EDUCATION LAW REPORT Publishe in cooperation with the University of Pittsburgh s Tri-State Area School Stuy Council Volume XXVIII Number 1 2017 In This Issue Office of Open Recors Hols That School Vieos Depicting Stuent in an Altercation is not an Eucational Recor of the Stuent Uner FERPA Mile School GayStraight Alliance Allowe to Pursue Equal Access Claims Commonwealth Court Orers Teacher Reinstate When the School Boar Fails to Strictly Comply with Statutory Proceures for Dismissing the Tenure Teacher Latest Legal Developments on Stuent Searches Feeral Juge in Pittsburgh Rules That Employers Cannot Discriminate Against Employees Base on Sexual Orientation Tucker Arensberg PC 1500 One PPG Place Pittsburgh, PA 15222 412.566.1212 2 Lemoyne Drive Lemoyne, PA 17043 tuckerlaw.com Copyright 2016. All rights reserve. OFFICE OF OPEN RECORDS HOLDS THAT SCHOOL VIDEOS DEPICTING STUDENT IN AN ALTERCATION IS NOT AN EDUCATIONAL RECORD OF THE STUDENT UNDER FERPA Hawkins v. Central Dauphin School District, AP 2016-0583, 2016 PA O.O.R.D. LEXIS 760. The Office of Open Recors reverses its earlier ecision an hols that a vieo from a school bus vieo system showing an altercation between an ault an a 17-year-ol stuent is not an eucational recor of the stuent uner the Family Eucational Rights an Privacy Act ( FERPA ), 20 U.S.C. 1232g. from isclosure an financially penalizes school istricts which [have] a policy or practice of permitting the release of eucation recors of stuents without the written consent of their parents. 20 U.S.C. 1232g(b) (1). FERPA an its implementing regulations efine eucation recors as those recors that are []irectly relate to a stuent an [m]aintaine by an eucational agency or institution or by a party acting for the agency or institution. 20 U.S.C. 1232g(a)(4)(A); 34 C.F.R. 99.3. SUMMARY AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND A request ( Request ) was submitte to the Central Dauphin School District ( District ) pursuant to the Right-to-Know Law ( RTKL ), 65 P.S. 67.101 et seq., seeking a vieo from a District school bus. The requeste vieo showe an ault grabbing a 17-year-ol stuent by the wrist. The District enie the Request, stating that isclosure of the vieo woul violate FERPA an woul result in the loss of feeral funing. 65 P.S. 67.708(b)(1)(i). The OOR acknowlege that the efinition of eucational recors is broa an that, by its terms appears to encompass all recors hel by an eucational institution an which relate to a stuent. Nevertheless, the OOR state that the courts interpreting FERPA have mae clear that only those recors relating to stuent acaemics are eucation recors protecte by FERPA an hel that the vieo was not an eucational recor. On appeal, the Office of Open Recors ( OOR ) grante the appeal an hel that the vieo was a public recor. In the OOR s view, only recors relating to a stuent s acaemics are eucational recors uner FERPA. In making this etermination, the OOR reverse its earlier ecision in Remling v. Bangor Area Sch. Dist., OOR Dkt. AP 2011-0021, 2011 PA O.O.R.D. LEXIS 74 which hel that such vieos are eucational recors uner FERPA an exempt from isclosure uner the RTKL. Though the language use by the OOR in the Hawkins ecision suggests that all courts agree with this narrow interpretation, the reality is that the OOR was relying on state an feeral ecisions from other jurisictions that have been rejecte by other courts for being inconsistent with the plain language of FERPA protects personally ientifiable information containe in eucation recors 1 continue
EDUCATION LAW REPORT FERPA. Moreover, the OOR s new position is inconsistent with guiance issue by the Feeral Department of Eucation s Family Compliance Office ( FCO ) which oversees compliance with FERPA. Contrary to the OOR s position on Hawkins, there is a significant boy of case law holing that the term eucational recors must be interprete broaly an inclue school surveillance vieos. In Unite States v. Miami University, 91 F. Supp. 2 1132 (S.D. Ohio 2000), for example, the court reviewe an rejecte many of the cases relie upon by the OOR in Hawkins: With all ue respect to these courts, this Court refuses to aopt such a narrow interpretation of FERPA s efinition of eucation recors. None of the above-cite ecisions provie any reasoning for their narrow interpretation of FERPA, an this Court fails to see how such a limite meaning of eucation recors can be iscerne from the plain language. I., at 1149 n. 17. See also Bryner v. Canyons School District, 351 P.3 852, 858 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (vieo from a school surveillance camera that showe an altercation between the requester s chil an other stuents outsie of a classroom is an eucational recor); Meley v. B. of Euc., 