Essential Court Cases for Board Members

Transcription

1 Essential Court Cases for Board Members Tuesday, November 14, 2017 OSBA Capital Conference Rev. Dr. Curtis T. Walker Sr., Akron Board Member Rhonda Porter, General Counsel A review of landmark Supreme Court cases and how that impact every day decision making of school boards A REFERENCE GUIDE U.S. Supreme Court cases that have transformed the legal landscape and governance of public education 1

2 The Akron Board of Education & Superintendent First Amendment Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 2

3 Regulating Student Speech in a Nutshell Tinker: (pure speech) Hazelwood: (school sponsored speech) Bethel: (vulgar, lewd, sexual innuendo speech) Morse: (speech endorsing illegal drug use) First Amendment Rights - Students Seminal Case: Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969) (Individual student expression) 3

4 Regulating Pure Speech Mary Beth and John Tinker and several other students were suspended for wearing black armbands as a symbol of opposition to the Vietnam War. A rule forbidding the wearing of such armbands had been adopted by the District (in anticipation of the protect) two days before. Because the rights that were being regulated was expressive conduct that approached being pure speech (the policy would be held to strict scrutiny and would be upheld only if it was necessary to serve a compelling governmental interest. 4

5 Students do not shed their constitutional rights to free speech at the schoolhouse gate. SUBSTANTIAL DISRUPTION TEST School officials are nevertheless free to suppress speech and expressive conduct that materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school. Id. at 509 In response to the District Court s rationale Any word spoken, in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance. But our Constitution says we must take this risk, and our history says that it is this sort of hazardous freedom this kind of openness that is the basis of our national strength and of the independence and vigor of Americans who grow up and live in this relatively permissive, often disputatious, society. 5

6 Hazelwood Sch. Dist. V. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988) (Student expression that arises in the context of School Sponsored Activities) Where a school sponsors an activity, in such a way that students and others may reasonably perceive the activity as bearing the school s imprimatur, the school s right to restrict student speech is much greater than in the Tinker situation. Id. at 271. Principal s decision upheld, removing two articles from the student newspaper describing three students experience with pregnancy, divorce, etc., Editorial control must be reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns. Id. at Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986) (vulgar speech) Student was punished for suggestive speech at high school assembly. Jeff Kulman is a man who takes his point and pounds it in He doesn t attack things in spurts. He drives hard, pushing and pushing until finally he succeeds. Suspended and removed from commencement speaker list. 6

7 Controversial views in schools and classrooms must be balanced against the society s countervailing interest in teaching students the boundaries of socially appropriate behavior. Public education must inculcate the habits and manners of civility as values in themselves. Schools may prohibit lewd, vulgar or profane language on school property. Where vulgar speech is at issue, Tinker s substantial disruption test does NOT apply; school officials are free to suppress such speech even where there [is] no immediate prospect of disruption. Id. at 159. Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007) At a school sanctioned event, a student unfurled this banner and was suspended for 10 days. The court determined that the First Amendment does NOT require school districts to tolerate student expression that encourages drug use. FREE SPEECH is to be construed in the light of the special characteristics of the school environment and second, the mode of analysis set forth in Tinker is not absolute. or the only basis for restricting student speech. The courts should not be making judgment calls 7

8 Student Speech in a Nutshell Tinker: (pure speech) Hazelwood: (school sponsored speech) Bethel: (vulgar, lewd, sexual innuendo speech) Morse: (speech endorsing illegal drug use) Public Employee Speech in a Nutshell Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968) Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) The Court essentially balances a government employer s interest in promoting workplace efficiency against the employee s interest in commenting freely on matters of PUBLIC CONCERN. 8

