Liability for the Christian School Teacher

Posted on June 26, 2009 by Society for Classical Learning

Every student represents an opportunity for ministry. Regrettably, every student also represents a potential lawsuit. How should teachers and schools protect themselves from this threat? Attend this session and learn practical solutions to address these major areas of liability.

John L. and John M. Cooley

John L. Cooley served as a Christian school administrator for 10 years prior to beginning his law career. Ind addition to his law degree, Mr. Cooley has earned an MRE in Christian education and a Ph.D. in church administration. He currently serves as President of WootenHart PLC in Roanoke, VA. John Mark Cooley is a partner at WootenHart and has been in practice there for over 10 years. Together they focus on representing faith-based programs, religious schools, and non-profits and have assisted schools with constitutional law, employment and contract issues, student discipline and expulsion, parent issues, organizational structure, and non-profit IRS filings.

Protecting Your School from Employment Discrimination Claims

Posted on December 1, 2008 by Society for Classical Learning

Hardly anything is more stressful, or potentially expensive, to a school community than the termination of an employee that results in a claim of discrimination. Over the years, we’ve encountered three common myths which make religious schools susceptible to discrimination claims:

First, honest evaluations and documented employee issues are not that important.

In order to carry its burden of proof in an unlawful discrimination claim, the school must be able to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its action. Once the school does so, the burden shifts to the employee to show the pretext of the reasons given. Schools frequently fail to provide poor employees with reviews that accurately reflect performance problems, nor do they properly document issues with problem employees.

Second, no claims can be made by the employee because they were either at will or because the school simply did “not renew” the contract.

Most state and federal anti-discrimination provisions prohibit unlawful discrimination in any “term or condition” of employment. If an at will employee is terminated or the school decides not to renew the contract of an employee, that only prohibits a breach of contract claim. An employee can always claim that the reason for the non-renewal or the reason they were terminated from their at will job was because of an unlawful discriminatory reason (i.e. race, age, gender, national ethnic origin, disability, etc.).

Third, we don’t need to seek counsel from a knowledgeable attorney before communicating non-renewal or termination decisions.

A party who successfully brings a claim against your school can receive compensatory damages, damages for emotional suffering, punitive damages for intentional discrimination, plus their attorneys’ fees. Many times the school has a legitimate reason for its decision, but the staff improperly communicates the decision to the employee or has not taken the steps to properly document the problems.

Many schools do not have any form of employment practices insurance coverage for employment related claims, meaning the school will not only have to pay its own attorneys fees, but also any judgment rendered and the attorneys fees of the opposing side. As a result, making a mistake can cost the school hundreds of thousands of dollars. Schools should budget an annual amount for attorney consultations and review negative employment decisions with knowledgeable counsel before ever communicating them to the employee.

Student and Parent Legal Rights

Posted on June 27, 2008 by Society for Classical Learning

Too often administrators, board members or directors of faith based education programs find themselves confronted with the question of what rights must the school afford students and parents. In this session we examine the legal basis for rights and analyze just what they are.

John L. and John M. Cooley

The M&M’s of Employment Law: Miscalculations, Misperceptions & Miscommunication

Posted on June 27, 2008 by Society for Classical Learning

Over the years we have seen administrators and boards of faith-based programs commit the M&M’s of employment law. In this session we will discuss multiple legal mistakes and assumptions involving staff and how to avoid potential liability.

John L. and John M. Cooley

The M&M’s of Employment Law

Posted on June 27, 2008 by Society for Classical Learning

John L. and John M. Cooley

Liability for the Christian School Teacher

Posted on June 26, 2008 by Society for Classical Learning

Every student represents an opportunity for ministry. Regrettably, every student represents a potential lawsuit. How school teachers and schools protect themselves from this threat? In this session you will learn practical solutions to address these major areas of liability.

John L. and John M. Cooley

From Hiring to Firing: Avoiding Liability

Posted on June 26, 2008 by Society for Classical Learning

One of the major areas of liability for faith based programs, including schools and early education programs involves how to comply with the myriad of employment laws. This session will discuss how to avoid liability in every aspect of the employment setting.

John L. and John M. Cooley

Homeschooling in California

Posted on May 1, 2008 by Society for Classical Learning

On February 28, 2008, the 2nd District Court of Appleas in Los Angeles issued an opinion that has shaken the home schooling environment. The court ruled that the parents of an elementary aged child did not have a legal or constitutional right to home school their child. In re Rachael L, et. al., 73 Cal. Rptr. 77 (2008).

According to the Court of Appeals, the California Education Code permits just three venues of education: (1) public school instruction; (2) private tutor instruction by a credentialed teacher; or (3) private school instruction where the pupil is in attendance full time at the school. Since the mother did not have a credential, she did not qualify as a tutor. Moreover, while the child was enrolled in Sunland Christian School, she did not actually a end the school and participated in what the school termed “independent study.” Many California private schools operate such independent study programs where home school parents receive resources, instruction and some supervision. The Court noted that the code did permit independent study, but concluded the program of home schooling the parents followed did not comport with the intent contemplated or specifics required.

The Court also analyzed at least two primary US Supreme Court cases: Pierce v Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, involving the right of parents to choose a private education over public education, and Wisconsin v Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, on the right of Amish parents to refuse to educate their children beyond the eighth grade. Pierce permit- ted parental choice, but stated that the state had a right to inspect and insure the quality, including that of the teachers. In Yoder, the parents’ long- standing religious convictions and historic community trumped the state compulsory attendance.

The Supreme Court noted, however, that “allowing every person to make his own standards of conduct in which society as a whole has important interests” is precluded by “the very concept of ordered liberty.” The historicity of the Amish belief in conjunction with agrarian, self-regulated society they followed militated in favor of an exemption from the compulsory education laws. That was not the case here, according to the Court of Appeals. Parents had options, including the choice of private education.

Almost immediately, an outcry arose from various groups, including home schooling associations. Governor Schwartzenegger stated that if the California Supreme Court upheld the decision, the legislature would act to protect the parental rights involving almost 200,000 home schooled students. Some have suggested that Congress should consider passing a constitutional amendment specifically addressing the rights of parents. Even the California Superintendent of Education has weighed in, stating that parents can continue to home school their children. The Department “is not going to sue parents.”

As of this writing, the parents involved were considering an appeal. If they appeal, it is likely that a number of parental and religious rights groups will file amicus briefs in support of the parental right to home school their children.