168 S.W.3 398, 404 (Ky. Ct. App. 2004) (vieotapes of teacher s classroom were eucation recors within meaning of FERPA). Moreover, the OOR s holing in Hawkins is inconsistent with guiance issue by the Feeral FCO. The FCO, which implements an oversees institutional compliance with FERPA, has issue guiance to school istricts stating that school vieos of stuents are eucational recors of the stuents. Initially, the FCO avise that a parent may only inspect a school vieotape showing his or her own chil engage in misbehavior if no other stuents are picture : Letter re: Berkeley County Sch. Dist., 7 FAB 40 (FCO 2004) (quote in Bryner, 351 P.3 at 858). In other wors, any school vieo epicting a stuent is an eucational recor of that stuent. The FCO subsequently issue informal guiance that suggests that vieo recorings may constitute eucation recors only for those stuents who are irectly relate to the focus or subject of the vieo. See, e.g., Opinion of the Texas Attorney General, OR2006-07701, 2006 Tex. AG Ltr. Rul. LEXIS 7439 (July 18, 2006) ( The [PCO] has, however, etermine that the images of the stuents involve in the altercation o constitute the eucation recors of those stuents. Thus, FERPA oes apply to the stuents involve in the altercation. ) (quote in Bryner., 351 P.3 at 858). At the very least, guiance issue by the FCO, which has been relie upon by courts, inicates that vieos epicting altercations are eucational recors uner FERPA of the stuents involve in the altercation. Accoringly, contrary to the OOR s assertion in Hawkins, only a small line of cases has interprete the term eucational recor narrowly. The stronger argument, base on the text of the statute an regulations an the guiance issue by the feeral government, may be that the term shoul be interprete broaly an inclue surveillance vieos. There are no Pennsylvania ecisions irectly on point, but Pennsylvania courts appear to have aopte the broa efinition of eucational recors. In Sherry v. Ranor Twp. Sch. Dist., 20 A.3 515, 525 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011), the Commonwealth Court hel that stuent isciplinary recors are inclue uner FERPA s efinition of eucation recors. In oing so, the court relie on the Sixth Circuits ecision which affirme the above-quote Miami University case, Unite States v. Miami University, 294 F.3 797 (6th Cir. 2002). Accoringly, Pennsylvania courts may very well hol that school surveillance vieos are eucational recors. The Hawkins ecision was appeale to the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County where it is pening. In the meantime, the OOR continues to apply its narrow interpretation of eucational recors an orer the release of vieos featuring stuents. See Aams v. Parklan School District, AP 2016-1685. Because there is uncertainty whether school surveillance vieos are eucational recors uner FERPA, school istricts shoul work with their solicitor before relying on the recent OOR ecisions an creating a policy or practice of granting RTKL request that seeks school vieos epicting stuents. 2
Volume XXVIII Number 1, 2017 MIDDLE SCHOOL GAY-STRAIGHT ALLIANCE ALLOWED TO PURSUE EQUAL ACCESS CLAIMS Carver Mile Sch. Gay-Straight Alliance v. Sch. B. of Lake Cnty. Fla., 842 F.3 1324 (11 Cir., Dec. 6, 2016): A Feeral Appellate Court hel that a Floria mile school met the efinition of a seconary school uner the Equal Access Act, an therefore claims against the school by an extracurricular club, the Gay-Straight Alliance, coul go forwar. SUMMARY AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND Stuents at Carver Mile School ( Carver ) applie for approval of the Carver Mile School Gay-Straight Alliance, an extracurricular stuent club. The application escribe the following purposes an goals of the club: 1) to create a safe, supportive environment at school for stuents to iscuss experiences, challenges an successes of LGBT stuents an their allies 2) to create an execute strategies to confront an work to en bullying, iscrimination, an harassment against all stuents, incluing LGBT stuents 3) to promote critical thinking by iscussing how to aress bullying an other issues confronting stuents at Carver Mile School. School District aministrators enie the application an in response the Alliance an a stuent, H.F., file a complaint against the School Boar of Lake County, Floria ( Boar ) alleging, among other claims, that the Boar violate the Feeral Equal Access Act. After a bench trial, the Unite States District Court for the Mile District of Floria ismisse the Equal Access Act Claim as not ripe, moot an, in the alternative, rule that the Act i not apply to Carver Mile School because the mile school i not meet the efinition of a seconary school uner the Act. The District Court