9 Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968) A teacher was fired for a letter he had published in the paper criticizing the school board s spending of tax revenues and questioning its purported need for new revenues. Court sided with the teacher, holding that the tax levies are matters of legitimate public concern. Teachers should be able to speak out freely on such questions without fear of retaliatory dismissal. 391 U.S. at Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) An assistant district attorney was fired after circulating a workplace questionnaire inquiring whether her co-workers felt pressured to work in political campaigns in order to keep their jobs. The Court sided with the employer, who described the questionnaire as prompting a mini-insurrection in the workplace. 461 U.S. at 151. The questionnaire touched upon matters of public concern in only the limited sense, and worthy of only minimal First Amendment protection. Id. at 154. The balance of interests favored the employer, who was not required to tolerate action which he reasonably believed would disrupt the office, undermine his authority, and destroy close working relationships. Id. at

10 To this end, the Government, as an employer, must have wide discretion and control over the management of its personnel and internal affairs. This includes the prerogative to remove employees whose conduct hinders efficient operation and to do so with dispatch. Prolonged retention of a disruptive or otherwise unsatisfactory employee can adversely affect discipline and morale in the work place, foster disharmony, and ultimately impair the efficiency of an office or agency. Setting the Stage of a Growing Problem - Teachers Postings on Facebook On March 28, 2011, O'Brien posted two statements on Facebook, an internet social-networking site. The first statement was, I'm not a teacher I'm a warden for future criminals! The second statement was, They had a scared straight program in school why couldn't [I] bring [first] graders? -THE MATTER OF THE TENURE HEARING OF JENNIFER O'BRIEN, STATE OPERATED SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF PATERSON, PASSAIC COUNTY., Labor & Empl. L. P

11 The ALJ observed that, with some sensitivity training, and after some time to reflect, O'Brien might successfully return to the classroom. The ALJ concluded, however, that O'Brien's relationship with the Paterson school community had been irreparably damaged, not because the community thinks so, but because O'Brien fails to understand why it does. The ALJ ordered O'Brien's removal from her tenured position. In re O'Brien, 2013 WL , *3 (Jan. 11, 2013) An internet social-networking site such as Facebook is a questionable place to begin an earnest conversation about an important school issue such as classroom discipline. More to the point, a description of first-grade children as criminals with their teacher as their warden makes it impossible for parents to cooperate with or have faith in a teacher who insults their children and trivializes legitimate educational concerns on the internet. 11

12 Real Life Example Ultimately the Board has Teacher terminated for to make a tough decision posting a PICTURE of her students on Facebook with their mouths duct taped shut with the following caption: Finally found a way to get them to be quiet!!! htel-middle-school-teacher-facespotential-firing-for-facebook-photoposting Real Life Example The Board has to make another decision this one not so tough 12

13 Additional Facebook Postings While on Leave I hear the word nigger more than 25 times a day in a public school, where it is used thousands of times every day, only by black people [and] If you want to go after racists, go after racists. If you want to be a language policeman, I suggest you find yourself in a George Orwell novel. When I try to get the teenagers in my school to stop using the word nigger, I only get laughed at. If one race can use a word to signify a belonging and another race is forbidden to use it for fear of being called a racist, than those who support such a culture are guilty of its demise. If you are white, red, brown, black, yellow, purple, or green, and you piss on the telephone pole in front of my house in broad daylight in front of children, just be glad I don t call you something worse. 13

14 Termination Hearing After a three day hearing the Referee issued a recommendation for termination. The Board accepted the recommendation and issued an order of termination pursuant to R.C Spondike appealed to court. The Court upheld the Board s decision to terminate. Spondike v. Akron Board of Education, Summit Cty Case No. CV (Feb 6, 2015). Steve Harvey recommended that the Board give him a 2 nd chance 14

15 Due Process Cases Public Employees & Students Due Process Rights - Employees Cleveland Bd. Of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985) Loudermill applied and was employed by the Cleveland School District as a security guard in On his application, he claimed that he had never been convicted of a felony. The school district discovered later that he had been convicted of grand larceny in 1968 and was terminated without notice or a hearing. He simply received a letter from the business manager, that due to his not being honest about the conviction he was terminated. 15

