Delaware Employment Law Blog

Delaware employers--private and public--may benefit from a recent decision from the Delaware Supreme Court upholding the termination of a school teacher.  The elementary school cited "immorality" as the basis for the termination of a 34-year old male teacher.   Lehto v. Board of Education of the Caesar Rodney School District, No. 175, 2008 (Del. Dec. 2, 2008).

The court held that the teacher, who had a sexual affair with a 17-year old female student, was guilty of immorality.  The student did not attend school in the district where the teacher worked, although her sister did, but the teacher had taught her some years before in elementary school.

The teacher had renewed his acquaintance with the student when she began coming to his school to pick up her younger sister, and they began an intimate relationship. Eventually, the affair became known in the community, and the teacher was charged with fourth degree rape, but the charge was nolle prossed because the teacher was not in a position of trust or supervision over the student. After a hearing, the school board terminated the teacher, who had positive teaching evaluations, concluding that his “engaging in a sexual relationship with a minor . . . violated the common mores of society” and “interferes with [the teacher’s] important function of serving as a role model to the students.”

The termination was upheld by the Delaware Superior Court and affirmed by the Delaware Supreme Court. Even though the conduct took place outside of the school and with a non-student of the district, “there was a proper nexus between his alleged off-duty conduct and his fitness to teach.” Especially interesting and broadly significant is the court's conclusion that the public disclosure of the relationship permitted the inference that allowing the teacher to remain could "reasonably undermine parents' confidence in both [the teacher] and the District."

Private employers are often faced with decisions concerning off-duty conduct of their employees. One rationale that has been applied is whether the conduct, if it became public, could damage the employer’s reputation. Most frequently, the issue arises when employees who enter people’s homes as part of their job are charged with, but not yet convicted, of crimes. This case supports the conclusion that if public confidence in the employer would be undermined by the knowledge that the employer retained an employee who was charged with a notorious crime, that is a sufficient reason for termination.

This isn't the first time off-duty conduct has played a role in the termination of a teacher:

People, don't you understand: More Teacher Social Networking Woes 

Terminating Employees for Off-Duty Conduct 

MySpace and Employment: Another Tale of Woe

Off-Duty Conduct of College Pres Leads to Firing

Employee foibles on social networking websites are back in the news.  According to the Raleigh News & Observer, a teacher in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools may be fired because of derogatory comments about students that the teacher posted on her Facebook page. 

The comments included referring to "teachin' chitlins in the ghetto of Charlotte."  The teacher went on to note in the "About Me" section of her Facebook profile that she is "teaching in the most ghetto school in Charlotte."  She also listed drinking as one of her hobbies.  Apparently, other Charlotte-Mecklenburg teachers also have objectionable Facebook pages as the news story reports that several other teachers from the same district have been also reprimanded for Facebook comments that show, in the district's view "poor judgment and bad taste."   

MySpace and Employment Law have crossed paths again. This time, they intersect, again, in education law. But this isn’t the first time.

You may remember Stacy Snyder, the "Drunken Pirate,” who, at the time, was a student in the Education program at Millersville State University.   In a moment of poor judgment, Snyder posted a photo of herself in a pirate hat, drinking, captioned "drunken pirate" on her personal MySpace page.  School officials  learned of the photo and refused to give Snyder a teaching credential because they believed the picture promoted underage drinking. 

Alas, another teacher has fallen prey to MySpace.  A federal District Court in Connecticut has upheld the decision of a school board in that State, which voted to not renew a teacher's contract because of content posted on his MySpace profile. The court found that the non-renewal decision did not violate the teacher’s constitutional rights to Free Speech or Free Association. 

A high school teacher, Jeffery Spanierman, apparently created a MySpace profile, which he used to communicate with students.  The discussions concerned a mix of topics, some of which were unrelated to the school.  Of course, Spanierman's venture into the world of social networking soon came to the attention of the school administration.   An administrator viewed the profile and believed it contained inappropriate comments and "peer-like" discussion with students.  Spanierman deleted the profile after these concerns were brought to his attention. 

But the lure of the social networking site proved to strong for Mr. Spanierman to long resist.  Shortly after deleting the original profile, Spanierman created a second one.  After learning of the second profile, Spanierman was placed on an administrative leave.  Ultimately, the school district decided not to renew Spanierman's teaching contract.   Spanierman filed suit against the school district and various individual officials alleging several violations of his constitutional rights.  In particular, Spanierman claimed that his rights of Free Association and Free Speech had been breached.

