Get PDF U.S. Supreme Court Advance Sheet February 2012

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online U.S. Supreme Court Advance Sheet February 2012 file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with U.S. Supreme Court Advance Sheet February 2012 book. Happy reading U.S. Supreme Court Advance Sheet February 2012 Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF U.S. Supreme Court Advance Sheet February 2012 at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF U.S. Supreme Court Advance Sheet February 2012 Pocket Guide.

In the case, the Division alleged the following: that sexual assaults occurred on at least five separate occasions; that the district was made aware of each incident immediately after it occurred; and that despite this notice, the district did not take appropriate action, and in some circumstances took no action, to prevent the harassment from recurring. Furthermore, the department alleged that both before and after the sexual harassment of the students, the district failed to adopt and implement adequate and effective sexual harassment policies and procedure as required by federal law; had the district adopted and implemented such policies and procedures, the district would have prevented the continued sexual assault of students.

After extensive discovery, the Division and the school district negotiated a consent decree. The court approved the proposed consent decree on July 31, Kansas State University and S. Kansas State University. In these cases, the plaintiffs, both students of Kansas State University K-State , allege that K-State discriminated against them on the basis of sex in violation of Title IX when K-State allegedly refused to respond to or investigate their reports of sexual assault by K-State students during parties hosted at and by fraternities recognized and supported by K-State.

Memorandum and Order - T. In this case, formerly known as Lau v. Lau v. Nichols, U. The Supreme Court remanded the case for the fashioning of appropriate relief. Chinese and Spanish bilingual programs continue subsequent to the passage of California's Proposition The Consent Decree also requires the provision of other special programs and English as a Second Language ESL for ELL students of other language groups, as well as the provision of bilingual instruction, whenever feasible. On August 24, , the Court issued an order requiring the parties to show cause why the Court should not relieve the SFUSD of responsibility for reporting under the extant Consent Decree.

Supreme Court DAPA Ruling a Blow to Obama Administration, Moves Immigration Back to Political Realm

The Court continued the reporting obligations and assigned the case to an active judge. On May 1, , the new judge held a status conference in which he agreed to let the parties continue their school visits and work collaboratively on developing an updated Master Plan. The parties agreed to a new Master Plan that would replace the outdated plan and filed a stipulated application to modify the Consent Decree. The United States and the Private Plaintiffs then monitored SFUSD's implementation of the Master Plan through the District's annual reports, regular site visits, community meetings, and communications with parents and students.

On June 24, , the parties jointly filed a motion and supporting memo seeking court approval of the MCD. The MCD, approved by the court on June 29, , requires SFUSD to, among other things: promptly identify, assess, and place EL students in effective EL programs; offer a range of EL programs and services to meet the needs of all EL students, including newcomers, students with disabilities, and long-term EL students; expand translation and interpretation services for LEP families; adequately train employees who serve EL students so that they can fulfill their roles; and conduct robust monitoring.

The MCD also protects the educational rights of the district's most at-risk and vulnerable EL students who are learning in alternative education or juvenile justice settings. For more information about the MCD, please see the June 24, press release. This statewide settlement resolved issues relating to the overrepresentation of black students in the mental retardation and emotional disturbance special education classifications and the underrepresentation of black students in the specific learning disabilities and gifted and talented special education classifications.

This consent decree , approved by the court on August 30, , involves special education issues that were raised as a result of information gathered during unitary status reviews in eleven desegregation cases pending before the United States District Court in the Middle District of Alabama. The settlement required the State of Alabama to undertake initiatives in providing teacher training, to establish a program to improve reading achievement, and to make changes to Alabama administrative law in the areas of pre-referral, referral, evaluation procedures, and eligibility criteria.

The U.S. Health Care System: An International Perspective — DPEAFLCIO

This emphasis on pre-referral intervention services resulted in substantial changes over the six years of implementing the consent decree. There have been significant reductions in racial disparities in the special education classifications of mental retardation MR , and disparities have been virtually eliminated in the classifications of emotional disturbance ED and specific learning disabilities SLD.

