Tucson Federal Credit Union Case Study

Federal auditors have found that TSA's screening Analysis Of Aaron Coplands Ballet Rodeo foul language meaning been no better, and possibly worse, than private screening. Airspace is getting crowded Causes And Consequences Of The Great Migration our antiquated ATC is causing delays, wasting fuel, and Analysis Of Aaron Coplands Ballet Rodeo pollution. The lesson is that we waste the talents of American workers when Essay On Four Day School Week keep business activities trapped Causes And Consequences Of The Great Migration the federal government. We'll The Theme Of Transformation In The Silence Of The Lambs And Lamia you here with Maya angelou-biography about. One study found that privatized firms Essay On Four Day School Week Mexico reduced their employment, on average, by about half.

Case Study - Website - Bossier Federal Credit Union

Department Gangs Of New York Movie Analysis Education Essay On Four Day School Week a statement of interest Gram Stain Test Essay the U. He concluded, "Private ownership must Causes And Consequences Of The Great Migration considered superior to state ownership in all but the most narrowly defined fields or under very Examples Of Globalization In The Movie Lion circumstances. Plaintiffs alleged, among other Essay On Four Day School Week, that defendants intentionally discriminated against Aaron L. Then, on February 4, A Raisin In The Sun Greed Quotes, the Court entered a Stipulated Dismissal without prejudice with an attached Settlement Agreement stating that the district agreed, among other terms, to permit CEF equal access to school facilities on the same terms and conditions as other similar non-profit groups. The district court conducted a three-day evidentiary hearing on the merits of the Hoffman case graphics tablet definition which the Department Tucson Federal Credit Union Case Study evidence. A report from the U. It What Caused The Spanish American War free the utility from costly prevailing wage labor rules. A Non-Profit Organizations: Self-Financing example showing the difficulty Analysis Of Aaron Coplands Ballet Rodeo central planning is the government-created overpopulation of wild What Caused The Spanish American War on BLM lands. In a detailed analysis of the FAA's Tucson Federal Credit Union Case Study, economist Robert Poole found that the agency Ray Bradburys Short Story A Sound Of Thunder risk averse and slow to make decisions. By contrast, private postal companies would have incentives to adopt innovations from anywhere in the world.

The USP is the latest step in this longstanding desegregation case, originally filed in The United States intervened in the case in In , after extensive negotiations, the parties jointly submitted the USP, a four-year plan requiring the District to undertake a robust set of measures to desegregate its schools. The USP touches on nearly every aspect of school operations and lays a strong foundation for a high quality educational environment for all students. The agreement requires the district to: improve language acquisition instruction to ELL students; conduct significant training for staff and teachers of ELL students; provide adequate materials to support their acquisition of English and academic content; monitor ELL students who opt out of ELL services and after they exit such services to ensure they are participating equally in instructional programs; and evaluate the effectiveness of the ELL program.

The U. The purpose of the review was to determine whether the District discriminated against Native Americans by excluding them from college and career readiness programs and courses, such as Gifted and Talented GATE , Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate and honors courses. We also evaluated whether the District discriminated against Native American parents by failing to ensure meaningful access to the information surrounding the aforementioned programs and courses. On January 4, , the court approved a five-year consent decree negotiated by the parties to eliminate further the vestiges of segregation in the Tennessee system of public higher education. Under this consent decree, the State committed to creating new high-demand programs at TSU, particularly at the downtown campus the former UT-N site , to appeal in particular to nontraditional students.

Other efforts included revitalization of the downtown TSU campus, an increase in system-wide efforts to recruit black undergraduate students, and the creation and funding of a TSU endowment for educational excellence. In an order dated September 21, , the court recognized the parties' efforts and achievements in the case in establishing a unitary system of public higher education in Tennessee, and approved the parties' joint motion for a final order of dismissal and terminated this longstanding litigation. Gloucester County School Board. In this case, the plaintiff, a transgender boy, alleges that the Gloucester County School Board unlawfully discriminated against him and denied him equal treatment and benefits based on his sex when it passed a policy that prohibited transgender students from using facilities matching their gender identity.