16 Loudermill Continued The Supreme Court held that Loudermill s public employment constituted a property interest, and under the Due Process Clause an individual must be given an opportunity for a hearing before he is deprived of any significant property interest. (Under Ohio law, he was a civil servant). Seminal Case: Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975) Due Process Rights - Students Students challenged constitutionality of statute authorizing principals to issue suspensions up to 10 days without giving notice of the reasons for the suspensions or a hearing that would provide them an opportunity to explain their side of the story. 16

17 Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975) The Court held the statute unconstitutional. Students have a 14 th Amendment property interest in public education even though no constitutional guarantee provision of a free public education, the state of Ohio s compulsory education statute created a protected property interest. Additionally, the students have a property interest in their reputation. Suspensions could damage a student s reputation with teachers and other students and interfere with future educational and employment. The Court noted that suspensions for longer periods of time may require more formal procedures Real Life Example 17

18 First Grievance signed by 22 teachers We are grieved BB guns were confiscated from three 3 rd grade students. The Code of Student Behavior, adopted in accordance with the CBA, identified infractions for which a referral to Pupil Services for a mandatory recommendation for expulsion is required by the principal. The Principal properly referred the students to Pupil Services. Pupil Services violated the CBA by suspending the students instead of recommending expulsion as required by the Code of Student Behavior. As a remedy, we request that the Office of Pupil Services take immediate steps to apply the appropriate disciplinary action (recommendation for expulsion) against the students from whom weapons were taken. The outcome of the discipline of the students was at issue Three students had previously stolen (from the Dollar Store) clear orange tipped toy air guns. One student was in 3 rd grade Two of the students were in the 4 th grade and were classified as disabled. The Department of Student Services, conducted a hearing for each student. The Hearing Officer in each case, found expulsion to be unwarranted, and, directed the return of the student to School after serving a ten-day suspension. The boys had been disciplined by their parents, required to return the guns to the Dollar Store from which they had been stolen. They all had to apologize to the store manager, while accompanied by their parent and by the District s SRO. 18

19 2nd Grievance signed by 17 teachers A student who was referred Student Services for possession of a weapon (a box cutter that he had used in his Building Trades class the period before) and was returned to High School after serving a period of suspension. Same as the 1 st Grievance. The basis was that Student Services failed to expel the student after the principal made the mandatory recommendation for expulsion. Their remedy. Same as the 1 st Grievance to apply the appropriate disciplinary action (recommendation for expulsion) against the student who possessed the weapon and to direct all future recommendations for expulsions to Student Services to essentially result in an expulsion. (summarized) As in the three BB guns cases, the Hearing Officer declined to expel or transfer the student (senior) and he was returned to school after a ten-day suspension. The student subsequently graduated from the High School and got a job. 19

20 In The Matter of The Arbitration Between AEA and Akron Public Schools (CASE NO: ) Two group grievances, consolidated for hearing, over the failure of the Board s designated hearing officers to automatically expel three primary school students and one high school student for possession of a weapon despite the compulsory recommendations for expulsion submitted by the Principals of both their schools. Primary Arguments School District Goss v. Lopez applies. Automatic expulsions would violate students 14 th Amendment rights of due process. Teachers Union The penalty of expulsion is mandatory in all cases of student possession of weapon upon the principals recommendation. All the students had a weapon The recommendation for expulsion REALLY means that the student is automatically going to receive an expulsion. 20

21 ARBITRATOR RULING: Goss v. Lopez applies If Principals mandatory recommendations of expulsion must be adopted by the Hearing Officers then the hearing becomes simply a counterfeit of due process, reminiscent of the odious kangaroo court proceedings of totalitarian regimes where the outcomes are preordained, and the proceedings become meaningless subterfuges designed to provide only the illusion of fair play. -In re: AEA v. Akron Board of Education, Case No , Arbitration Ruling, Alan Miles Ruben, Arbitrator (March 28, 2014). Civil Rights 21