The number of black students classified as gifted also has increased. The settlement also required reevaluation of certain categories of minority students who had been identified as MR. As a result, several hundred students who had been inappropriately placed as MR were exited from special education. These students were provided with appropriate supplemental services to help transition successfully into the general education program, and were carefully monitored during this process. On February 12, , the U.

District Court for the Northern District of Alabama approved a consent order filed by the Justice Department, together with private plaintiffs and the Calhoun County, Alabama School District, in this longstanding desegregation case. The order found that the district has met its desegregation obligations in certain areas and providing for additional, comprehensive relief in the areas of faculty and staff hiring and recruitment and student discipline and school climate.

  1. Animated Documentary!
  2. Halloween (Wayfare Chronicles: The Matt Moore Series Book 4).
  3. Le sens organisationnel : Le cas des démarches de qualité (Logiques sociales) (French Edition);
  4. Come farsi cacciare dai cacciatori di teste (Mondo economico) (Italian Edition).
  5. U.S. Supreme Court Advance Sheet February - كتب Google;
  6. Danko, el caballo que conocía las estrellas (eBook-ePub) (Barco de Vapor Naranja) (Spanish Edition);
  7. The Poetics of Psychoanalysis: In the Wake of Klein.

In approving the consent order, the district court declared that the 9,student school district has eliminated the vestiges of prior segregation in the areas of student assignment, extracurricular activities, school facilities, and transportation, thereby ending the court's supervision in those areas. The order requires the district to take additional steps to reach full compliance, including adopting measures to promote racial diversity in its faculty and staff, expanding its use of positive behavioral supports and interventions throughout its schools, and revising its student discipline policies and procedures to ensure they are fair, non-discriminatory, and limit the use of exclusionary discipline such as suspensions and expulsions.

In this school desegregation case, the parties entered into a consent decree , which provided for the closure of two K schools and the consolidation of the students into two central school zones.

  • Desert Intrigue (The Adventures of John and Julia Evans Book 4)?
  • Stopping Binge Drinking (Emotion Downloads).
  • The Strict Piano Teacher.
  • THE CASE OF THE MISSING SCIENTIST [Raven Lenore, Psychic Investigator #6];
  • Lernen im Quadrat (German Edition)?
  • April - The Health Care Blog.
  • One of the K schools to be closed had a virtually all-white student body and had never graduated a black student. The day after the decree was filed, the school board voted to rescind its consent. The Section filed a motion to enforce the consent decree , arguing that once the board had given its consent, granted authority to counsel to sign on its behalf, and jointly filed the consent decree, the board was bound by the terms of the consent decree. At the same time, two groups moved to intervene in the case for the purpose of opposing the consent decree.

    The groups comprised parents, students, and other citizens from each of the two schools scheduled for closure. The Section filed briefs opposing both motions for intervention — one against the Mellow Valley School intervenors and one against the Bibb Graves School intervenors — arguing that the proposed intervenors did not express a cognizable interest in furthering desegregation, and, even if they had, the United States and private plaintiffs adequately represented any such interest. On May 13, , the district court accepted all of the Section's arguments and entered an order 1 denying the Board's motion to rescind its consent, 2 denying both motions to intervene, and 3 enforcing the consent decree.

    The parties worked to implement the consent decree, and the two schools were successfully closed prior to the beginning of the school year. The two groups of unsuccessful intervenors appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which ultimately dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. On June 4, , the school district and the United States entered into a settlement agreement outlining the measures that the school district will take to ensure its compliance with the EEOA.

    The agreement requires the district to develop, among other things: standardized curricula for ELLs; adequate teacher training and collaborative opportunities; systematic monitoring and reporting on the academic progress of ELLs; and a comprehensive ELL program evaluation model. This historic desegregation involving the St. This Agreement has been consensually modified by new orders and agreements in recent years, including a agreement that allowed for the use of desegregation funds for specific programs, such as magnet school transportation, principal leadership training, early childhood, and enhanced computing and technology in the SLPS.