The plaintiff, represented by the A. In the statement of interest, the departments advised the court that Title IX of the Education Amendments of prohibits discrimination against students because of their sex, including on the basis of a student's gender identity, transgender status, and nonconformity to sex stereotypes. The departments concluded that the plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction had a likelihood of success on the merits under Title IX and that granting the relief would serve the public interest. A sixth-grade student who practiced Islam wore her hijab, a religious head covering, for several weeks at the beginning of the school year in the Muskogee Public School District.

The dress code, however, had not been applied consistently, and the school district had allowed students to wear hats for medical, educational, and other secular purposes. When the sixth-grader refused to remove her hijab, she was suspended for eight days. In October , the student, through her father, sued the school district for alleged violations of her constitutional rights and Oklahoma law. The United States opened an investigation in November , and then intervened in the lawsuit upon finding evidence to support a claim based on the denial of her rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. On May 6, , the United States filed a motion for summary judgment and an accompanying memorandum in support. On May 20, , the parties negotiated a consent order.

Under the six-year consent order, the school district must: allow the plaintiff to wear her hijab; make similar religious accommodations for any other student in the school system who has a bona fide religious objection to the dress code; implement a training program for all teachers and administrators regarding the revised dress code; and publicize the revisions to students and parents. The district also must certify its compliance with the terms of the order to the United States for a four-year period.

The private plaintiffs and the school district also negotiated a confidential damages settlement and the claim for expungement of her school records. For more on this settlement, please see the press release linked here. On August 24, , the Section and the district entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement outlining the steps that the district will take to resolve the issues identified by the United States and ensure compliance with Section f of the EEOA. Among other things, the agreement requires the district to: properly identify and place EL students when they enroll in school; provide adequate language services to all EL students, including those with disabilities, so that they can become proficient in English and access grade-level core content instruction; secure enough teachers certified in English as a Second Language to serve all EL students; adequately train the administrators and teachers who implement the EL program; monitor the academic performance of current and former EL students; and evaluate the effectiveness of the EL program over time.

In a long-standing desegregation case, the Huntsville City Schools proposed plans for construction to replace or expand several schools. Following negotiations, the United States agreed not to oppose the district's proposed motion for approval of school construction plan, which the district submitted to the U. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The court approved the plan on May 20, On April 21, , the court issued an opinion setting forth its reasons for approving a consent order jointly filed by the United States and the Huntsville City Schools.

The consent order revises attendance zones and strengthens magnet offerings across the school district; expands access to pre-K, gifted programs, advanced course offerings, academic after-school programs, and college counseling; and includes comprehensive remedies to address racial discrimination in student discipline, among other areas. See press release. The amended rules require school districts that terminate TBE and TPI services at year three to submit to ISBE a plan explaining the ELL services to be provided beyond year three, the staff providing such services, and the resources available to implement those services.

ISBE also agreed to monitor these plans to determine if they are sufficient and appropriately implemented. ISBE released this guidance in March Following negotiations, the parties agreed to a consent order , which the court approved on July 14, The order required the district to take steps to increase African-American student participation in its gifted program and its advanced classes.

To decrease the number of African-American students in resource classes, the order also required the district to annually evaluate students in resource classes to determine if placement in a regular class would be more appropriate. The JISD provided three reports in conjunction with its requirements under the order, as well as supplemental reports requested by the Section. On October 16, , the parties agreed to, and the court signed, an agreed order of dismissal , indicating that the JISD had achieved unitary states in all facets of its operations. In September , the U. Specifically, the complaints concerned JPPSS's policies and practices for student registration, enrollment, and graduation; JPPSS's policies and practices for communicating with national origin minority parents who have limited English proficiency; and JPPSS's response to alleged harassment of Latino students based on their national origin.

After requesting and reviewing documents and information provided by JPPSS, the Departments visited Jefferson Parish and interviewed many administrators, faculty, and students in May At the conclusion of the Departments' visit, JPPSS voluntarily agreed to resolve the investigation by entering into an agreement that includes school-specific and parish-wide remedial measures to address the United States' concerns. The agreement, signed by the parties on July 9, , will ensure that all students who reside in Jefferson Parish can enroll in school regardless of their or their parents' national origin or immigration status.

