Source: Press & News

By Mindy Mateuszczyk on January 3, 2013 at 12:03 am

Anoka-Hennepin School District made national headlines for its sexual orientation policy in 2011, which led to breaking more news in 2012 with a consent decree resulting from a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by six students in 2011. Here’s a look at some of the top news stories in the school district for 2012.

Anoka-Hennepin School District reaches

lawsuit settlement/Tinglestad resigns

Anoka-Hennepin School Board members approved a consent decree, achieving settlement in two federal investigations and a harassment lawsuit. After more than a dozen mediation sessions and months of research, review and rough drafts, Anoka-Hennepin School District administration announced March 5, that they reached a proposed agreement that involved monetary compensation and specific follow-up measures to be enacted and overseen by the Department of Justice for the next five years.

Represented by Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), six students filed the lawsuit stating the district failed to intervene when they were being bullied over their perceived gender identity or sexual orientation. While some of the students remain in the district, for others, the situation had gotten so bad they ended up leaving altogether for safety.

The settlement also addresses the federal inquiry into the way the district handled issues involving bullying and sexual orientation, which began in 2010. The Justice Department said the agreement was a collaborative effort among the parties to the suit.

The investigation by the departments of Justice and Education found that the school district violated Title IX and Title IV of the Education Code by permitting a hostile environment against students on the basis of sex, including the failure to conform to sex stereotypes. Federal investigators reviewed more than 7,000 district documents and included interviews with more than 60 individuals, including current and former students, parents, district staff, teachers and administrators.

Superintendent Dennis Carlson described the consent decree as “a positive statement of the continuing effort to ensure a welcoming environment for all students and families in our district.”

The 61-page decree describes several steps Anoka-Hennepin will take to enhance its current anti-harassment efforts.

As part of the settlement, the six students were paid a total of $270,000 by the district’s insurance carrier. Additionally, the school district was also required to achieve the following:

• Retain an equity consultant to provide a systemic review and recommend any needed revisions to district policies related to harassment, as well as district procedures relating to the investigation and response to incidents of harassment, parental notification, and tracking of harassment incidents.

• Hire a Title IX/equity coordinator who will implement district policies and procedures, monitor complaints, ensure that district administrators and staff adhere to sex and sexual orientation-based discrimination laws, and identify trends and common areas of concern.

• Work with the equity consultant and Title IX coordinator/equity coordinator to develop improved and effective trainings on harassment for all students and employees who interact with students.

• Ensure that a counselor or other qualified mental health professional will be available during school hours for students in need.

• Hire a mental health consultant to review and access current practices in the district relating to assisting students who are subject to harassment.

• Provide additional specificity to further strengthen its annual anti-bullying survey.

• Expand the district’s harassment-prevention task force formed the summer of 2011 to advise the district regarding how to best foster a positive educational climate for all students.

• Work with the equity consultant to further identify hot spots in district schools where harassment is or becomes problematic, including outdoor locations and on school buses, and work the with equity consultant to develop actions that better align with a safe, welcoming school environment.

• Implement a tracking system that tracks reports of incidents and requires the district to investigate in a timely fashion. Comprehensive data management will be required on every incident.

School Board Chairman Tom Heidemann said the $500,000 cost to implement those steps would come from a specific fund allocated for health and safety areas of the school district. The settlement money will be paid by the school’s insurance. Despite the findings of the Departments of Education and Justice, Heidemann was still unwilling to admit any mistakes on behalf of the district as he reiterated past commentary.

“The district determined through an exhaustive investigation that our administrators and teachers dealt with the harassment reports in a professional, timely and appropriate manner,” said Heidemann. “We are concerned that a monetary settlement negotiated by our insurer, Riverport, leaves the impression that our staff did not take appropriate action.”

The lawsuits were dismissed with the district denying fault or wrongdoing, the district stated in a press release.

As part of the agreement, a five-year partnership was established between the Anoka-Hennepin School District and the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Office for Civil Rights (OCR). The DOJ and the OCR will monitor and assist the district’s implementation of the consent decree through 2017. Should the district fail to implement the measures or if disputes arise, the issue would end up back in court.

“We approach the monitoring role of the DOJ and OCR in a spirit of collaboration, as it will provide an opportunity for continued communication on this important concern. Our efforts to further address harassment related to sexual orientation will result in positive change in our schools that will extend far beyond the five years of the consent decree,” said Superintendent Carlson.

As a result of the lawsuit, Dist. 6 representative Kathy Tinglestad resigned from her position on the board. She served a little more than three years on the board, first appointed in January 2009, then elected to a full term in November 2009, from which she resigned in April 2012.

Tinglestad cast the lone opposing vote against the consent decree. In a letter she read at the press conference, Tinglestad cited three reasons she voted against the settlement: costs, governance issues and precedent.