    Over the years, however, the assumptions underlying creation of the Section 10 fund did not come to pass, primarily as a result of population declines, the advent of charter schools, and the ongoing commitment by both city and county schools to the voluntary transfer program. On February 8, , the parties entered into a consent decree that obligates the Nashville Public School District to take substantial steps to enhance the security of students with disabilities on its public school transportation system.

    These steps include staffing bus monitors to assist drivers on all special education buses; implementing comprehensive screening procedures to ensure that students with disabilities are not assigned to buses where they would be at risk of harassment; expediting the investigation of suspected acts of sexual harassment involving students with disabilities; and ensuring open lines of communication between transportation officials and school-based personnel.

    The Section intervened in this same-sex peer harassment case alleging the school district violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to respond appropriately to harassment of a student on the basis of sex. Specifically, the Section alleged in our complaint-in-intervention : from the eighth grade through the eleventh grade, Jeremy Lovins was subjected to harassment on the basis of sex ostensibly because other students believed he was gay ; Jeremy and his parents repeatedly informed school officials of the harassment but the harassment continued; and Jeremy was eventually subjected to an assault and forced to leave school because of the harassment.

    On July 31, , the Court entered a consent decree settling the case. The consent decree included monetary relief for Mr. Under the consent decree, the school district agreed, among other things: to conduct a climate assessment of student-to-student and teacher-to-student relations within its schools; to develop a comprehensive plan to identify, prevent, and remedy harassment and discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation; to educate and train teachers, staff, and students about the operation of the policy and procedures; to maintain written records of complaints and investigations; and to file implementation reports with the Section and the court.

    Table Of Contents

    Specifically, plaintiffs' amended complaint alleges that both Michael and Marquita Madison, who are black, were subjected to ongoing racial harassment while attending Sullivan East High School East. This harassment included a constant barrage of racial slurs, some made within earshot of teachers, racially derogatory graffiti on walls and desks, and racially offensive paraphernalia.

    Though school officials knew or should have known of the harassment, they failed to take appropriate steps to address it. Marquita eventually transferred to another school after her sophomore year. Michael fell victim to a racially-motivated assault outside the school cafeteria his junior year. He did not return to East after the assault and finished high school on homebound studies. The Section filed its complaint-in-intervention , motion to intervene , and supporting memorandum in November In our complaint-in-intervention, we sought monetary relief for the plaintiffs and injunctive relief, such as policies and procedures to prevent or address such harassment in the future.

    The court granted the Section's intervention on November 28, The parties conducted discovery in and early Following discovery, the parties negotiated a consent order and monetary settlement of the Title VI and equal protection claims. Under the consent order , which was approved by the Court on October 16, , the school system agreed to retain an expert to develop a comprehensive plan to prevent, identify, and remedy harassment and discrimination; provide an education and training program for teachers, staff, and students about the school district's policies prohibiting harassment and discrimination; and maintain written records of each harassment allegation received, investigation conducted and corrective action taken by the district to ensure a consistent and effective review of allegations.

    For more details about the settlement, please see the press release linked here. Private plaintiffs filed this school desegregation case in ; the United States intervened later that year. On July 31, , the Court approved the District's Revised Desegregation Plan, which was subsequently modified with the court's approval in , , , , and In , the United States initiated a review of the District's compliance with the court's desegregation orders and applicable federal law.

    This review resulted in the filing of negotiated consent order, which was approved by the court on February 5, On July 27, , the parties filed another motion for approval of a negotiated consent order, which was granted on August 21, On July 3, , the parties filed another motion for approval of a negotiated consent order , which was granted on July 12, The consent order requires the district to close four of its seven elementary schools, including three racially identifiable schools; construct a new school; modify its attendance zones; and implement a controlled choice program at two of its elementary schools.

