasonableness required for student searches under the 14th amend. noting that student athletes' reduced expectation of privacy because of preseason physicals, communal undress, etc. |
| Franklin V. Gwinnett County Public Schools 1992 | (sexual harassment) Title IX of Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits federally funded programs from discriminating on the basis of gender, implicitly authorizes a suit by the victim for $ damages-gender discrimination included sexual harrassment |
| Gebser V. Lago Vista Independent School District 1998 | district may be liable for employee to student sexual harassment only when an offical has the authority to institute corrective measures, has notice of the harassment, and deliberately takes no action against the employee's misconduct |
| Davis V. Monroe County B. of Ed. 1999 | applied the same as above standard to peer sexual harassment that deprives the victim of access to the school's opportunities |
| Honig V. Doe 1988 (Disruptive Students in Special Ed.) | Depart. of Ed interprets an exclusion for more than 10 cosecutive days as a change in the student's placement in special ed., but the Individuals with Disabilities Educaiton Act says special ed. students can be removed only through an agreement with school and parents or by preliminary injunction from a court that finds student likely to hurt self or others ** this hands off approach to sp. ed. flys in the face of current zero tolerance |
| Lemon V. Kurtzman 1971 | government salary supplements for teachers of secular subjects in parochial schools violates the 1st Amendment establishment clause |
| Lee V. Weisman 1992 (Religion-murky area) | clergy led invocations and benedictions at public schools graduations violate the 1st amend. clause prohibiting the establishment of religion |