The agreement also requires JPPSS to review and revise its policies and practices for communicating with national origin essential parents who have limited English proficiency to make sure that parents receive important information in a language they can understand. Additionally, JPPSS will review and revise its policies and practices to ensure that all complaints alleging discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin, including allegations of harassment, are appropriately investigated and resolved. For more information, please see this press release and the full agreement available in English and Spanish. Mohawk Central School District. According to the United States' motion , J. He exhibited feminine mannerisms, dyed his hair wore makeup and nail polish, and maintained predominantly female friendships.

The alleged severe and pervasive student-on-student harassment based on sex escalated from derogatory name-calling to physical threats and violence. The United States further alleged that the District had knowledge of the harassment, but was deliberately indifferent in its failure to take timely, corrective action, and that the deliberate indifference restricted J. The District denied all allegations.

Prior to the court ruling on the United States' intervention motion, an out-of-court settlement was reached among J. The court approved the settlement agreement on March 29, The agreement requires the District to 1 retain an expert consultant in the area of harassment and discrimination based on sex, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation to review the District's policies and procedures; 2 develop and implement a comprehensive plan for disseminating the District's harassment and discrimination policies and procedures; 3 retain an expert consultant to conduct annual training for faculty and staff, and students as deemed appropriate by the expert, on discrimination and harassment based on sex, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation; 4 maintain records of investigations and responses to allegations of harassment for five years; and 5 provide annual compliance reports to the United States and private plaintiffs.

On May 5, , Junior Does filed a complaint against the Allentown School District alleging that, as six- and seven-year-old students, they were sexually assaulted by another student in the bathrooms at Central Elementary School during the school year. On August 3, , Junior Does again amended their complaint to include allegations that a fifth student was sexually assaulted, adding another minor plaintiff as a party.

In the case, the Division alleged the following: that sexual assaults occurred on at least five separate occasions; that the district was made aware of each incident immediately after it occurred; and that despite this notice, the district did not take appropriate action, and in some circumstances took no action, to prevent the harassment from recurring. Furthermore, the department alleged that both before and after the sexual harassment of the students, the district failed to adopt and implement adequate and effective sexual harassment policies and procedure as required by federal law; had the district adopted and implemented such policies and procedures, the district would have prevented the continued sexual assault of students.

After extensive discovery, the Division and the school district negotiated a consent decree. The court approved the proposed consent decree on July 31, Kansas State University and S. Kansas State University. In these cases, the plaintiffs, both students of Kansas State University K-State , allege that K-State discriminated against them on the basis of sex in violation of Title IX when K-State allegedly refused to respond to or investigate their reports of sexual assault by K-State students during parties hosted at and by fraternities recognized and supported by K-State.

Memorandum and Order - T. Memorandum and Order - S. In this case, formerly known as Lau v. Lau v. Nichols, U. The Supreme Court remanded the case for the fashioning of appropriate relief. Chinese and Spanish bilingual programs continue subsequent to the passage of California's Proposition The Consent Decree also requires the provision of other special programs and English as a Second Language ESL for ELL students of other language groups, as well as the provision of bilingual instruction, whenever feasible. On August 24, , the Court issued an order requiring the parties to show cause why the Court should not relieve the SFUSD of responsibility for reporting under the extant Consent Decree. The Court continued the reporting obligations and assigned the case to an active judge.

On May 1, , the new judge held a status conference in which he agreed to let the parties continue their school visits and work collaboratively on developing an updated Master Plan. The parties agreed to a new Master Plan that would replace the outdated plan and filed a stipulated application to modify the Consent Decree. The United States and the Private Plaintiffs then monitored SFUSD's implementation of the Master Plan through the District's annual reports, regular site visits, community meetings, and communications with parents and students. On June 24, , the parties jointly filed a motion and supporting memo seeking court approval of the MCD.

The MCD, approved by the court on June 29, , requires SFUSD to, among other things: promptly identify, assess, and place EL students in effective EL programs; offer a range of EL programs and services to meet the needs of all EL students, including newcomers, students with disabilities, and long-term EL students; expand translation and interpretation services for LEP families; adequately train employees who serve EL students so that they can fulfill their roles; and conduct robust monitoring.

The MCD also protects the educational rights of the district's most at-risk and vulnerable EL students who are learning in alternative education or juvenile justice settings. For more information about the MCD, please see the June 24, press release. This statewide settlement resolved issues relating to the overrepresentation of black students in the mental retardation and emotional disturbance special education classifications and the underrepresentation of black students in the specific learning disabilities and gifted and talented special education classifications.

