Blog | School Lawyers in Texas

October 7, 2022 By LeasorCrass

Don’t be Spooked by Title IX Complaints

October brings Fall weather, changing leaves, and a bit of chaos on the student discipline front. Homecoming festivities and other school-sponsored events may trigger an uptick in allegations of student-on-student sexual misconduct. When a school employee receives notice of a potential Title IX issue, the District must respond with immediate and swift action so as not to be considered deliberately indifferent.

Leasor Crass recommends the following steps when analyzing a possible complaint of sexual harassment. In emergency situations, the law allows the District to remove a student accused of sexual assault or harassment if the student poses an “immediate threat to the physical health or safety of the complainant.” After evaluating the necessity of emergency removal, the District should consider making an immediate report to CPS. According to Texas law, anyone who has a reasonable cause to believe a child is being abused, neglected, or exploited must report it to CPS. This step is crucial in ensuring District personnel are not penalized for failing to adhere to mandated reporter laws. Depending on the circumstances, the District may also need to notify law enforcement.

Throughout the Title IX process, the District should implement supportive measures to ensure that students feel safe and have equal access to educational programs and activities. Supportive measures may include speaking to a school counselor or a schedule change. Under Title IX regulations, no disciplinary or punitive sanctions can be imposed until after there is a determination of responsibility by the decision maker as part of the required grievance procedure.

The attorneys at Leasor Crass, P.C. recognize the complexity and time-sensitive nature of these complaints. In addition to training school personnel to identify and investigate potential Title IX claims, we are available to assist the District with any of the following processes:

Evaluating an initial complaint
Implementing supportive measures
Procedural steps to investigating a formal complaint

September 14, 2022 By LeasorCrass

“In God We Trust” Sign Donations: How Should Districts Respond?

Senate Bill 797, enacted in August of 2022, requires public elementary and secondary schools to display in a conspicuous place in each building of the school or institution a durable poster or framed copy of the United States national motto, “In God We Trust.” The signs must be donated or purchased with private funds and “must contain a representation of the United States flag centered under the national motto and a representation of the state flag, and may not depict any words, images, or other information.”

Once S.B. 797 became law, Patriot Mobile donated signs to districts across the metroplex. In quick succession, other groups created displays of the motto both in Arabic and rainbow lettering signifying support of the LGBTQ community and demanded that those signs be displayed as well.

In response to the controversy, Senator Bryan Hughes, co-author of the law, sent an August 26th letter to the Texas Education Agency, clarifying that S.B. 797 was not intended to force school districts to display more than one poster per building or in languages other than English. Hughes explained the “statutory prescription that the motto be displayed as it appears in [S.B. 797], and with no ‘other words, images, or other information,’ limits the legally mandated display of the motto to only posters or framed copies presented in English.”

Senator Hughes also explained that “nothing in state law prohibits the display of the national motto in any other language… [h]owever, the law requires only the display of a poster or framed copy, as expressly stated in the statute.” Id.

What this means for districts is that a public elementary or secondary school must comply with the statute’s requirements and post one “In God We Trust” poster or framed copy if it is donated and meets requirements under the law. The statute requires that the sign must: (1) contain a representation of the United States flag centered under the national motto and a representation of the state flag; and (2) not depict any words, images, or other information other than the representations listed in Section 1.004 of the Texas Education Code.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding S.B. 797, the attorneys at Leasor Crass, P.C. are available to assist.

August 22, 2022 By LeasorCrass

School Safety & Security Mandates: Random Audits Coming in 2022-2023

Following the tragedy at Robb Elementary School, state educational leaders, legislators, and community members are seeking assurances from school districts across Texas regarding safety and security plans and procedures. The Texas House of Representatives Investigative Committee recently released a 77-page report detailing the Uvalde shooting and the extent to which the Uvalde ISD acted in accordance with their established school safety plan.

In the report, the House Committee analyzed whether the Uvalde ISD’s safety plan was adopted and executed under Texas Education Code § 37.108. Section 37.108 requires each school district to adopt and implement an emergency operations plan. Among other things, the plan must include training for responding to an emergency; measures to ensure proper communication technology and infrastructure in the event of an emergency; mandatory drills or exercises; measures to ensure coordination with local emergency management agencies; and the implementation of a safety and security audit. Tex. Educ. Code § 37.108(a). At least once every three years, each school district must conduct a safety and security audit of the district’s facilities in accordance with the procedures developed by the Texas School Safety Center (TxSSC). Tex. Educ. Code § 37.108(b).

In his June 1st letter, Governor Abbott set forth specific expectations for districts that must be completed by September 1, 2022, and certified to the TxSSC by September 9, 2022. The requirements include that districts ensure their School Safety and Security Committee meets to review their Emergency Operations Plan and address any campus safety needs—including the Active Threat plan. Texas Education Code § 37.109 requires each school district to establish a school safety and security committee in accordance with guidelines from the TxSSC. Tex. Educ. Code § 37.109(a)-(b).

At a minimum, the committee must meet three times per year—at least once during each academic semester and at least once during the summer. The committee is subject to Chapter 551 of the Government Code and may meet in executive session as provided by that chapter. Notice of a committee meeting must be posted in the same manner as notice of a meeting of the district’s board of trustees. Tex. Educ. Code § 37.109(c).