rule that, in Floria, a seconary school means a high school. The Alliance an H.F. appeale this ismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. The Equal Access Act requires any public seconary school which receives feeral financial assistance to give extracurricular clubs equal access to school resources. The Act efines a seconary school as a public school which provies seconary eucation as etermine by state law. (emphasis ae). The appeals court explaine that the Act applie to any school that provie seconary eucation an was not exclusive to high schools. Carver offere an Algebra I class through which stuents at the mile school receive high school creit. Because it offere a high school-level course, the Court hel that Carver Mile School provie seconary eucation uner Floria law. Consequently, the mile school was subject to the Equal Access Act an the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit remane the case back to the District Court to apply the Act. Because the case epene on the analysis of Floria law, it is unclear whether a similar result woul be obtaine in other states. It is also unclear whether a mile school can be consiere a seconary school uner the Equal Access Act, regarless of whether it offers high school creit. However, school istricts shoul be aware that the Equal Access Act potentially applies to mile schools as well as high schools, requiring equal access for clubs such as the Carver Mile School Gay-Straight Alliance. COMMONWEALTH COURT ORDERS TEACHER REINSTATED WHEN THE SCHOOL BOARD FAILS TO STRICTLY COMPLY WITH STATUTORY PROCEDURES FOR DISMISSING THE TENURED TEACHER. Vlaimirsky v. School District of Philaelphia, 144 A.3 986 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016). The Commonwealth Court hel that a tenure teacher has a constitutionally protecte interest in his (or her) employment an can only be terminate in strict accorance with the proceural requirements for ismissal in the School Coe. Failure to strictly comply with the termination proceures may result in a violation of the teacher s ue process rights an lea to the teacher s reinstatement. SUMMARY AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND On September 1, 1997, the School District of Philaelphia ( District ) hire Serge Vlaimirsky ( Vlaimirsky ) as a social stuies teacher at Overbrook High School 3 continue
EDUCATION LAW REPORT ( Overbrook ). In 2011, the District attempte to terminate Vlaimirsky s employment base on two incients that occurre that year. The first incient involve Vlaimirsky yelling at Overbrook s principal. The other involve Vlaimirsky shouting obscenities at stuents in his classroom an grabbing another stuent s arm in an attempt to take his phone. After an investigatory conference, Vlaimirsky receive an unsatisfactory rating base on these incients. After another, secon-level conference, the District s Talent Acquisition Office Deputy Chief recommene that Vlaimirsky s employment be terminate. On July 20, 2011, the District maile Vlaimirsky a letter signe by the School Boar Chairman an the District Superintenent stating that: 1) they recommen the Boar terminate his employment immeiately, 2) the District payroll epartment woul make the necessary salary ajustments, an 3) the charges against him constitute just cause uner the collective bargaining agreement an violation of the School Laws of the Commonwealth. The letter further informe Vlaimirsky that he ha a right to a hearing before the Boar. Vlaimirsky requeste a hearing before the Boar. After the hearing, the Hearing Officer recommene that Vlaimirsky s employment be terminate for intemperance an willful violation of the School Laws. On March 15, 2012, the Boar resolve to aopt the Hearing Officer s recommenations, terminate Vlaimirsky an eclare that the termination was effective July 20, 2011 the ate of the Boar Chairman an the District Superintenent s letter. Vlaimirsky appeale the Boar s ecision to the Acting Secretary of the Department of Eucation ( Acting Secretary ), who after a hearing orere that Vlaimirsky be reinstate to his position as a teacher as of July 20, 2011, but uphel the Boar s ecision to terminate Vlaimirsky on March 15, 2012. Vlaimirsky an the District appeale the Acting Secretary s ecision to the Commonwealth Court. Section 1127 of the School Coe requires that before a tenure teacher is ismisse the School Boar not a 4 school aministrator must provie a tenure teacher with a written statement of the charges for his (or her) ismissal an conuct a hearing. The Court interprete Section 1127 as requiring the Boar to etermine that evience exists that, if true, justifies employment termination, before issuing a written statement of charges. Further, the Court state that Section 