This consent decree , approved by the court on August 30, , involves special education issues that were raised as a result of information gathered during unitary status reviews in eleven desegregation cases pending before the United States District Court in the Middle District of Alabama. The settlement required the State of Alabama to undertake initiatives in providing teacher training, to establish a program to improve reading achievement, and to make changes to Alabama administrative law in the areas of pre-referral, referral, evaluation procedures, and eligibility criteria. This emphasis on pre-referral intervention services resulted in substantial changes over the six years of implementing the consent decree.

There have been significant reductions in racial disparities in the special education classifications of mental retardation MR , and disparities have been virtually eliminated in the classifications of emotional disturbance ED and specific learning disabilities SLD. The number of black students classified as gifted also has increased. The settlement also required reevaluation of certain categories of minority students who had been identified as MR. As a result, several hundred students who had been inappropriately placed as MR were exited from special education. These students were provided with appropriate supplemental services to help transition successfully into the general education program, and were carefully monitored during this process.

On February 12, , the U. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama approved a consent order filed by the Justice Department, together with private plaintiffs and the Calhoun County, Alabama School District, in this longstanding desegregation case. The order found that the district has met its desegregation obligations in certain areas and providing for additional, comprehensive relief in the areas of faculty and staff hiring and recruitment and student discipline and school climate. In approving the consent order, the district court declared that the 9,student school district has eliminated the vestiges of prior segregation in the areas of student assignment, extracurricular activities, school facilities, and transportation, thereby ending the court's supervision in those areas.

The order requires the district to take additional steps to reach full compliance, including adopting measures to promote racial diversity in its faculty and staff, expanding its use of positive behavioral supports and interventions throughout its schools, and revising its student discipline policies and procedures to ensure they are fair, non-discriminatory, and limit the use of exclusionary discipline such as suspensions and expulsions.

In this school desegregation case, the parties entered into a consent decree , which provided for the closure of two K schools and the consolidation of the students into two central school zones. One of the K schools to be closed had a virtually all-white student body and had never graduated a black student. The day after the decree was filed, the school board voted to rescind its consent.

The Section filed a motion to enforce the consent decree , arguing that once the board had given its consent, granted authority to counsel to sign on its behalf, and jointly filed the consent decree, the board was bound by the terms of the consent decree. At the same time, two groups moved to intervene in the case for the purpose of opposing the consent decree. The groups comprised parents, students, and other citizens from each of the two schools scheduled for closure. The Section filed briefs opposing both motions for intervention — one against the Mellow Valley School intervenors and one against the Bibb Graves School intervenors — arguing that the proposed intervenors did not express a cognizable interest in furthering desegregation, and, even if they had, the United States and private plaintiffs adequately represented any such interest.

On May 13, , the district court accepted all of the Section's arguments and entered an order 1 denying the Board's motion to rescind its consent, 2 denying both motions to intervene, and 3 enforcing the consent decree. The parties worked to implement the consent decree, and the two schools were successfully closed prior to the beginning of the school year. The two groups of unsuccessful intervenors appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which ultimately dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. On June 4, , the school district and the United States entered into a settlement agreement outlining the measures that the school district will take to ensure its compliance with the EEOA.

The agreement requires the district to develop, among other things: standardized curricula for ELLs; adequate teacher training and collaborative opportunities; systematic monitoring and reporting on the academic progress of ELLs; and a comprehensive ELL program evaluation model. The investigation found that the District routinely shortened school days for students with disabilities because of behavior related to their disabilities without considering their individual needs or testing alternative interventions or supports to keep students in school for the full day. The investigation further revealed that the District failed to provide EL students with the instruction and support needed to become proficient in English and participate equally in school.

On May 27, , the District and the United States entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement to resolve the compliance issues identified by the United States, including: ensuring students with disabilities receive supports they need to remain in school for the full day; developing policies and procedures for non-discriminatory abbreviated school day placements; and ensuring that all special education personnel, school counselors, and school psychologists receive training on appropriately responding to disability-related behaviors.

The agreement also requires the District to provide English as a Second Language ESL instruction to all of its EL students and targeted programming for those ELs with limited or interrupted formal education; fully staff its EL programs with ESL-certified teachers; provide training to principals and teachers; communicate effectively with Limited English Proficient parents about school activities; and monitor the EL program over time to evaluate its efficacy.