Governor Abbott has tasked TxSSC, in coordination with TEA, to develop and implement a plan to conduct random, in-person inspections and audits to assess access control measures to school district buildings. If you have questions or concerns regarding your district’s safety and security plan or committee responsibilities, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at Leasor Crass, P.C.

June 27, 2022 By LeasorCrass

Coach Prayers: Private Speech or Problematic Coercion

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a long-awaited ruling regarding prayer by school employees today. In Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, the Court was asked to decide whether a high school football coach had a constitutionally protected right to pray on the football field following a game. The Court sided 6-3 with the coach. The decision turned on a determination by the majority that the coach’s actions constituted “private speech” and that the school’s interest in avoiding a potential Establishment Clause violation was not sufficient when weighed against the coach’s rights of free speech and exercise of religion.

The case has several potentially far-reaching implications for both the school legal environment, as well as, the broader world of public employment law. The Court appears to have delivered the final blow to what is known as the Lemon test. This doctrine, which had previously informed the analysis of Establishment Clause cases, was quite forcibly rejected by the Court. This means that the concept of “excessive entanglement” can no longer be relied upon when making decisions as to whether to regulate employee speech.

Importantly, the Court distinguished the issue of endorsement from that of coercion. This means that, for now, schools must still prohibit religious conduct that has a coercive effect on students. The ruling expressly references cases in which clergy prayer at an official school graduation ceremony and broadcasting a prayer over the public address system before football games as examples of “problematically coercive” conduct that violated that Establishment Clause.

The ruling is also illustrative of the fact-dependent nature of these First Amendment cases. In deciding for Coach Kennedy, the majority relies heavily on what it viewed as a lack of evidence of coercion. Notably, the dissent directly contradicts the facts relied upon by the majority in reaching this decision. While not completely unexpected or unprecedented, this dispute illustrates both the ever-growing importance documentation plays when taking disciplinary action and the unfortunate reality that even the highest tribunal in the land may disagree on the facts.

We are certain much more analysis will be forthcoming in the near future. In fact, Mike Leasor will be co-presenting a panel discussion on this case and its implications at the upcoming TASA/TASB Convention. In the meantime, the most immediate takeaway for disputes involving employee religious expression appears to be proceed with caution and document, document, document. As always, the attorneys at Leasor Crass, P.C. remain available to assist as we continue to navigate these murky waters.

February 24, 2022 By LeasorCrass

Child Abuse Reporting Mandate and Attorney General Opinion KP-0401

On Friday, February 18, 2022, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued Opinion No. KP-0401, in which the Attorney General opined that a court could find that certain enumerated “sex-change procedures”, when performed on minors, constitute child abuse under several provisions of Chapter 261 of the Texas Family Code.

The specific procedures addressed in the Opinion include:

sterilization through castration, vasectomy, hysterectomy, oophorectomy, metoidioplasty, orchiectomy, penectomy, phalloplasty, and vaginoplasty;
mastectomies;
removing from children otherwise healthy or non-diseased body part or tissue; and
providing, administering, prescribing, or dispensing following categories of drugs to children:

a. puberty-suppression or puberty-blocking drugs;
b. supraphysiologic doses of testosterone to females; and
c. supraphysiologic doses of estrogen to males.

Importantly, the AG’s Opinion includes a pointed reminder that Family Code Section 261.101 imposes mandatory reporting requirements on both the general public and professionals who have “reasonable cause to believe” that a child has been abused. The Opinion reiterates that the term “professional” includes “teachers, nurses, doctors, day-care employees, employees of a clinic or health care facility that provides reproductive services, juvenile probation officers, and juvenile detention or correctional officers” and closes with a warning that “[a] failure to report under these circumstances is a criminal offense.”

On Tuesday, February 22, 2022, Governor Greg Abbott forwarded the AG’s Opinion to the Commissioner of the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (“DFPS”), calling on DFPS to “conduct a prompt and thorough investigation of any reported instances of these abusive procedures in the State of Texas.” The Governor’s correspondence, which closed with the directive that “[t]o protect Texas children from abuse, DFPS and all other state agencies must follow the law as explained in OAG Opinion No. KP-0401”, was also forwarded to a number of other state agency commissioners, including TEA Commissioner Morath.

Those of us who have worked in public education over the last several years understand that the issue of gender identity is rife with emotional, legal, and political complications. That said, public educators should be aware that they do have an obligation to report when they have reasonable cause to believe a child has been abused. Determining whether an individual has “reasonable cause” to suspect abuse always requires a case-by-case determination. However, our firm has consistently advised our clients to err on the side of reporting when they have doubts about conduct that may or may not constitute child abuse.

Ultimately, a court of law will need to decide whether and/or in what circumstances the procedures identified in KP-0401 actually constitute child abuse. In the interest of remaining consistent, our firm believes educators should be aware of the AG’s interpretation and continue to err on the side of caution should they question whether knowledge of such procedure(s) triggers a legal obligation to report. In doing so, the publicized opinions of the Attorney General and Governor may lead a reporter to believe that making a report based on knowledge of an enumerated procedure(s) would likely constitute “good faith” so as to provide immunity from any related civil or criminal liability.

Please do not hesitate to contact the education lawyers at Leasor Crass, P.C. if you have additional questions about this matter.

LEASOR CRASS, P.C.

OFFICE LOCATION