Legal Articles, Other
Lower Mortgage Rates, Without More, Do Not Constitute Substantial Change in Circumstances
In a post-judgment divorce action, the Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford considered a defendant’s argument that the plaintiff had a substantial change in circumstances due to her new residence in a lower cost of living area.
What Is the Law Controlling Drug Testing in the Workplace or in Public Schools in Connecticut?
What Is the Law Controlling Drug Testing in the Workplace or in Public Schools in Connecticut?
Hurdles Employees Must Jump in Filing a Claim for Unlawful Discrimination
Here in Connecticut and across the nation, employees from all walks of life routinely face unlawful discriminatory practices and treatment in the workplace. Depending on the nature of the claim, he or she may file civil lawsuits under Title VII (which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin) or the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (CFEPA).
However, employees need to keep in mind that before they seek recourse with the courts, they must first exhaust all of their administrative remedies. “The exhaustion requirement exists to afford the administrative agency the opportunity to investigate, mediate, and take remedial action.”[1] Failure to do so will result in dismissal of the case.
The Boundaries of a Child’s Constitutional Right to Education in Connecticut
Under the Constitution of Connecticut, “There shall always be free public elementary and secondary schools in the state.”[1] However, to satisfy free appropriate public education, or FAPE, requirements of federal law, this doesn’t mean parents may engage in a sort of free-for-all in dictating the five W’s of their child’s educational opportunities at public expense. Rather, case precedent has established limitations that take into account the interests of the child balanced against governmental concerns of the school district.
Cyberbullying and the Fourth Amendment Right to Privacy
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has swiftly responded to the Fairfield school board’s proposed amendments to its internet use policy, contending that the proposed policy amendments will run afoul of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Tenured Teacher’s Wrongful Termination Claims Dismissed for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies
The Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford granted a school district’s motion to dismiss a wrongful termination lawsuit by a teacher, who claimed he was fired because of his disability. Rather than reaching the merits of the case, the Court stated it lacked jurisdiction. This case illuminates the importance for teachers and staff to first exhaust all administrative remedies, including enumerated appeals processes, before seeking recourse with the courts.
Developing Your Special Education Child’s Individualized Education Program
A series of articles on this website provides an overview of the special education process so you, as a parent, know what to expect. You have the right to make sure your child receives a free appropriate public education (FAPE), and oftentimes that means a standard classroom environment does not meet your child’s special needs due to a disability.
If your child is between 3 and 21 years of age, suffers from an enumerated disability under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and the disability interferes with his or her classroom performance, you have the opportunity to seek special education and related services. More importantly, you can play a critical role on the planning and placement team (PPT) to evaluate your child’s special education referral to determine eligibility.
The Misrepresentation of Minorities in Special Education Classes
A law went into effect here in Connecticut that requires the State Department of Education to identify school districts that “disproportionately and inappropriately identif[y] minority students as requiring special education because such students have a reading deficiency.”[1] Under this statute, the term “minority student” takes on the public’s common understanding: any student that is non-white or of Hispanic/Latino ethnicity.
In 1954, the Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling in Brown v. Board of Education that struck down de jure racial segregation, noting that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”[2] Since then, many great strides have been made to offer free, appropriate public education to all children, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, socio-economic status, and disability.
Connecticut Supreme Court Addresses the Identifiable Person-Imminent Harm Exception to Governmental Immunity
In a decision, the Supreme Court of Connecticut had an opportunity to address municipal immunity, and specifically, the “identifiable victim-imminent harm” exception to discretionary act immunity.
In Light of Varying State Anti-Hazing Laws, Is the “Halting Hazing Act of 2012” the Solution?
In Light of Varying State Anti-Hazing Laws, Is the “Halting Hazing Act of 2012” the Solution?