1127 of the School Coe requires that a written statement of charges: 1) be signe by the Boar Presient an atteste by the Boar Secretary; 2) be maile to the teacher on behalf of the Boar by registere mail; an 3) set a time, place an location for a hearing before the Boar no later than fifteen ays from the ate of the written notice. The Court conclue that the Boar Chairman an the District Superintenent s July 20, 2011 letter was not sent on behalf of the Boar; therefore, it violate the requirements of Section 1127 of the School Coe. Moreover, since Vlaimirsky was not pai after the ate of the letter, he was essentially terminate without any Boar action an prior to a hearing. Therefore, the Court conclue that Vlaimirsky s termination by the July 20, 2011 letter was a ismissal by aministrative action in violation of the School Coe. Dismissals by aministrative actions are not permitte uner the School Coe. Instea, Section 1129 of the School Coe requires that for a teacher s ismissal to be effective, the Boar must vote by roll-call, an there must be a two-thirs vote in favor of the ismissal. In this case, the Boar faile to comply with Section 1129 of the School Coe because the Boar s March 15, 2012 resolution occurre after Vlaimirsky was effectively terminate on July 20, 2011 an because the resolution mae Vlaimirsky s termination retroactive to July 20, 2011. The Court note that in no case can the effective ate of the ismissal be earlier than the ate of the school boar s resolution a eviation from these proceures constitutes a enial of ue process. The District s failure to strictly comply with Sections 1127 an 1129 of the School Coe was a violation of Vlaimirsky s ue process rights. A tenure teacher has a constitutionally protecte interest in his (or her) employment an the proceures set forth in the School Coe must be followe. The Court note that eviations from the statutory proceures constitute fatal efects
Volume XXVIII Number 1, 2017 making the school boar s ismissal an illegal act. The Court rejecte the District s request that the case be remane, noting that a reman cannot cure the egregious failure of the District to comply with [the proceural safeguars] in the School Coe. The Court orere the Boar to reinstate Vlaimirsky to his position an remane the case to the Acting Secretary to etermine what compensation, if any, the District owe Vlaimirsky. Because tenure teachers have a constitutionally protecte interest in their employment, School Aministrators who plan to terminate a tenure teacher shoul work with their solicitors to ensure that they strictly comply with all the proceures for ismissals, charges, notices, an hearings in Section 1127 of the School Coe to avoi violating the teacher s constitutional rights. As this case illustrates, efforts to fix a efect in a ismissal proceeing may be ineffective because once a proceural requirement for ismissal is misse or ignore, such action (or inaction) is consiere a fatal efect. LATEST LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS ON STUDENT SEARCHES Highhouse v. Wayne Highlans School District, F. Supp.3 2016 WL 4679012 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 7, 2016): claims relating to unlawful strip search of a stuent accuse of stealing money against iniviual employees an a school istrict survive a motion to ismiss; Sayler v. Holiaysburg Area School District, 3:16-57 (W.D. Pa. September 26, 2016): claims relating to an unlawful search an seizure of an autistic stuent accuse of possessing a knife against iniviual employees an a school istrict survive a motion to ismiss. Highhouse v. Wayne Highlans School District In Highhouse v. Wayne Highlans School District, F.Supp.3 2016 WL 4679012 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 7, 2016), a male high school stuent ( Plaintiff ) was strip searche by two school istrict employees ( Employees ) who believe that the Plaintiff stole $250 from another stuent uring gym class. The Employees orere the Plaintiff to strip own to his unerwear an then pulle on the elastic waistban of the unerwear, exposing Plaintiff s private areas. The Plaintiff file a complaint against the Employees an the school istrict ( District ) asserting, among other things, that the strip search violate his Fourth Amenment rights against unreasonable searches an seizures. Generally, a court will apply a stanar of reasonable suspicion to etermine the legality of a school aministrator s search of a stuent. However, in Saffor Unifie School District #1 v. Reing, 557 U.S. 364 (2009) ( Saffor ), the Supreme Court of the Unite States note the categorically extreme intrusiveness of stuent strip searches an create a new rule regaring the reasonableness of such searches. To justify this kin of