The District Court rejected Spanierman's arguments. Although the court determined that Spanierman was not acting pursuant to his official duties as a teacher in maintaining the MySpace page, it found that the page's content did not deal with matters of public concern.  The sole exception to this was a short poem on the Iraq war.  But there was no evidence that any administrator retaliated against Spanierman for expressing his views on that conflict in verse.  The Court went on to note that the school district would likely have been able to demonstrate that Spanierman's "speech" would have been sufficiently disruptive so as to outweigh any the First Amendment value it possessed.

The Court also rejected the teacher's free association claim.  MySpace may be a social networking website, but here, there was “no evidence in the present case that MySpace, as an organization, purports to speak out on matters of public concern.”

Off-duty conduct as grounds for termination is a common topic in employment law. It is not uncommon for employers to include "morals clauses" in employment contracts. And social-networking sites are not the only forums in which employees are getting "busted." You may remember the recent scandal involving not the internet, but a local newspaper, which ran unfavorable photographs of the then-president of the community college engaging in off-duty conduct that reflected negatively on his leadership and judgment. Robert Paxton, resigned after the paper published a photograph of him pouring beer into a young woman’s mouth.

Companies will not risk their reputations on drunken pirate escapades or inappropriate MySpace relationships. Few states offer protection under the law for employees' off-duty conduct. Delaware is not one of those states--employers have full authority to determine what actions constitute "bad behavior," and can result in termination. 

By Michael P. Stafford, Esq.

The free-speech rights of a student is the topic of the day in Colorado, where a 5th grader has been suspended for wearing a tee-shirt emblazoned with the slogan "Obama is a terrorist’s best friend."  The student's family claims that his First Amendment right to free speech is being trampled. Conspicuously absent from news coverage of this developing story is any detailed description of the tee-shirt causing "substantial disruption" to the school.

Did the school administration make the correct decision in suspending this youngster?

Under well-established Supreme Court precedent, public school administrators may regulate student speech protected by the First Amendment only in three circumstances: (1) when the speech is substantially disruptive; (2) when the speech bears the imprimatur of the school (such as in a school newspaper or yearbook), or; (3) when the speech is lewd or plainly offensive.  In particular, under Tinker v. Des Moines,  393 U.S. 503 (1969), student speech may be regulated only if the school has a well-founded expectation that the speech will cause substantial disruption of the school's operations or interference with the rights of others. The expectation of disruption must be a specific and significant fear of disruption, not just some remote apprehension of disturbance.  In this regard, speech is not disruptive merely because it causes offense or hurt feelings in listeners.

Moreover, any regulation of student speech must also be “content neutral.”  In Tinker, which involved students wearing black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam war, the Supreme Court observed that the school had singled out the anti-war black armbands for prohibition but had not forbidden other controversial or political symbols.  As many courts have noted in a variety of contexts, restrictions on speech because of its message or content are presumed to be unconstitutional. 

Here, the constitutionality of the school's action in suspending the student will likely turn on whether the tee-shirt caused, or was likely to cause, a substantial disruption to the educational environment.  Any attorney representing the student will also look closely at the other types of political apparel students have worn in the past without discipline by the school administration to discern whether the student has been discriminated against based on his viewpoint. 

The United States District Court for the District of Delaware has found in favor of a local public school district in a special-education case brought under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).  The conduct of the parents, said the Court, was a large part of the problem.

The parent involved in the case filed a due-process claim against the District in late 2006, alleging a number of procedural errors.  As a remedy, the parent sought a private placement at The Gow School at public expense. Therefore, the Delaware Department of Education was joined as an additional party to the proceeding.  In a decision issued on January 6, 2007, the administrative due process Hearing Panel found in favor of the District and the Department, and the parent appealed. 

On appeal, both the parent and the District filed motions for summary judgment.   The two key issues raised in the case centered on whether the District denied the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) by (a) failing to have an IEP in place for the student on the first day of school and (b) failing to properly notice an IEP meeting.  The Court rejected both claims.  

First, the Court noted that "minor procedural violations do not constitute an IDEA violation."  And, "[w]hile the court does not recommend having a disabled child attend school without an IEP, it finds the week delay to be a minor procedural error.  Consequently, the absence of an IEP on the first day of school does not equate to a denial of a FAPE." 