22 Brown v. Board of Education Brown II, 349, U.S. 294 (1955) Brown I, 347, U.S. 483 (1954) The 14 th Because of the complexities in Amendment guarantees moving to a unitary educational students receive equal system, the Court returned the protection of the laws. States cases to the lower federal segregation of students in public courts, to decide whether school schools solely based on race boards are complying in good deprives minority students equal faith in an orderly and effective educational opportunities, even transition in accordance with though the physical facilities Brown I. Ordering a prompt may be equal. and reasonable start towards full compliance must be made, and compliance must proceed with all deliberate speed. DeRolph v. State of Ohio

23 DeRolph v. State of Ohio Adequacy/Equity In DeRolph I, March 24, 1997, the Ohio Supreme Court gave the State a year to respond the mandate for a "complete, systematic overhaul" of Ohio's school funding system. May 11, 2000 in DeRolph II, the foundation formula was almost identical to its predecessor. The Ohio Supreme Court gave the State until June 15, 2001 to address and complete the task of school funding reform. On September 6, 2001, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued its third DeRolph decision, again holding that the State had failed to provide a school funding system compliant with the Ohio Constitution. DeRolph III. DeRolph IV was the 4 th time Ohio s school funding was held unconstitutional. After Ohio s school funding was held unconstitutional 4 times, Petitioners (incl.,students, parents, teachers, administrators, school boards), who prevailed, sought enforcement from the Supreme Court 23

24 Had this Court in Brown v. Board of Education declared the rights of school children to attend integrated schools but deprived them of the ability to enforce that decree, there can be little doubt that segregation would have continued for decades and perhaps forever. No less than the children in Brown, Ohio s children are entitled to a remedy. -Petition for Writ of Certiorari to United States Supreme Court (Susan Greenberger) What the State fails to recognize is that ultimately, the cost to the taxpayers of Ohio--both in terms of squandered human potential as well as in actual dollars is dramatically increased by the State's decision to under educate so many of our students. When the State withholds the dollars needed to educate a child, the State not only dooms that child, but it also commits the people of this state to greater future expenses for relief of all of the ills associated with educational neglect - Plaintiffs-Appellees Memorandum Opposing State s Motion for Reconsideration, Ohio Supreme Court, Case No , Pg

25 APS Equity Policy The Board of Education in the Akron Public Schools is committed to preparing each child for success. We believe that every student, parent/guardian and staff member brings their own personal backgrounds and experiences into our schools and we are richer for it. Each of them has a legitimate expectation to have a barrier-free learning environment counteracting the contemporary and historical impact of bias, prejudice and discrimination which for generations has produced a predictability of learning outcomes based on race, ethnicity, class, socioeconomics, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, diverse language fluency, religion, and cognitive/physical ability. Learning and work environments are enriched and improved by the contributions, perspectives and very presence of diverse participants. A copy of the entire policy can be found here: Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) Texas in 1975 passed a law authorizing school boards to deny enrollment in public school to foreign-born children who were not legally residing in the U.S. The Supreme Court found that the disparity in treatment between undocumented children and other children with legal status was subject to a higher level of scrutiny under Equal Protection Clause due to the fundamental importance of education. The Court fount that Texas failed to demonstrate a compelling interest in their unequal treatment of different groups based on immigration status. 25

26 Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) The Court held that undocumented children living in the United States could not be excluded from public elementary and secondary schools based upon their immigration status. School districts are prohibited from requiring students to disclose or document their immigration status, making inquiries of students or parents that may expose their undocumented status or engaging in any practices that chill or hinder the right of access to public schools. School Districts do not enforce immigration law. The DACA program was established by the Obama administration in 2012 and allowed certain undocumented individuals who entered the United States as youth to temporarily apply for deferred action. An archived list of the program requirements can be found at: or%20childhood%20arrivals/daca-consider.pdf (NOTE: No longer current for reference only) Individuals will begin to lose their DACA protection in 2018, with those previously protected under DACA losing protection by 2020, barring another change to the law.* *The NSBA has published some very helpful information on this topic. Worth taking a look: EC_Ol0d Plyler v. Doe, is still the law of the land. See also attached DCL from OCR. 26

