By Gary D. Finley

Independent school administrators are wrestling with whether the School’s website must meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Non-religious private schools are considered public accommodations under the ADA, and over the last two years, a number of plaintiff’s attorneys have filed lawsuits on behalf of their disabled clients against public accommodations – including colleges and universities – claiming that websites are inaccessible and violate the ADA.

So where does that leave school administrators seeking to be legally compliant and striving to assist persons with disabilities who attempt to access school websites? The best answer for now (unless and until the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) issues clearer guidance on the issue) seems to reside in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (“WCAG”) 2.0, a publication that both the DOJ and courts have identified as providing appropriate guidelines related to website accessibility for disabled individuals. Among other topics, WCAG 2.0 identifies the following considerations:

• Entities should provide “alt text” in their html codes; this allows electronic screen readers to describe pictures to the visually impaired.
• Websites should allow for individuals to navigate through the site using tab and arrow keys (instead of just using a mouse).
• When navigating the website using the tab key, selections should change color to assist visually impaired people.
• Website colors should provide sufficient contrast to assist the visually impaired.
• Any videos on the website should include closed captioning.
• Linked PDFs should also be available in other formats, as screen readers are usually unable to read PDFs. 

Schools that have yet to address website accessibility should consider auditing their websites for ADA compliance. For some schools, this can be done in-house, at least in the early stages; other schools may choose to seek outside IT help in implementing ADA-related changes. Now is the time to begin to tackle this issue, before the website accessibility lawsuits against MIT, Harvard, and other colleges and universities, trickle to independent schools.

Administrators with questions about how the ADA impacts any aspect of their school’s operation – from its website, to its facilities, to its hiring and admissions practices and beyond – are encouraged to seek legal counsel from attorneys experienced in both disability and independent school law.

By Schwartz Hannum PC

Does your school’s application for admission ask potential students to provide a photograph? Are applicants required to indicate whether they are male or female? Do you promise not to discriminate against student applicants based on their genetic information? While all of these practices may be well-intended, some of them may miss the mark when it comes to avoiding discrimination and promoting diversity on campus.

Take the request for a photograph. The Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) notes that requiring a photograph may indicate that the admissions process is racially or ethnically discriminatory, even if that is not the school’s intent. Indeed, the IRS specifically requires private schools to include policies in their Bylaws and admissions materials, stating that the school does not discriminate based on race, color, or national or ethnic origin, as a condition of obtaining and maintaining § 501(c)(3) tax exempt status. Schools may, therefore, consider asking student candidates about their ethnicity as an optional question on an application, but should not insist on obtaining this information as a condition of admission.

Where does your state law stand on gender identity and expression? Some states prohibit this form of discrimination in public schools and many independent schools are choosing to take a fresh look at dress codes, restrooms and locker rooms with this characteristic in mind. Be sure that your school’s non-discrimination statement and application for admission are consistent with your school’s philosophy on this evolving topic. Do you need to know the gender of the applicant? You might consider increasing the number of check boxes on an application to permit a wider range of answers to the gender identity question, or include no check boxes, but ask a student applicant to self-identify in a way that best fits the applicant. Of course, in single-sex schools, this topic is significantly more complex.

Schools sometimes try to be inclusive with respect to genetic information. Under federal law, employers are generally prohibited from discriminating against employees based on genetic information; however, discrimination based on genetic information is not prohibited by independent schools toward student applicants and current students.  Though your school may not intend to evaluate students on this basis, schools are not legally required to include this characteristic as a protected class with respect to student applicants.

With schools focused on diversity and inclusion for the whole school community—based on financial need, disability, citizenship, the protected classes mentioned earlier and other characteristics—it is important to ensure that your non-discrimination statements and practices are consistent across the organization, are in sync with your school’s mission and are lawful. We recommend that independent schools review their non-discrimination policies wherever they appear—as illustrated in the list below—to ensure that they are drafted appropriately for both students and employees:

• Student/Parent Handbook(s);
• Employee/Faculty/Staff Handbook(s);
• Acceptable Use Agreements (Employees/Students);
• Bylaws;
• Employment Applications;
• Enrollment Contract; and
• Website

If you have any questions about legal compliance with respect to non-discrimination policies and diversity initiatives, please do not hesitate to contact a member of the Firm’s Education Practice Group.