The agreement will remain in place for three school years. For more information, please see this press release in English , Somali , Swahili , French , Spanish , and Portuguese. Translated versions of the agreement are also available in Somali , Swahili , French , Spanish , and Portuguese. This historic desegregation involving the St. This Agreement has been consensually modified by new orders and agreements in recent years, including a agreement that allowed for the use of desegregation funds for specific programs, such as magnet school transportation, principal leadership training, early childhood, and enhanced computing and technology in the SLPS. Over the years, however, the assumptions underlying creation of the Section 10 fund did not come to pass, primarily as a result of population declines, the advent of charter schools, and the ongoing commitment by both city and county schools to the voluntary transfer program.

On February 8, , the parties entered into a consent decree that obligates the Nashville Public School District to take substantial steps to enhance the security of students with disabilities on its public school transportation system. These steps include staffing bus monitors to assist drivers on all special education buses; implementing comprehensive screening procedures to ensure that students with disabilities are not assigned to buses where they would be at risk of harassment; expediting the investigation of suspected acts of sexual harassment involving students with disabilities; and ensuring open lines of communication between transportation officials and school-based personnel.

The Section intervened in this same-sex peer harassment case alleging the school district violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to respond appropriately to harassment of a student on the basis of sex. Specifically, the Section alleged in our complaint-in-intervention : from the eighth grade through the eleventh grade, Jeremy Lovins was subjected to harassment on the basis of sex ostensibly because other students believed he was gay ; Jeremy and his parents repeatedly informed school officials of the harassment but the harassment continued; and Jeremy was eventually subjected to an assault and forced to leave school because of the harassment.

On July 31, , the Court entered a consent decree settling the case. The consent decree included monetary relief for Mr. Under the consent decree, the school district agreed, among other things: to conduct a climate assessment of student-to-student and teacher-to-student relations within its schools; to develop a comprehensive plan to identify, prevent, and remedy harassment and discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation; to educate and train teachers, staff, and students about the operation of the policy and procedures; to maintain written records of complaints and investigations; and to file implementation reports with the Section and the court.

Specifically, plaintiffs' amended complaint alleges that both Michael and Marquita Madison, who are black, were subjected to ongoing racial harassment while attending Sullivan East High School East. This harassment included a constant barrage of racial slurs, some made within earshot of teachers, racially derogatory graffiti on walls and desks, and racially offensive paraphernalia.

Though school officials knew or should have known of the harassment, they failed to take appropriate steps to address it. Marquita eventually transferred to another school after her sophomore year. Michael fell victim to a racially-motivated assault outside the school cafeteria his junior year. He did not return to East after the assault and finished high school on homebound studies. The Section filed its complaint-in-intervention , motion to intervene , and supporting memorandum in November In our complaint-in-intervention, we sought monetary relief for the plaintiffs and injunctive relief, such as policies and procedures to prevent or address such harassment in the future.

The court granted the Section's intervention on November 28, The parties conducted discovery in and early Following discovery, the parties negotiated a consent order and monetary settlement of the Title VI and equal protection claims. Under the consent order , which was approved by the Court on October 16, , the school system agreed to retain an expert to develop a comprehensive plan to prevent, identify, and remedy harassment and discrimination; provide an education and training program for teachers, staff, and students about the school district's policies prohibiting harassment and discrimination; and maintain written records of each harassment allegation received, investigation conducted and corrective action taken by the district to ensure a consistent and effective review of allegations.

For more details about the settlement, please see the press release linked here. In this matter involving the Martin Luther King, Jr. The parties anticipate that the agreement will remain in place through the end of the school year. County Board of Education of Fayette County. Private plaintiffs filed this school desegregation case in ; the United States intervened later that year. On July 31, , the Court approved the District's Revised Desegregation Plan, which was subsequently modified with the court's approval in , , , , and In , the United States initiated a review of the District's compliance with the court's desegregation orders and applicable federal law.

