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 Sara Goldsmith Schwartz

As of August 8, 2014, Massachusetts employers with 50 or more employees must provide up to 15 days of unpaid leave in any 12-month period for employees’ activities related to being a victim of domestic violence, including seeking medical attention or legal services, securing housing, or attending court proceedings. Massachusetts thus joins more than 20 other states and municipalities requiring such leave. Employees of covered Massachusetts employers may take leave related to their own abuse or the abuse of a covered family member, including a spouse, child, parent, grandparent, grandchild, or sibling.

Employees must give advance notice of their need to use the leave, unless there is a threat of imminent danger to the health or safety of the employee or a member of the employee’s family. Employees must also first exhaust all personal, sick, annual, and vacation leave before receiving unpaid leave, unless the employer’s policy provides otherwise.

The law requires confidentiality for leave-related information. Employers must keep such information confidential and not disclose such information unless disclosure is requested in writing by the employee, ordered by a court, otherwise required by law or in the course of a law enforcement investigation, or necessary to protect the safety of the employee or others employed at the workplace.

Covered employers must notify employees of their rights and responsibilities under the law, including those related to notification requirements and confidentiality.

Similar to other types of job-protected leave, employees who take domestic violence leave are entitled to restoration to their original jobs, or equivalent positions, and are protected from retaliation after taking leave.

We recommend that employers familiarize themselves with the requirements of the law, including its confidentiality provisions, and consult with counsel to prepare a domestic violence leave policy and update their handbooks accordingly.

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 Sara Goldsmith Schwartz

With the beginning of the academic year underway or imminent, many students are returning to campus for pre-season athletic training. This school year, however, many schools and student-athletes will be governed by new (and perhaps improved) concussion protocols.

Combatting concussions has become a forefront issue in school athletics. Across the nation, legislatures, student athletic associations, and schools are responding to the demand for more comprehensive concussion policies to better protect student-athletes. Indeed, as of January 2014, every state and the District of Columbia had passed legislation regulating the prevention and management of student-athlete traumatic head injuries. In March, the National Athletic Trainers’ Association (NATA) released a new position statement on the management of sports concussions and offered comprehensive guidelines. And just over the summer, California’s governor signed a law that not only limits the number of tackling practice sessions for young football players—to only two, 90-minute full-contact practices per season—but the law also requires one week on the bench for all student-athletes who suffer a concussion.

Although concussion management laws vary from state-to-state, they generally share three pillars—a return-to-play rule, an informed consent requirement, and an education and training obligation. The return-to-play rules regulate the circumstances in which a student-athlete suspected of having a concussion or head injury must be removed from play and when he or she can resume participating in athletics.

Baseline testing is another tool to help manage sports-related concussions. By requiring students to have a pre-season exam to measure balance and brain functioning, medical professionals can better identify and diagnose post-exam head injuries. While no states currently require baseline testing, Rhode Island strongly encourages all youth sports programs (including those operated by private schools) to adopt the practice; and Massachusetts requires public schools and schools that are members of the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association to mandate that student-athletes provide head injury medical histories.

At independent schools, administrators, coaches, medical support personnel, students, and parents all play a significant role in protecting student-athletes. To help achieve their goal, we recommend including the following components in a comprehensive head injury policy:

• An action plan policy for all students participating in interscholastic athletics;
• Protocols for head injuries, including Return to Activity guidelines;
• Education for parents and students, coaches, medical support employees, and other relevant persons about recognizing and managing traumatic head injuries;
• Requests for student-athlete head injury histories;
• Mandatory baseline testing for all student-athletes;
• Recordkeeping of all head injuries occurring on and off campus; and
• Policies for students who are suffering from concussions.

In addition, we recommend updating Athletics Handbooks to address concussion management and other issues such as medical emergencies, practice guidelines, and academic policies related to participation in athletics.

Please do not hesitate to contact a member of the Firm’s Education Practice Group if you have any questions about best practices for student-athlete head injury policies and protocols.