As part of the result of the consent decree, the school district also adopted a new policy to replace the sexual orientation policy that promoted neutrality. The new policy called the “respectful learning environment” policy can be read in its entirety here: http://www.anoka.k12.mn.us/education/components/docmgr/default.php?sectiondetailid=233661&fileitem=116008&catfilter=11704

Equal Rights Advocates Demands Answers From SF Bay Area Schools Following Investigative
Report Revealing Widespread Ignorance of Title IX Requirements

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Noreen Farrell, Executive Director, nfarrell@equalrights.org

Work (415.575.2398); cell (510.701.8243)

Equal Rights Advocates Demands Answers From SF Bay Area SchoolsFollowing Investigative Report Revealing Widespread Ignorance of Title IXRequirements

SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. – November 1, 2012 – Equal Rights Advocates, a national non-profit group with a long history of enforcing civil rights laws in schools and workplaces,announced today its filing of formal information requests with dozens of school districts in the San Francisco Bay Area, requesting information about the school districts’ compliance with Title IX, a federal law that prohibits sex discrimination by schools.

The action follows on the heels of a troubling report by the investigative unit of NBC Bay Area on October 30, 2012, which revealed widespread ignorance of and non-compliance with basicrequirements of Title IX among 200 Bay Area schools, including its requirement that schools designate a “Title IX coordinator” to receive and investigate and act upon sex discrimination and harassment complaints. The investigation reveals that principals at some Bay Area schoolswere unaware of Title IX and could not identify the school’s Title IX coordinator or if theschool even had one.  See the complete NBC Bay Area video report: “Bay Area SchoolsIgnoring Title IX?”

Equal Rights Advocates Executive Director Noreen Farrell commented: “Ignorance of Title IX’s basic requirements by school leaders forty years after its passage is shameful and it is hurtinggirls. Equal Rights Advocates hears from students and parents across California and the country who don’t know their rights, and have no idea where to turn when they face sexual harassment or other discriminatory treatment at school.”

In response to the disturbing results of the NBC investigation, Equal Rights Advocates is filing formal Public Records Act requests with dozens of school districts in the Bay Area requestingdocuments that evidence or describe their efforts to comply with Title IX, including the identityand contact information for their Title IX coordinators, any written policies and proceduresrelating to compliance with Title IX, documents relating to Title IX training programs, and the districts’ responses to any Title IX complaints that have been filed over the last three years (redacting any personal information to protect the privacy of those who are involved.)

“Our goal in collecting this information will be to identify gaps in Title IX compliance and to encourage San Francisco Bay Area school district officials to take immediate steps to bringtheir districts into compliance,” said Farrell.  ERA Legal Director Jennifer Reisch added:  “ERA intends to enforce Title IX. Millions of girls depend on it.”

About ERA: Equal Rights Advocates (ERA), founded in 1974, is a national civil rights organization dedicated to protecting and expanding economic and educational access and opportunities for women and girls. Through its campaign approach—incorporating publiceducation, legislative advocacy, and litigation—ERA seeks to assist women and girls throughout a life-long continuum: ensuring equality in their educational experience, combating sex discrimination in the workforce, and advocating for workplaces hospitable to working families. To learn more about ERA’s work, visit www.equalrights.org.

For the NBC video of their investigative reports please go to:

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Nonprofit-Demands-Answers-from-Schools-176881111.html

Journalists Expose Lack of Title IX Compliance in Bay Area Schools

from Title IX Blog by EBuz

A team of investigative reporters from the Bay Area NBC News affiliate reported this week that few area schools comply with Title IX’s requirement that districts appoint a Title IX Coordinator to oversee compliance and receive and handle complaints about discrimination and harassment on the basis of sex.  It is one of the law’s most simple and straightforward requirements, yet, school officials seem almost intent on ignoring it, as the results of the journalists’ investigation reveal.   The news team sent this email to over 200 principals in California’s Bay Area:

Most of the principals did not even respond.  And most of those who did had no idea.

Here are some of the responses:

“We don’t have a title ix coordinator”

“I think that would be me….???”

“I’m not sure who you would need to talk to.”

“I have no idea who it is. Try labor relations they should know.”

“i have no idea what title nine is, sorry.”

“I need to know who I am talking to before I send that information.”

In a follow up meeting with a spokesperson for one of the districts, the San Francisco Unified School District, the reporters found out the name and position of the district’s Title IX Coordinator, but confirmed that her name and contact information does not appear in writing in any place accessible to someone with a grievance, as the law requires.

A national nonprofit, Equal Rights Advocates, followed up on the news team’s report by adding pressure on school districts to comply.  ERA sent 100 schools a request for confirmation that they have a Title IX Coordinator, and that the person as well as the procedures for filing harassment and discrimination complaints are published and available to the public.  I suspect that they plan to use any non-response as the basis of a complaint to the Department of Education.