    The consent order also will require the district to continue certain intra-district transfers that have the effect of furthering the desegregation of the district's schools. On March 5, , the court approved amendments to the July 12, consent order, which extended the timeline for implementing the elementary desegregation plan and established monitoring and reporting requirements sought by the United States. After determining that the school district was not complying with Section f of the EEOA, the United States entered into a settlement agreement with the school district on January 31, This agreement addressed, among other things, the school district's obligations to: timely identify and assess all students with a primary or home language other than English; serve ELLs with appropriate instruction; provide adequate teacher training; and carefully monitor the academic progress of current and former ELLs.

    School Board of Collier County. Pickard standards binding on the Florida federal court.

    Please Login

    The filing explains why under those standards the plaintiffs adequately pled facts supporting a plausible Section f claim. On April 24, , the Section entered into a settlement agreement with the Metropolitan School District of Decatur Township, Indiana to prevent and respond to peer-on-peer harassment in schools. The agreement resolved the Section's review of the district's policies and practices related to harassment and bullying, which was initiated in June after reports of possible racial harassment at a district school.

    The agreement requires the district to take a number of steps to prevent and address harassment based on race, color, national origin, sex, religion and disability, and to ensure a safe and supportive learning environment for all students. These steps include forming a district-wide anti-harassment task force to review and revise the district's policies and procedures related to harassment, bullying, and discipline; establishing a cohesive process for receiving, investigating and monitoring complaints of harassment and bullying, enabling the district to track repeated incidents involving individual students or groups targeted for their membership in a protected class; and providing training, professional development and school climate assessments for both students and staff at two of the district's schools.

    On November 18, , private plaintiffs filed this case complaining that the Gadsden City Board of Education was maintaining a segregated school system. On May 9, , the Section intervened and joined the plaintiffs in seeking injunctive relief that would bring the school system into conformity with federal constitutional and statutory provisions.

    Over the years, the court issued a series of orders aimed at eliminating the vestiges of past discrimination and completely desegregating the school system. In July , the court approved the parties' proposed consent order that required the school district to take remedial actions in the areas of student assignment, personnel assignment, facilities, and quality of education.

    The consent order required the district to assign students randomly to classrooms and to enforce attendance zone lines strictly.

    Structure of the Court System: Crash Course Government and Politics #19

    With respect to personnel assignment, the consent order required the district to increase efforts to recruit minority teachers and to ensure that each school had a faculty whose racial diversity was reflective of the district-wide faculty. The consent order also required the district to make substantial improvements to its secondary schools so that these facilities were all of comparable quality.

    Finally, with respect to quality of education, the consent order required the district to equalize its offering of and access to advanced and honor classes among secondary schools. Having fulfilled these obligations, the district was declared unitary on August 26, In this long-standing school desegregation case, the Jackson-Madison County School Board filed a motion for unitary status in December , asserting that it had complied in good faith with prior desegregation decrees and had eliminated the vestiges of segregation to the extent practicable.

    The Section and the private plaintiffs opposed the board's motion for unitary status. The parties engaged in extensive negotiations, which resulted in an agreement shortly before trial in November The agreement, which the court approved in December , permits the board to proceed with its plan to construct five new schools and implement revised student attendance zones over the next four years.

    The agreement includes numerous measures that will further desegregation by voluntary means, including the construction of magnet schools and the introduction of other school choice options. The board is also required to take additional remedial action in faculty and staff assignments, and to encourage minority student participation in all programs and activities. Implementation and monitoring of the agreement is ongoing. Parents of students with disabilities who allege that their children were not properly identified, evaluated, and provided with special education services filed a class action lawsuit against the Newark Public Schools, the State of New Jersey, and several state officials.

    In its brief , the Section argued that New Jersey had agreed to comply with the IDEA and waive its sovereign immunity when it accepted federal IDEA funds to defray the cost of educating students with disabilities. In the alternative, the Section argued that Congress validly abrogated state sovereign immunity pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court accepted both arguments and denied the State's motion to dismiss.

    • Please Sign In or Register.
    • Fact Sheet - Timeline of EPA Actions on Greenhouse Gases () | White Papers | EESI.
    • Overture: Full Orchestral Parts;