Second, the Court held that the IEP meeting "was merely a continuation" of a prior IEP meeting and as such "no new notice was necessary." Therefore, because there was no denial of FAPE, the Court concluded that the District was not responsible for the costs of the parents' private school placement.

This decision highlights the fact that minor procedural errors do not automatically lead to liability for public school district's under the IDEA.  The case also illustrates the risks run by parents when they cease to participate in the collaborative IEP development process.  Here, the Court specifically noted that it was "convinced that an IEP could have been instituted for [student] after the September 11, 2006 meeting and that none was developed because of the conduct of [student's] mother."  

[Editor's Note:  As usual, the author's humility has led him to omit his role in the case as counsel for the District.  Congratulations to Michael Stafford for securing this important victory for the school district! md]

After being diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor, long-time advocate of the American worker, U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy, will be released from the hospital today.  Kennedy was hospitalized Saturday morning after suffering a seizure at his family's compound at Hyannisport, Massachusetts.  Following the news of his sudden illness, politicians from both parties spoke highly of the Democratic Senator, including both democratic presidential candidates, Senators Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton. As Washington regulars reflect on Kennedy's contributions during his more than 40 years in public service, U.S. employers may be interested in the initiatives that would have the greatest impact on the American workplace. 

Kennedy's Current Workforce Initiatives

Senator Kennedy is a major employee advocate and many of his initiatives are focused on this goal.  This passage from his senatorial website demonstrates Kennedy's perspective:

The minimum wage is at an all-time low, the Family and Medical Leave Act is under attack, and workers are being stripped of their overtime pay, unemployment insurance, and pensions. The United States must recommit itself to supporting working families to ensure a strong and prosperous America for future generations.

Specifically, Kennedy seeks to achieve these objectives through various proposals.  Here are five of Kennedy's proposals that would have the greatest impact on employers. 

1.   Union Rights

Senator Kennedy is a long-time union supporter.  On the agenda just this month was the Public Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, which focuses on collective bargaining rights for public safety employees.  Currently, 26 states permit public employees to form bargaining unions.  The Cooperation Act would require the other 24 states to do the same. 

2.   Minimum Wage

Kennedy is one of the Senate's most vocal advocates for an increased federal minimum wage. This subject is a sensitive one for most U.S. employers.  If the national minimum wage did increase, it would likely trigger at least some changes in the way employers look at immigration reform, which is also on the Senator's list of proposals.

3.   Immigration Reform:  Illegal Immigrants

Another one of Senator Kennedy's major initiatives is targeting immigration.  Last year, immigration-reform legislation was passed but, according to Kennedy, fell short of achieving the goals it was intended to address. Kennedy has continued to advocate for revisions to the legislation, focusing on these main points:

1. Tougher Border Enforcement.  These changes would include border-enforcement patrols double the current size.  It would also target illegal immigrants currently in the U.S.  Employers who hire illegal workers would be subject to increased enforcement, as well.
2. Earned Legalization.  This initiative would target illegal aliens already in the U.S., giving them opportunities to earn citizenship.  This effort is based on the argument that massive deportation would be seriously disruptive to communities and business in the States.

4.  Immigration Reform:  The Future for Foreign Workers

Temporary-Worker Program.  As many employers are fully aware, getting specialty workers from other countries is a daunting task.  This third prong of Senator Kennedy's proposal is forward looking.  In the future,temporary employees from abroad would be given easier access to come to the U.S. for temporary work with the goal of working towards permanent employment and citizenship. 

5.  IDEA Reform

Another initiative on Kennedy's agenda has been increased funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).  The Senator's position is that, although the goals and purposes of the IDEA are on-track, the lack of federal funding has prevented it from being fully utilized by the states.

Information about these and other initiatives can be found on the Senator's official website.

The Third Circuit has ruled that attorney-parents cannot recover fees for legal services performed on behalf of their children in administrative hearings or judicial proceedings under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA") .  Although the IDEA contains a fee-shifting provision for parents who are "prevailing parties," it does not apply to fees for parents representing their children in legal proceedings.  Previously, in Woodside v. School Dist. of Philadelphia Bd. of Educ., 248 F.3d 129 (3d Cir. 2001), the Third Circuit had held that parents serving as an attorney cannot recover fees for administrative proceedings under the IDEA.  The Pardini decision clarifies that the bar to fee recovery is equally applicable in judicial proceedings.