intrusion, school officials must: 1) have some evience that the item they suspect is being hien by the stuent is angerous in terms of its power or quantity ; or 2) have some specific reason to suppose that the forbien item is hien in a stuent s unerwear. In Highhouse, the court foun that, base on the allegations in the complaint, the Employees i not have a vali basis to conuct a strip search. Unlike a weapon or rugs, money is not inherently angerous. Moreover, the Employees ha no reason to believe that the Stuent hi the money in his unerwear. Accoringly, the court foun that the Plaintiff aequately state a claim that the Employees violate his Fourth Amenment rights when they strip searche him. The Court also foun that the District may be liable for the strip search. Generally, school istricts can only be liable for the actions of their employees if the school istrict has an official policy or custom that cause the asserte constitutional eprivation. However, a policy may be establishe several ifferent ways, incluing a school istrict s failure to train its employees. A plaintiff relying on a failure to train theory must show that the failure cause a pattern of violations or that a violation of rights is a highly preictable consequence of the failure to train employees how to hanle recurring situations. 5 continue
EDUCATION LAW REPORT The Court foun that the Plaintiff mae sufficient allegations that the District faile to property train its employees regaring proper etentions an searches of stuents an enie the District s motion to ismiss. Sayler v. Holiaysburg Area School District In Sayler v. Holiaysburg Area School District, 3:16-57 (W.D. Pa. September 26, 2016), an autistic stuent ( Plaintiff ) was injure when employees ( Employees ) of the school istrict ( District ) were investigating an allegation that the stuent was in possession of a knife. The complaint allege that the staff an employees of the District knew that the Plaintiff was autistic an that he experience extreme fear an agitation when touche by or confine with others. The Plaintiff was pulle out of class an tol that there was a rumor that he was going to bring a knife to school an stab another stuent. The Plaintiff enie the rumor an Employees sai that they believe him, but that they were going to continue the investigation. The Employees searche the Plaintiff s locker an biner, but i not fin a knife or other contraban. While searching, the Employees left the Plaintiff unsupervise, inicating that they i not consier him to be a threat. The Plaintiff also emptie his pockets an lifte his shirt in front of the Employees to show that he i not possess a knife. The Plaintiff aske to call his mother, but the Employees refuse. One of the Employees then searche the Plaintiff by touching an grabbing him an eventually slamming him to the groun, fracturing Plaintiff s kneecap an causing other physical an emotional injuries. The Plaintiff brought claims against the District an the Employees for conucting an illegal search an seizure in violation of his Fourth Amenment rights. As set forth above, searches conucte in public schools that o not involve strip searches are governe by the reasonableness stanar. The measures aopte must be reasonably relate to the objectives of the search an not excessively intrusive in light of the characteristics of the stuent an the nature of the infraction. The court foun that the Plaintiff state a vali claim against the District an the Employees because Plaintiff allege that the Employees i not believe he ha a knife, ha alreay searche Plaintiff s belongings an pockets, knew that Plaintiff was autistic an became istresse when touche an still proceee to perform a rough physical search that resulte in a broken kneecap. Accoringly, base on Plaintiff s allegations, the search was not reasonable. These cases shoul remin school istricts that they must work with their solicitors to ensure that istrict officials an employees are properly eucate an traine with respect to the proper exercise of isciplinary an investigatory power, incluing etentions an searches of stuents, because the failure to o so can result in liability for the employees an the school istrict. In orer for a stuent search to be permissible, the school istrict must have reasonable suspicion of wrongoing an the resulting search must be reasonably relate to the objectives of the search. As inicate in the Sayler case, reasonableness will be juge in light of the characteristics of the stuent an the nature of the infraction. School istricts shoul be reluctant to have its employees conuct strip searches. As note by the court in Highhouse, stuent strip searches are embarrassing, frightening, an humiliating, an constitute categorically extreme intrusiveness which suggests that a strip search of a stuent will almost never be justifie. In all but the most extreme circumstances, if there is a suspicion of a serious threat or a violation of the law, a school istrict shoul contact the local police epartment rather than perform an improper search. 6