By Sara Goldsmith Schwartz

Picture this: during an Upper School Assembly at Springtime Academy, a recent alumnus of the school gives a talk and video presentation about his recent adventure on Mount Kilimanjaro. He remains on campus for the day, attending classes and bonding with students. During a conversation after lunch, a couple of tenth graders reveal to the climber that some of their classmates recently engaged in sexual misconduct. The speaker tells the school administration about what he heard, but does not report the misconduct to the state child welfare authorities. Should he have?

Guess what the lawyers say? “It depends.” It depends on how your state law defines “mandated reporters,” or those who, by virtue of their profession, are considered to have a heightened responsibility to report good faith suspicion that a child has been abused, sexually abused or neglected. Typically, such reports must be made to state child welfare agencies within 24-48 hours of the individual learning of the suspected misconduct.

In most states, those employed by schools (administrators, coaches, teachers), doctors, social workers and other licensed counselors are considered to be mandated reporters; but by virtue of someone speaking at a school, the mantle of “mandated reporter” does not automatically apply. In other states, anyone—regardless of profession or school affiliation—is obligated to report suspected child abuse, sexual abuse and neglect. In those states, the speaker could have an obligation to report the misconduct—his telling school administrators what he heard may not be enough to satisfy that requirement. Some states require that school employees first report their good faith suspicions of child maltreatment directly to authorities before informing even their supervisor or head of school. Finally, most states penalize individuals who should have reported and do not, versus those who made a good faith report of child maltreatment, that later, turns out to be unsubstantiated.

The take away: the determination of who is legally obligated to report suspicions of child maltreatment is nuanced and highly dependent on knowing your school’s state law. Take the time to educate your entire employee population – boundary training and mandates reporter training will help the community be ready for whatever may arise on campus.

If you have any questions about legal compliance for reporting suspected child abuse, sexual abuse or neglect, please do not hesitate to contact a member of the Firm’s Education Practice Group.

By Sara Goldsmith Schwartz and Sarah H. Fay

Educational institutions, both secondary and higher ed, routinely survey peer institutions in order to ascertain the details of faculty and other employee compensation. In some cases, the data enables institutions to pay similar amounts as their peers; in others, the data enables institutions to pay more than market value. In both contexts, the purpose is to attract and retain excellent educators: a noble goal. However, before participating in (or relying upon data from) a compensation survey, educational institutions ought to consider the reality that some of these compensation survey methods may unwittingly violate antitrust laws.

Antitrust laws prohibit “anti-competitive” business practices – meaning joint conduct that unreasonably restrains competition. While not a per se violation, the exchange of information about compensation and benefits among employers is subject to antitrust scrutiny. Notably, compensation surveys that promote competition generally comply with antitrust laws.

At first blush, distinguishing the surveys that promote, rather than quash, competition may seem like a daunting task. The U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), the agencies tasked with enforcing federal antitrust laws, have identified three criteria that, if present, will generally protect employers under the umbrella of an antitrust “safety zone.” These are: “(1) the survey is managed by a third party; (2) the information provided by survey participants is based on data more than three months old; and (3) there are at least five providers reporting data upon which each disseminated statistic is based, no individual provider’s data represents more than 25% of a weighted basis of that statistic, and any information disseminated is sufficiently aggregated such that it would not allow recipients to identify the prices paid by any particular provider.”

Of course, this is not a fool-proof method; a survey that meets this test may still violate antitrust laws. However, the DOJ and FTC have represented that, absent extraordinary circumstances, they will not challenge an employer that participates in a survey satisfying the safety zone criteria. Thus, the safety zone provides a useful framework to help schools navigate this complex area.