On appeal from a due process hearing decision, the federal District Court in Wilmington, Delaware ruled in favor of the Appoquinimink School District.

The court was asked to review the decision of a due-process hearing panel involving a parentally placed private-school student. The Panel had previously found that the District was obligated to pay for the student's American Sign Language (ASL) interpreter at a local private school, despite his status as a parentally placed private-school student.

The parents of the student initially alleged in their due process complaint that the student had been denied a free appropriate public education (FAPE), while enrolled at the Sterck School (Delaware School for the Deaf). They also claimed that there was no appropriate public placement available because their son required a small class size in order to access his education through an interpreter.

As a remedy, they sought a private placement at public expense, the provision of an ASL interpreter as a related service, and compensatory education.

The Panel rejected the parent's claims of Fair Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) and least-restrictive-enviornment (LRE). The court held that the student could receive a FAPE in one of several available public placements. However, the Panel determined that the School District's refusal to fund the interpreter as a related service was "an abuse of discretion," because the IDEA and Delaware state law did not expressly prohibit the District from funding the interpreter.

According to the Panel, "[i]n the rational exercise of discretion, [the District] should provide a sign-language interpreter as a related service, and liability continues over the parents' unilateral placement." (The full Panel decision can be found on the Delaware Department of Education's website, linked here: Appoquinimink Sch. Dist., DE DP 06-11).

The District Court gets it right

The School District and the Delaware Department of Education appealed the decision to the federal court, located in Wilmington, Delaware. The Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr. decided the case on appeal. They argued that they were under no obligation to fund the student's interpreter because of the separate, more limited, set of entitlements given to parentally placed private-school students by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

Specifically, the IDEA obligates districts to spend a proportional share of their federal Part B funds on the provision of related services to parentally-placed students who attend private schools located with their boundaries. The nature of the related services provided is determined through meaningful consultations with representatives of the private schools, the point of which is to identify the greatest area of need.

The court agreed, concluding that the Panel committed an error of law by ordering the School District to fund the interpreter. "Where, as here, the District has provided the child with a FAPE and the parents elect to place the child in private school, no liability continues on the part of the District for the payment of that child's cost of education, including special education and related services," because parentally placed private-school students have no "individual right to receive to receive some or all of the special education and related services that the child would receive if enrolled in a public school." Judge Farnan's full decision can be found on the District Court's website.

The Court also noted that the costs of the student's interpreter were more than ten times greater then the entire amount of the District's proportional share of Part B funds.

Finally, the Court held that that the Panel exceeded its authority in holding the District responsible for the interpreter once it had determined that the student was parentally placed in the private school, because the IDEA expressly states that complaints concerning the provision of services to parentally placed private-school students are not subject to due process procedures.

This was a notable victory for Appoquinimink School District and will be important precedent for future Delaware cases involving special education and school law.

[Editor's Note: Mike Stafford, the author of this post, is too modest to to note that he and Scott Holt, a partner in the YCS&T Employment Law Department, represented the School District in this case and were instrumental in seeing the case to victory. Well done, Mike and Scott!!]

Governor Minner has signed House Bill 283 into law.

This bill amends the Delaware Public School Employment Relations Act. As a result, interest arbitration will now be used to resolve impasses in collective bargaining between Delaware public school districts and their organized employees. Binding interest arbitration replaces non-binding “fact finding.”

Under binding interest arbitration, an arbitrator determines the final terms and conditions of employment by selecting one of the parties’ “last, best, and final” offers. This process has been used in negotiations involving other Delaware public entities for several years.

The arbitrator looks at seven factors in determining whether to accept the employer’s or the union’s offer:

(1) The interests and welfare of the public.

(2) Comparison of the wages, salaries, benefits, hours and conditions of employment of the employees with other employees performing the same or similar services or requiring similar skills under similar working conditions in the same community and in comparable communities and with other employees generally in the same community and in comparable communities.

(3) The overall compensation presently received by the employees.

(4) Stipulations of the parties.

(5) The lawful authority of the public school employer.

(6) The financial ability of the public school employer based on existing revenues, to meet the costs of any proposed settlements

(7) Such other factors which are normally or traditionally taken into consideration in the determination of wages, hours and conditions of employment through voluntary collective bargaining, mediation, binding interest arbitration or otherwise

With the exception of paragraph (6) of above, no single factor in subsection, shall be dispositive.