Volume XXVIII Number 1, 2017 FEDERAL JUDGE IN PITTSBURGH RULES THAT EMPLOYERS CANNOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST EMPLOYEES BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION of the first feeral juges to fin that Title VII prohibits sexual orientation iscrimination. EEOC v. Scott Meical Center, 2016 WL 6569233 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 4, 2016). Juge Cathy Bissoon of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania recently hel that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from iscriminating against employees base on their sexual orientation. SUMMARY AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND On March 1, 2016, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ( EEOC ) file a feeral lawsuit in the Western District of Pennsylvania against Scott Meical Health Center, P.C. ( Scott Meical ). The EEOC allege that Robert McClenon, a supervisor at Scott Meical, repeately harasse Dale Baxley, a male employee, because he is gay. Baxley reporte Supervisor McClenon s behavior to Scott Meical s Presient, but the company took no action. Baxley eventually resigne. In its complaint, the EEOC allege that Scott Meical violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ( Title VII ). This law prohibits iscrimination by an employer against an employee because of sex. The EEOC claime that Scott Meical iscriminate against Baxley because of sex by mistreating him base on his sexual orientation. Accoring to the EEOC, if Baxley ha been a woman rather than a man Supervisor McClenon woul not have harasse him about his relationship with another man. On May 9, 2016, Scott Meical sought to ismiss the EEOC s complaint. It asserte that Title VII s ban on iscrimination because of sex oes not cover iscrimination base on sexual orientation. On November 4, 2016, Juge Cathy Bissoon enie Scott Meical s motion to ismiss. She foun that Title VII s ban on iscrimination because of sex also prohibits employers from iscriminating against employees base on sexual orientation. She foun no meaningful ifference between sexual orientation iscrimination an iscrimination because of sex. In her view, sexual orientation iscrimination always involves jugments or stereotypes about how a person shoul behave base on their sex. Juge Bissoon thus conclue that sexual orientation iscrimination inevitably is iscrimination because of sex. She is one 7 Title VII has transforme many facets of the employeremployee relationship since Presient Lynon Johnson signe it into law on July 2, 1964. Since its enactment, however, feeral courts repeately have hel that Title VII s ban on iscrimination because of sex oes not inclue sexual orientation iscrimination. Some members of Congress repeately trie to enact legislation to protect gay an lesbian employees in the workplace, but these bills never became law. This means that no feeral law prevents employers from iscriminating against employees base on their sexual orientation. Many states incluing Pennsylvania also o not prohibit workplace sexual orientation iscrimination, so aggrieve employees often have no legal remey. Given that new feeral legislation was not forthcoming, the EEOC aopte a unique legal strategy in 2016. Rather than wait for a new law, the agency ecie to argue that Title VII alreay bars sexual orientation iscrimination by employers. Scott Meical was one of the first cases where the EEOC mae this argument. Juge Bissoon s ruling that Title VII prohibits iscrimination by employers base on sexual orientation probably is just an early skirmish in a long legal battle. Her ruling is not bining on other feeral courts in Pennsylvania, but it sets up a potential appeal to the Thir Circuit. If the Thir Circuit eventually affirms her ecision, Title VII now woul prohibit Pennsylvania employers from iscriminating against employees base on their sexual orientation. Other feeral courts now are hearing similar cases too. Many observers preict that the U.S. Supreme Court may eventually resolve the issue. School istricts shoul watch how this issue continues to evelop. Although Juge Bissoon s ecision is important, it oes not resolve whether Title VII prohibits sexual orientation iscrimination once an for all. Future ecisions by the Thir Circuit or even the U.S. Supreme Court shoul provie greater clarity. School istricts thus shoul follow these evelopments to ensure continue compliance with feeral law.