If an educational institution decides to conduct or utilize a survey sharing compensation information, the following tips may help minimize the risk of violating antitrust laws:

• Survey participants should not be identifiable, whether directly or indirectly.
• Prospective wages and benefits information should not be collected.
• Avoid including advice on how to use or interpret data. The more raw the data, the less likely it will be to raise antitrust concerns.
• Prohibit or avoid improper discussions about the survey. For instance, consider including a written disclaimer or an agreement that prohibits discussions that violate antitrust laws.
• In setting future compensation or benefits, the survey should be used as only one factor of many. This decision-making process should be carefully documented.
• Avoid conducting surveys too often, as the frequent collection of data could support an improper motive.

If you have any questions about best practices and legal compliance for conducting or participating in a compensation survey, please do not hesitate to contact a member of the Firm’s Education Practice Group.

by Sara Goldsmith Schwartz and Sarah H. Fay

Vaccines (and whether to vaccinate teachers and children) are hot topics of debate across the nation. The recent measles outbreak linked to Disneyland has intensified this discussion and caused a groundswell of anxiety on independent school campuses. We recommend that schools take this opportunity to implement a comprehensive Immunization And Communicable Disease policy to reflect a school’s desired practices and applicable governing laws regarding vaccination requirements and non-immunized students on campus. This will ensure that schools have the flexibility they need to respond to communicable illnesses, while also protecting the interests of students, parents, employees, and other community members.

Legal Requirements And Duties

As a preliminary matter, we advise schools to become familiar with applicable law and to determine whether their policies and practices are in compliance with legal mandates and best practices. Every state requires schoolchildren to be vaccinated against certain diseases unless they fall within an exemption based on medical reasons, religious beliefs, and/or personal or philosophical beliefs. However, the intricacies of the laws – including the required vaccines, the types of exemptions recognized, and the documentation required for proof of immunization and exemption – vary significantly from state to state.

In Massachusetts, for example, schools may not admit an unimmunized student unless that individual has satisfied the criteria for a medical or religious exemption or the individual is homeless. Massachusetts also requires schools to keep a complete and up-to-date immunization record (or the required exemption documentation) on file for every enrolled student. Other states, such as Connecticut, also require schools to annually fill out a form disclosing student immunization information to the Department of Public Health.

Once a school has identified applicable laws, we recommend conducting an internal audit to confirm that the school’s immunization policies and practices are in compliance. A school should also confirm that any information on file (and/or provided to state agencies in accordance with applicable laws) is accurate.

Disclosing Immunization Information

Schools may receive requests from parents, teachers, or other individuals to provide information about student immunization rates on campus. Whether exemption rates may be tracked and/or disclosed depends upon applicable laws. Some states, such as Colorado, require schools to track exemption rates and to report this information to students’ parents directly. Other states, by contrast, only permit disclosure to designated state agencies. Connecticut requires schools to annually report student immunization information but defines this information as confidential. In Massachusetts, schools are permitted – but not legally required – to disclose student immunization rates to the Department of Health, which, in turn, makes this information publically available. In some states, disclosure to parents, teachers, or other individuals may violate students’ privacy rights.

Hence, understanding when a school should disclose information, and to whom it may disclose it, is an important component of managing legal risks in this area. Addressing this as part of a comprehensive policy will not only help the school avoid unauthorized disclosure of confidential information, but will also reassure parents who may be concerned about children’s privacy and even deter individuals from asking for immunization information.

Policies For Exclusion Of Non-Immunized Students

Perhaps the most contentious issue that schools will confront is whether a non-immunized student will be excluded from campus, and if so, under what circumstances. Some independent schools have sought to prohibit any non-immunized student from enrolling, regardless of whether the individual meets the state’s exemption criteria. This approach could create potential legal claims, such as discrimination or breach of contract. Moreover, this approach may seem too Draconian.

Accordingly, we recommend implementing a policy that reserves the school’s right to exclude any student who has a communicable illness, has been exposed to an infected person, or is susceptible on account of non-immunization, in the event of a vaccine-preventable or any other communicable disease incident. The goal with such a policy is to provide the school with a wide degree of latitude in responding to situations on campus that affect members of its community. Equally important, the policy will provide parents with notice of the school’s right to act.