Legal Advocacy Groups Urge Department of Education to Investigate Penn State

Posted: 01 Sep 2012 02:56 AM PDT

The ACLU and the Women’s Sports Foundations have urged the Department of Education to investigate whether Penn State’s response to known incidents of sexual abuse by former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky violated Title IX.  According to this article, the Department hasn’t ruled out possibility of an investigation, and some experts think that an investigation seems likely.  If the findings of Penn State’s internal investigation (known as the Freeh Report) are true, the situation at Penn State contains examples of what courts and the Department have already said constitutes “deliberate indifference” and the basis for institution liability under Title IX — examples such as suppressing reports of assault by intimidation and allowing athletics to handle its own cases outside the university process, according to Professor Nancy Hogshead-Makar, quoted in the article.  It is also possible that the Department would investigate potential violations of the Clery Act, which requires universities to disclose information crime on campus.  Yet Title IX gives the Department more leverage, since it has the theoretical power to revoke all of Penn State’s hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding.  As the article points out, a Title IX investigation could also inspire private litigation by victims, who could bring a claim for damages under the law.

For a related, earlier post, see this summary of  Professors Joanna Grossman and Debbie Brake’s Title IX analysis of the Penn State case for the website Justia.com.

February-22-12
UC Davis to Pay $1.35 Million Settlement in Title IX Case
Last week, the University of California at Davis agreed to pay $1.35 million in a settlement with three women wrestlers after a US Federal Court ruled in August 2011 that the university violated Title IX by not sufficiently expanding intercollegiate athletic opportunities for female students between 1998 and 2005. The court also found that the university ended more than 60 intercollegiate sports opportunities for women without replacing them. The settlement covers the cost of the court fees for the eight year duration of the case, but does not include money to the plaintiffs since the court ruled the women were not entitled to damages.

The wrestlers, Arezou Mansourian, Christine Ng, and Lauren Mancusco filed suit in 2003 after UC Davis eliminated women’s opportunities in wrestling and other women’s sports. When an official at UC Davis decided to limit the number of students allowed on the wrestling team, players were required to try out for a spot. The plaintiffs did not make the cut, which required each wrestler to wrestle-off with opponents of a similar size.

Title IX expert, Kristen Galles from Equity Legal points out that the “The Ninth Circuit opinion emphasized that schools must have both a history and continuing practice of expanding opportunities for women. They cannot just wait until someone files a legal complaint. Schools have affirmative, independent obligations to expand opportunities when women are underrepresented in sports.”

“While we were proud to stand up with these plaintiffs for what’s right and fair, we look forward to the day when it doesn’t take a lawsuit to enforce Title IX,” said Linda D. Hallman, American Association for University Women (AAUW) Executive Director.

The Feminist Majority Foundation is currently working to rescind the 2006 Bush-era Title IX regulations that make it significantly easier to allow single-sex classrooms in public schools.

Media Resources: Associated Press 2/17/12; AAUW 2/16/12; LA Times 2/16/12; Equal Rights Advocates 2/16/12 Press Release

Source – http://educationviews.org/2012/02/12/high-school-athletes-win-title-ix-trial/

Posted by EducationViews.org on February 12, 2012 in Blogs | 0 Comment

A group of female athletes in Chula Vista, California, won their class action lawsuit against Sweetwater Union School District, having convinced a federal judge at trial that the school violated Title IX by providing inferior facilities and resources to girls’ athletics at Castle Park High School. The judge found that a higher percentage of male athletes than female athletes had access to superior facilities, including dedicated locker rooms and other amenities. For example, the girls’ softball field was poorly maintained and lacked fences and covered dugouts, compared to the boys field which was well-maintained, fenced, and had covered dugouts. The judge also found that female athletes were more likely to have fewer coaches, less qualified coaches, and coaches who had to devote more of their time to other school duties. Compared to boys’ sports, girls’ sports rarely received the support of the school band, and girls sports never received the support of cheerleaders. Boys’ teams were permitted to fundraise, while some girls’ teams were not. Finally, the judge found that the school district’s stated reasons for firing the softball coach were “not credible and pretextual” of retaliation against the softball program for a parent’s complaint about gender equity issues.

The plaintiffs had earlier prevailed in the aspect of their case that addressed discrimination in the number of athletic opportunities available to girls, as we blogged about here. The parties have 45 days to propose a compliance plan.

It is common for the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights to address disparities in athletic facilities, equipment, and other amenities in high schools as well as colleges. It is less common for plaintiffs to seek judicial enforcement against this kind of discrimination. In fact, the Title IX Blog believes that this is the first time a case about high school facilities has gone to trial in a court. Kudos to the Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center, the California Women’s Law Center, and Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, who represented the plaintiffs in this precedent-setting case.