Matthew M. Hoffman Co-chair 412.594.3910 mhoffman@tuckerlaw.com MUNICIPAL AND SCHOOL LAW GROUP John T. Vogel Co-chair 412.594.5622 jvogel@tuckerlaw.com Freerick J. Wolfe 412.594.5573 fwolfe@tuckerlaw.com Robert L. McTiernan 412.594.5528 rmctiernan@tuckerlaw.com William Campbell Ries 412.594.5646 wries@tuckerlaw.com Kenneth G. Scholtz 412.594.3903 kscholtz@tuckerlaw.com Irving S. Firman 412.594.5557 ifirman@tuckerlaw.com Gavin A. Robb 412.594.5654 grobb@tuckerlaw.com Ewar R. Lawrence, Jr. 412.594.3942 elawrence@tuckerlaw.com Christopher Voltz 412.594.5580 cvoltz@tuckerlaw.com Thomas P. Peterson 412.594.3914 tpeterson@tuckerlaw.com Richar B. Tucker, III 412.594.5562 rtucker@tuckerlaw.com Steve R. Bovan 412.594.5607 sbovan@tuckerlaw.com Davi Mongillo 412.594.5598 mongillo@tuckerlaw.com Daniel C. Conlon 412.594.3951 conlon@tuckerlaw.com MUNICIPAL AND SCHOOL LAW GROUP Tucker Arensberg, P.C. 1500 One PPG Place Pittsburgh, PA 15222 412.566.1212 tuckerlaw.com Tucker Arensberg s Municipal an School Law Group represents local school istricts an municipalities in a variety of legal matters. Our attorneys are solicitors or special counsel for several school istricts/jointures an municipalities in Western Pennsylvania. In aition, our attorneys serve as special labor counsel to numerous school istricts an municipalities in Western Pennsylvania an have hel appointments as special counsel to school boars, zoning boars, civil service commissions an other municipal sub-entities. The range of services calle for in our representation of public boies is quite broa. Inclue in that range are: public an school financing, incluing the issuance of bone inebteness; labor, employment an personnel issues; public biing an contracting; school construction an renovation; taxation, incluing real estate, earne income an Act 511; pupil services an iscipline; zoning an lan use an litigation an appellate court work. The Tri-State Area School Stuy Council at the University of Pittsburgh was establishe in 1948 as a continuing partnership between school istricts an the University. We are the thir olest an secon largest Stuy Council in the country. We seek to work with you to aress the issues of practice we all face as we lea eucational organizations to improve focus an buil organizational capacity. Priorities establishe by the membership inclue: 1) timely information issemination on current research an exemplary practices; 2) research an evelopment technical assistance on projects to meet istrict nees; 3) professional evelopment programs an workshops on current topics; 4) participation in District clinical experiences to prepare future school leaers an; 5) practitioner participation in acaemic preparation programs. For more information, please contact Dr. Diane Kirk, Director, 412.648.1716. The information containe in Tucker Arensberg s EDUCATION LAW REPORT is for the general knowlege of our reaers. The REPORT is not esigne to be an shoul not be use as the sole source of resolving or analyzing any type of problem. The law in this area of practice is constantly changing an each fact situation is ifferent. Shoul you have any specific questions regaring a fact situation, we urge you to consult with legal council. 8