* * *

An Immunization And Communicable Disease policy can effectively address all of these issues to ensure that the interests of the school, its students, and its employees are well protected. A well-crafted policy will withstand the future unknown: whether it is measles, Ebola, or any other number of communicable diseases making the headlines, a school can rely upon this policy to adequately and effectively respond.

Finally, another component to an effective risk management strategy is to provide the school with grounds to manage or exclude staff and faculty when the threat of a communicable disease arises. As such, this may be an opportune time to visit the employee handbook’s communicable illness provision to determine if it is in sync with the school’s goals and best practices.

Please do not hesitate to contact a member of the Firm’s Education Practice Group if you have any questions about best practices for complying with state vaccine legislation and/or managing non-immunized students on campus, or if you would like our assistance in drafting an Immunization And Communicable Disease policy.

By Schwartz Hannum PC

Halloween-inspired tricks may not be the only pre-occupation for independent schools at the end of October. With November 1^st fast approaching, schools should review the Massachusetts anti-hazing law to determine if they are required to comply with its distribution and reporting requirements.

Massachusetts legislators have placed the Commonwealth at the forefront of the national movement to mitigate against bullying and hazing in schools. The Massachusetts anti-hazing law (Massachusetts General Laws C. 269, §§ 17-19) broadly defines hazing as “any conduct or method of initiation into any student organization, whether on public or private property, which willfully or recklessly endangers the physical or mental health of any student or other person.” The law requires “institutions of secondary education” to annually distribute a summary of the anti-hazing law to students who are members of any student group or organization (including athletic teams), athletic coaches, and activity sponsors. These recipients must acknowledge, in writing, that they have received notice of the law. Additionally, the secondary school must file a report with the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) describing the school’s anti-hazing policies.

While the law is clear on procedure, the anti-hazing regulations do not clearly define a “secondary school.” Only schools deemed “secondary schools” must comply with the distribution and reporting requirements of the anti-hazing law. While schools educating students in grades 9-12 meet the definition of “secondary schools,” DESE often considers K-9 schools to be “secondary schools” even if the majority of students are below traditional “secondary school” age.

We therefore recommend that independent schools educating students in grades 9-12 (even if most of the student body is of lower and middle school age) follow the law’s distribution and reporting requirements. To achieve compliance, we recommend that schools accomplish the distribution requirement in the following manner:

• Include an anti-hazing policy in the student handbook;
• Attach the full text of the anti-hazing law in an appendix to the handbook;
• Use a handbook acknowledgment page indicating receipt of the handbook; and
• Distribute an anti-hazing policy acknowledgment form to all relevant students and staff for signature.

The anti-hazing law further requires that covered schools file an annual report with DESE attesting to the school having distributed the law, obtained acknowledgments that it has done so, and that it has a disciplinary policy in place that addresses hazing. While this report should be filed on or before October 1 of each year, DESE will not notify the Attorney General of any school required to report that failed to do so, until November 1; thus, schools still have time to comply with the law if they have not already done so. Any school unsure of its status under the anti-hazing law or unclear about the reporting requirements should promptly seek advice of counsel.

If you have questions about best practices for complying with the Massachusetts anti-hazing law, please do not hesitate to contact a member of the Firm’s Education Practice Group.

By Sara Goldsmith Schwartz and Sarah H. Fay

Dog-friendly school campuses have become increasingly controversial in recent months. While there used to be two primary camps (those that encouraged a pet-friendly campus and those that prohibited pets altogether), the lines are getting more blurry (furry?) now. For example, a student may wish to bring the family ferret on campus for show-and-tell or a faculty member may want to nurture hamsters in the classroom to teach students about responsibility. Or a teacher, student, parent or visitor may require a service animal to accompany him or her while on campus.

Adopting written animal-presence policies and practices can help to ensure that a school responds to situations like these in a way that minimizes liability and risk, and maximizes compliance with relevant legal obligations as well as each school’s pet culture.

On the pro-pet side, advocates assert that pet-friendly policies offer benefits like reducing faculty, staff and student stress, improving employee job satisfaction and increasing the overall friendly atmosphere on campus. We see many schools allowing faculty members to keep puppies in the classroom for a few months. But would such a school allow a kitten? A baby snake? How and along what lines do we discriminate regarding pets?