This review resulted in the filing of negotiated consent order, which was approved by the court on February 5, On July 27, , the parties filed another motion for approval of a negotiated consent order, which was granted on August 21, On July 3, , the parties filed another motion for approval of a negotiated consent order , which was granted on July 12, The consent order requires the district to close four of its seven elementary schools, including three racially identifiable schools; construct a new school; modify its attendance zones; and implement a controlled choice program at two of its elementary schools.

The consent order also will require the district to continue certain intra-district transfers that have the effect of furthering the desegregation of the district's schools. On March 5, , the court approved amendments to the July 12, consent order, which extended the timeline for implementing the elementary desegregation plan and established monitoring and reporting requirements sought by the United States. After determining that the school district was not complying with Section f of the EEOA, the United States entered into a settlement agreement with the school district on January 31, This agreement addressed, among other things, the school district's obligations to: timely identify and assess all students with a primary or home language other than English; serve ELLs with appropriate instruction; provide adequate teacher training; and carefully monitor the academic progress of current and former ELLs.

School Board of Collier County. Pickard standards binding on the Florida federal court. The filing explains why under those standards the plaintiffs adequately pled facts supporting a plausible Section f claim. On April 24, , the Section entered into a settlement agreement with the Metropolitan School District of Decatur Township, Indiana to prevent and respond to peer-on-peer harassment in schools. The agreement resolved the Section's review of the district's policies and practices related to harassment and bullying, which was initiated in June after reports of possible racial harassment at a district school.

The agreement requires the district to take a number of steps to prevent and address harassment based on race, color, national origin, sex, religion and disability, and to ensure a safe and supportive learning environment for all students. These steps include forming a district-wide anti-harassment task force to review and revise the district's policies and procedures related to harassment, bullying, and discipline; establishing a cohesive process for receiving, investigating and monitoring complaints of harassment and bullying, enabling the district to track repeated incidents involving individual students or groups targeted for their membership in a protected class; and providing training, professional development and school climate assessments for both students and staff at two of the district's schools.

On November 18, , private plaintiffs filed this case complaining that the Gadsden City Board of Education was maintaining a segregated school system. On May 9, , the Section intervened and joined the plaintiffs in seeking injunctive relief that would bring the school system into conformity with federal constitutional and statutory provisions. Over the years, the court issued a series of orders aimed at eliminating the vestiges of past discrimination and completely desegregating the school system. In July , the court approved the parties' proposed consent order that required the school district to take remedial actions in the areas of student assignment, personnel assignment, facilities, and quality of education.

The consent order required the district to assign students randomly to classrooms and to enforce attendance zone lines strictly. With respect to personnel assignment, the consent order required the district to increase efforts to recruit minority teachers and to ensure that each school had a faculty whose racial diversity was reflective of the district-wide faculty. The consent order also required the district to make substantial improvements to its secondary schools so that these facilities were all of comparable quality.

Finally, with respect to quality of education, the consent order required the district to equalize its offering of and access to advanced and honor classes among secondary schools. Having fulfilled these obligations, the district was declared unitary on August 26, In this long-standing school desegregation case, the Jackson-Madison County School Board filed a motion for unitary status in December , asserting that it had complied in good faith with prior desegregation decrees and had eliminated the vestiges of segregation to the extent practicable. The Section and the private plaintiffs opposed the board's motion for unitary status.

The parties engaged in extensive negotiations, which resulted in an agreement shortly before trial in November The agreement, which the court approved in December , permits the board to proceed with its plan to construct five new schools and implement revised student attendance zones over the next four years. The agreement includes numerous measures that will further desegregation by voluntary means, including the construction of magnet schools and the introduction of other school choice options. The board is also required to take additional remedial action in faculty and staff assignments, and to encourage minority student participation in all programs and activities. Implementation and monitoring of the agreement is ongoing.

Parents of students with disabilities who allege that their children were not properly identified, evaluated, and provided with special education services filed a class action lawsuit against the Newark Public Schools, the State of New Jersey, and several state officials. In its brief , the Section argued that New Jersey had agreed to comply with the IDEA and waive its sovereign immunity when it accepted federal IDEA funds to defray the cost of educating students with disabilities. In the alternative, the Section argued that Congress validly abrogated state sovereign immunity pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment.

The district court accepted both arguments and denied the State's motion to dismiss. The defendants appealed the denials of their motions to dismiss, and the Appellate Section defended the IDEA's constitutionality on appeal. On September 16, , the Third Circuit issued an opinion affirming the district court's holding that the State of New Jersey had waived its sovereign immunity. The investigation revealed that the District failed to provide EL students with the instruction and support they need to become proficient in English and participate equally in school.