27 4 th Amendment The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Student Searches: New Jersey v. T.L.O. FACTS A teacher discovered two female high school students (one of whom was T.L.O.) smoking in the bathroom. Because this behavior was a violation of the school rule, both students were taken to the principal s office and questioned. T.L.O. denied smoking but her friend admitted to the act. 27

28 New Jersey v. T.L.O. A thorough search of the purse also revealed the following: some marijuana a pipe several empty plastic bags a substantial quantity of dollar bills an index card listing students who apparently owed T.L.O. money and two letters implicating T.L.O. in drug dealing T.L.O. s defense was that the initial search of her purse violated the 4 th Amendment and in Court sought to suppress the evidence under the exclusionary rule T.L.O. Supreme Court Ruling Children in school do have legitimate expectations of privacy which are protected by the 4 th Amendment. Public school officials act as representatives of the government. Consequently, they must comply with the 4 th Amendment restrictions when conducting student searches and seizures. Public school officials do not need search warrants OR probable cause to search or seize evidence from students under their authority. The search in this case was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. School officials need reasonable suspicion to search the belongings of a student. The search must be reasonable in its inception and reasonable in its scope. 28

29 Reasonableness Requirement To satisfy the reasonableness requirement under T.L.O., a student search must be: Justified at its inception. School officials must reasonably suspect that evidence indicating that a student has violated or is violating the law or school rule will be found in a particular place. Requires only sufficient probability, not absolute certainty. Reasonable in scope. Student searches are gauged in relation to the circumstances that originally justified them. THANK YOU! QUESTIONS? 29

30 U.S. Department of Justice U.S. Department of Education Civil Rights Division Office for Civil Rights Office of the General Counsel May 8, 2014 Dear Colleague: Under Federal law, State and local educational agencies (hereinafter "districts") are required to provide all children with equal access to public education at the elementary and secondary level. Recently, we have become aware of student enrollment practices that may chill or discourage the participation, or lead to the exclusion, of students based on their or their parents' or guardians' actual or perceived citizenship or immigration status. These practices contravene Federal law. Both the United States Department of Justice and the United States Department of Education (Departments) write to remind you of the Federal obligation to provide equal educational opportunities to all children residing within your district and to offer our assistance in ensuring that you comply with the law. We are writing to update the previous Dear Colleague Letter on this subject that was issued on May 6,2011, and to respond to inquiries the Departments received about the May 6 Letter. This letter replaces the May 6 Letter. The Departments enforce numerous statutes that prohibit discrimination, including Titles IV and VI of the Civil Rights Act of Title IV prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin, among other factors, by public elementary and secondary schools. 42 U.S.C. 2000c-6. Title VI prohibits discrimination by recipients of Federal financial assistance on the basis of race, color, or national origin. 42 U.S.C. 2000d. Title VI regulations, moreover, prohibit districts from unjustifiably utilizing criteria or methods of administration that have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin, or have the effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of a program for individuals of a particular race, color, or national origin. See 28 C.F.R (b)(2) and 34 C.F.R (b)(2). Additionally, the United States Supreme Court held in the case of Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), that a State may not deny access to a basic public education to any child residing in the State, whether present in the United States legally or otherwise. Denying "innocent children" access to a public education, the Court explained, "imposes a lifetime hardship on a discrete class of children not accountable for their disabling status... By denying these children a basic education, we deny