Notably, a service animal may only be lawfully excluded from campus if, after a case-by-case evaluation, a school determines that the particular service animal poses a “direct threat” to the health or safety of others. Thus, the need for a service animal on campus may trump a student or employee’s allergy or pet-phobia (even if deemed a disability under the ADA and thus also requiring an accommodation).

On the no-pet side, one significant risk arises from the possibility that an animal may harm a person, another animal or property. In Massachusetts, for example, an owner or keeper of a dog is strictly liable for the harm it causes. While Massachusetts courts have not addressed the issue of whether an employer may qualify as a “keeper,” two cases in Connecticut have rejected this conclusion under a similar statute. Nonetheless, instances of dog bites in carpool lines are quite common. A school could potentially face liability under a general negligence theory in the event that a pet harms someone or something even if a specific state statute does not address this scenario. Indeed, a school could even be deemed liable to the pet owner if a pet is injured while on campus (accident in the carpool line or such).

In light of these competing schools of thought, independent schools may want to simply prohibit students, their families and employees from bringing any pets or animals on campus. If such a policy seems too draconian (or simply unworkable on, for instance, a boarding school campus), we recommend that schools adopt a written policy requiring anyone who wishes to bring an animal on campus for recreational purposes to sign an indemnification agreement and obtain insurance covering any damage or injury that might be caused by the animal.

If, however, after careful consideration, an independent school decides to welcome pets on campus, we recommend considering some or all of the following policies and practices:

• Adopt a policy that distinguishes between “pets” and “service animals,” as the two categories should be treated differently;
• Require pet owners who wish to bring a pet on campus to sign an indemnification agreement and obtain insurance covering any damage or injury by the pet or to the pet;
• Obtain parental consent from all relevant parents before welcoming pets in the classroom;
• Establish pet-free areas and/or permit individuals with animal-related issues to work from other locations while animals are on campus; and
• Implement a protocol for responding to an animal’s aggressive behavior, including banning poorly behaved pets.

If an independent school prefers to prohibit pets on campus, we recommend addressing the following:

• Adopt a strict no-pet policy that does not differentiate among dogs, cats, puppies, kittens, ferrets, gerbils, etc.;
• Distinguish between pets belonging to faculty who live on campus and pets that are “visiting” campus; and
• Clarify that service animals do not fall within the pet policy and that service animals will only be excluded from campus if, after a case-by-case analysis, the school determines that a particular service animal poses a direct threat to the health and safety of others.

In addition, we recommend updating both Employee and Parent/Student Handbooks to address such pet policies.

If you have any questions about best practices for pet-policies and protocols, please do not hesitate to contact a member of the Firm’s Education Practice Group.

By William E. Hannum III

The White House report released yesterday (“Rape and Sexual Assault- A Renewed Call To Action“) is a stern reminder that all educational institutions — not just colleges, universities and other federally-funded institutions that must comply with Title IX — have a moral, if not legal, obligation to take all reasonable measures to reduce sexual violence and misconduct at their institutions.

The data and numbers highlighted in the report are noteworthy.

• Nearly 1 in 5 women (22 million) have been raped in their lifetime.
• Almost 1.6 million men have been raped in their lifetime.
• Nearly half of female survivors were raped before they were 18.
• 1 in 5 women was sexually assaulted while in college.
• Assaults in college appear to be fueled by alcohol and drugs, often occurring at parties.
• Most victims know their perpetrator.
• 12% of high school girls report having been forced to have sex.

The costs of sexual misconduct are significant. They include not only the potentially irreparable damage to millions of young victims and survivors, but also potentially staggering litigation costs (which are not limited to attorneys’ fees), and damage to an educational institution’s reputation.

The President’s announcement and the Vice President’s leading role demonstrate the White Houses’s commitment to this issue. Thus, among other things, the White House has stepped up federal compliance and enforcement efforts. Colleges and universities have been well-advised to take notice. But rededication of efforts is now in order.

Accordingly, independent schools should now take note. We strongly encourage our secondary schools to act to reduce the risk of sexual misconduct on their campuses and to prepare their students to act appropriately when they get to college.