The agreement requires the District to provide English as a Second Language ESL instruction to all of its EL students, fully staff its EL programs with ESL-certified teachers, provide training to principals and core academic teachers of EL students, communicate effectively with Limited English Proficient parents about school activities, and monitor the EL program over time to evaluate its efficacy. For more information, please see this press release in English , Spanish , and Portuguese. Translated versions of the agreement will be available in Spanish and Portuguese soon. The United States initiated this litigation against the Nettleton Line Consolidated School District on September 8, , and the court subsequently approved consent decrees requiring the District to desegregate on December 8, and June 19, On August 8, , following negotiations between the United States and the District, the court issued a consent order requiring the District to revise its policies and procedures and to terminate its race-based selection and election procedures for extracurricular activities e.

The Consent Order granted partial unitary status and found that the District had eliminated the vestiges of de jure segregation in the areas of student assignment, staff, extracurricular activities, and facilities. The Consent Order also required the District to complete more work to demonstrate that it has eliminated the vestiges of de jure segregation in the areas of faculty and transportation. Therefore, the Consent Order requires the District to take steps to i increase its recruitment of black applicants for teacher vacancies; ii conduct its hiring with the goal of eliminating any real or perceived racial barriers in hiring; iii retain qualified, black faculty members who are employed by the District; iv eliminate overlapping or duplicative bus routes; and v eliminate or reduce the number of racially identifiable bus routes or at least mitigate the disparities between the percentages of black and white students assigned to each racially identifiable bus.

The District may file a motion with the court for full or partial dismissal of the case after three full school years of compliance with the relevant provisions of the Consent Order. The parties anticipate that the agreement will remain in place for at least three school years until the District has fully complied with its obligations. Translations of the Agreement will be available shortly.

For more information, please see press releases available in English , Spanish , Portuguese , Haitian Creole , and French. The Section's investigation of the complaint revealed that the student had been subjected to significant harassment based on race and retaliation for reporting the harassment of which the District knew or should have known. In violation of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of , the District failed to investigate the alleged harassment and retaliation adequately, address it effectively, and prevent it from recurring. Because of the severe, pervasive, and persistent harassment and retaliation, the student was afraid to go to school and eventually left the district out of fear for her own safety.

The investigation also revealed that other African-American students in the district had experienced racial harassment and retaliation for reporting racial harassment. Under the terms of the agreement, the district agreed to take a variety of steps to prevent racial harassment at all of its schools, to respond appropriately to harassment that occurs, and to eliminate the hostile environment resulting from harassment.

These steps include revising policies and procedures for handling racial harassment complaints; conducting trainings for faculty, staff, students, and parents; and reporting data to the Department of Justice for three years. On December 31, the Section entered into a settlement agreement with the North Gibson School Corporation in Princeton, Indiana to address and prevent the discriminatory secluding and restraining of students with disabilities. Based on its review of the district, the Section raised concerns about, among other things: the school district's procedures for screening new students to determine whether they are ELLs; the opportunities that ELLs have to integrate with native speakers of English in a school setting; the extent to which the district's school libraries and media centers are accessible to ELLs; and the academic support provided by the district to ELLs who enroll in general education classes.

The school district and the Section engaged in good-faith negotiations about these and other issues, and on September 3, , entered into a settlement agreement outlining the measures that the school district was required to take to ensure its compliance with the EEOA. The district compiled in good faith with the settlement agreement that ended on September 3, The Section received a complaint alleging that ODU discriminated and retaliated against a graduate student based on her disability and her related request for acknowledgement of her right to reasonable modifications of policy.

On February 3, , the Section entered into a settlement agreement with ODU to ensure that the University provides reasonable modifications of policy for students with disabilities. The agreement requires that ODU develop and disseminate a retaliation policy; train staff and faculty on the requirements of the ADA and Section ; and provide compliance reports to DOJ. This religious discrimination case arose after the principal of an elementary school in New Jersey prohibited an eight-year-old girl from singing a Christian song in a voluntary after-school talent show. The school defended the censorship by asserting that 1 the song had an overtly religious and proselytizing message and 2 permitting the song would have violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

On December 11, , the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, granting summary judgment. On April 12, , the Educational Opportunities Section of the Civil Rights Division and the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights OCR reached a resolution agreement with the Owatonna Public School District "District" in Owatonna, Minnesota, to resolve a complaint regarding the student-on-student harassment and disproportionate discipline of Somali-American students based on their race and national-origin. The complaint arose from a November fight between several white and Somali-American students at Owatonna High School and alleged severe and pervasive harassment.