31 Page 2 - Dear Colleague Letter: School Enrollment Procedures them the ability to live within the structure of our civic institutions, and foreclose any realistic possibility that they will contribute in even the smallest way to the progress of our Nation." Plyler, 457 U.S. at 223. As Plyler makes clear, the undocumented or non-citizen status of a student (or his or her parent or guardian) is irrelevant to that student's entitlement to an elementary and secondary public education. To comply with these Federal civil rights laws, as well as the mandates of the Supreme Court, you must ensure that you do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin, and that students are not barred from enrolling in public schools at the elementary and secondary level on the basis of their own citizenship or immigration status or that of their parents or guardians. Moreover, districts may not request information with the purpose or result of denying access to public schools on the basis of race, color, or national origin. To assist you in meeting these obligations, we provide below some examples of permissible enrollment practices, as well as examples of the types of information that may not be used as a basis for denying a student entrance to school. In order to ensure that its educational services are enjoyed only by residents of the district, a district may require students or their parents to provide proof of residency within the district. See, e.g., Martinez v. Bynum, 461 U.S. 321, 328 (1983). For example, a district may require copies of phone and water bills or lease agreements to establish residency. While a district may restrict attendance to district residents, inquiring into students' citizenship or immigration status, or that of their parents or guardians would not be relevant to establishing residency within the district. A district should review the list of documents that can be used to establish residency and ensure that any required documents would not unlawfully bar or discourage a student who is undocumented or whose parents are undocumented from enrolling in or attending school. As with residency requirements, rules vary among States and districts as to what documents students may use to show they fall within State- or district-mandated minimum and maximum age requirements, and jurisdictions typically accept a variety of documents for this purpose. A school district may not bar a student from enrolling in its schools because he or she lacks a birth certificate or has records that indicate a foreign place of birth, such as a foreign birth certificate. Homeless children and youth often do not have the documents ordinarily required for school enrollment such as proof of residency or birth certificates. A school selected for a homeless child must immediately enroll the homeless child, even if the child or the child's parent or guardian is unable to produce the records normally required for enrollment. 5ee 42 U.S.C (g)(3)(C)(l).

32 Page 3 - Dear Colleague Letter: School Enrollment Procedures Moreover, we recognize that districts have Federal obligations, and in some instances State obligations, to report certain data such as the race and ethnicity of their student population. While the Department of Education requires districts to collect and report such information, districts cannot use the acquired data to discriminate against students; nor should a parent's or guardian's refusal to respond to a request for this data lead to a denial of his or her child's enrollment. Similarly, we are aware that many districts request a student's social security number at enrollment for use as a student identification number. A district may not deny enrollment to a student if he or she (or his or her parent or guardian) chooses not to provide a social security number. See 5 U.S.C. 552a (note).2 If a district chooses to request a social security number, it shall inform the individual that the disclosure is voluntary, provide the statutory or other basis upon which it is seeking the number, and explain what uses will be made of it. Id. In all instances of information collection and review, it is essential that any request be uniformly applied to all students and not applied in a selective manner to specific groups of students. As the Supreme Court noted in the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), "it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he [or she] is denied the opportunity of an education." Id. at 493. Both Departments are committed to vigorously enforcing the Federal civil rights laws outlined above and to providing any technical assistance that may be helpful to you so that all students are afforded equal educational opportunities. As immediate steps, you first may wish to review the documents your district requires for school enrollment to ensure that the requested documents do not have a chilling effect on a student's enrollment in school. Second, in the process of assessing your compliance with the law, you might review State and district level enrollment data. Precipitous drops in the enrollment of any group of students in a district or school may signal that there are barriers to their attendance that you should further investigate. We are also attaching frequently asked questions and answers and a fact sheet that should be helpful to you. Please contact us if you have additional questions or if we can provide you with assistance in ensuring that your programs comply with Federal law. You may contact the Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Educational Opportunities Section, at (877) or education@usdoj.rov, the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) at (800) or ocr@ed.rov or the Department of Education Office of the General Counsel at (202) You may also visit OCR enforcement office that serves Federal law provides for certain limited exceptions to this requirement. See Pub. L. No , 7(a)(2).

33 Page 4 - Dear Colleague Letter: School Enrollment Procedures your area. For general information about equal access to public education, please visit our websites at and We look forward to working with you. Thank you for your attention to this matter and for taking the necessary steps to ensure that no child is denied a public education. Sincerely, /s/ Catherine E. Lhamon Assistant Secretary Office for Civil Rights U.S. Department of Education /s/ Philip H. Rosenfelt Deputy General Counsel Delegated the Authority to Perform the Functions and Duties of the General Counsel U.S. Department of Education /s/ Jocelyn Samuels Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice Attachments