With this in mind, colleges, universities, and independent schools should:

• Focus violence prevention education on perpetrators, survivors and bystanders. This should include getting men more involved, by educating the potential perpetrators, and by seeking the commitment and support of bystanders.
• Educate (require attendance at preventive education programs) for faculty, other employees, and all students, providing information about the institution’s policies, practices and resources regarding sexual assaults and sexual misconduct. This will generally be tailored to the audience members’ ages and each institution’s campus and culture. For example, we are currently providing boundary training (‘Shades Of Grey And Blurred Lines’) at many schools.
• In addition, schools may want to address these issues directly (bluntly) with applicants, to set an appropriate tone early on and discourage applicants who might be inclined to engage in misconduct.
• Explore various ways to engage students, looking for whatever may generate their greatest involvement.
• Understand your institution’s culture, and take appropriate action to redefine it if necessary. (Examine, and learn from, your institution’s past.)
• Update policies and practices for responding to allegations of sexual misconduct and violence. This should include a review of disciplinary consequences.
• Properly educate school officials responsible for responding to complaints. This will include education on a range of issues, including training for investigators and adjudicators involved in handling complaints of sexual assault (something that we have been doing for our clients recently, as well).
• Consider whether the institution is properly organized (e.g., should HR be a separate department, as was recommended for Penn State by the Freeh Report); does it have the necessary resources to effectively administer and enforce the institution’s policies and protocols?
• Provide survivors with appropriate resources and remedies to continue their education.
• Address the need for fairness to the accused throughout the institution’s policies, protocols, and training, including the potential for false accusations.
• Develop and maintain strong relationships with local law enforcement.

In short, institutions should update policies, practices and protocols, implementing best practices for preventing and responding to sexual misconduct, sexual assault, and rape.

The value of these measures may be obvious to those who have closely followed the stories at institutions in the headlines, from Penn State to Horace Mann, from Amherst to Deerfield. The challenge is not knowing what to do, in general. The challenge is in deciding to do it and tailoring these measures to your institution.

We are able and willing to assist.

Sara Goldsmith Schwartz, William E. Hannum III and the Education Team at Schwartz Hannum PC

***

An article written by William E. Hannum III entitled “The Right Thing To Do: Preparing For And Responding To Allegations Of Sexual Abuse At Independent Schools” may provide additional, helpful guidance.

***

William E. Hannum III is speaking on this topic at the Policy Institute, at independent schools and universities from Virginia to California, Indiana and Missouri.  Please join him! For more information, please click here.

***

For a copy of the White House report, please click here.

By Sara Goldsmith Schwartz

You may have seen the recent news coverage of the bus monitor who was bullied by students. This incident is a sobering reminder that employees can become victims of bullying by students. As reported by news outlets around the country, the incident involved a 68-year-old school bus monitor and four seventh grade students from upstate New York. The students made inappropriate verbal remarks and touched the school bus monitor during a bus ride. The bullying incident was recorded on a cellular phone and posted on YouTube. The video received tremendous public attention and the four students involved in the incident were suspended from school – for one year.

While student-on-student bullying is frequently discussed, student-on-employee bullying has become an increasingly common problem. Clearly, schools are vulnerable to legal claims resulting from such bullying incidents.

In order to foster a culture in which bullying is not tolerated and bullying incidents are quickly and effectively resolved, we recommend that independent schools take the following measures:

• Conduct a review of the school’s policies and procedures for preventing and responding to allegations of bullying;
• Ensure that the school’s policies and practices are in compliance with applicable state and federal laws, as well as recommended best practices;
• Ensure that the school’s policies and procedures adequately address bullying by and against students, employees, volunteers and all other individuals associated with the school;
• Evaluate the school’s protocols on the related topics of hazing, intimidation and retaliation; and
• Educate employees, parents, volunteers and students regarding the school’s policies and procedures pertaining to bullying.

* * *

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions regarding bullying prevention and response policies, procedures, and training programs. The Firm conducts bullying prevention training programs tailored to the needs of independent schools, colleges and universities.