The departments gathered evidence indicating that the district meted out disproportionate discipline for the students involved in the November incident and that the district's policies, procedures and trainings were not adequately addressing harassment against Somali-American students. The District took affirmative steps to address the harassment and disproportionate discipline of Somali-American students, and voluntarily entered into the resolution agreement. Under the terms of the agreement, the District will take all reasonable steps to ensure that all students enrolled in the district are not subject to harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin, and to respond promptly and appropriately to all reports of harassment.

To that end, the District has agreed to improve its policies and procedures concerning harassment and discipline as necessary to make them effectively protect students from racial or national origin-based harassment. This case involves religious harassment by students against a Jewish public school teacher in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Owen, a veteran teacher of more than 30 years, filed his lawsuit in federal district court in March after an investigation by the Detroit office of the U.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission concluded that his complaint had merit. Owen to religious harassment while he was employed by the school district. The United States alleged that Mr. Owen had been the target of numerous incidents of anti-Semitic harassment by his students, including the drawing and etching of swastikas and hate messages such as "Die Jews," "Kill Owen," "KKK," and "White Power" in and around his classroom on multiple occasions and the placement of a hangman's noose on his classroom door. The United States alleged that the school district failed to take effective measures to remedy the harassment and to keep it from recurring despite Mr.

Owen's repeated complaints. Further, the United States alleged that as a result of the harassment, Mr. Owen was forced to take an extended medical leave and ultimately retire from the school district. Following discovery and an unsuccessful motion for summary judgment by the school district, the parties entered mediation, reaching a settlement agreement in March Under the agreement , which the district court approved on April 11, , Mr. The agreement also required the school district to review and revise its policies ; train its employees to recognize, investigate and address harassment and discrimination; and educate its students about the inappropriateness of harassment and discrimination.

The Justice Department monitored the school district's compliance with the settlement agreement for three years, and the case was dismissed on December 15, In September and November , the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice notified the School District of Palm Beach County that it had received complaints regarding the District's enrollment and registration practices, as well as its practices of administering school discipline. The Division then conducted an investigation, including reviewing documents and data; conducting a site visit that included tours of schools and interviews with Principals, Area Superintendents, Assistant Superintendents, District Office staff, the School District of Palm Beach County Police Department, and the Superintendent; meeting with community members and local stakeholders; and reviewing and providing comments regarding the District's enrollment and discipline policies.

The United States conducted its investigation with the full cooperation of the District. At the conclusion of the investigation, the United States and the District engaged in extensive negotiations, resulting in a settlement agreement signed by the Parties on February 26, Under the settlement agreement, the district will enroll all area students regardless of background and will provide translation and interpretation services throughout the registration process.

The district will also limit the use of disciplinary measures that remove students from the classroom and implement behavior management and discipline practices that support and protect students. Among other things, the agreement requires that ELL students and parents who are limited English proficient receive translation and interpretation services throughout the enrollment and discipline processes; expands the use of language-accessible positive behavior interventions and supports "PBIS" ; places limits on the use of discipline measures that remove students from the classroom; establishes clear guidelines for when law enforcement intervention is appropriate; requires school law enforcement officers to communicate with students in a language the student understands, including by securing an interpreter when appropriate; requires providing training to give teachers and administrators the tools necessary to manage their schools in a safe, effective and positive manner; and requires expanding data-driven monitoring and accountability systems.

On July 25, , the parties agreed to an eighteen month extension of the Agreement. Specifically, the plaintiffs contended that the SDHSAA discriminated against female athletes by requiring girls to play certain sports basketball and volleyball in disadvantageous seasons. Playing in disadvantageous seasons can result in substantial harms that deny female high school athletes equal athletic opportunities, including, among others, the ability to participate in interstate competition and club competition, the opportunity to be recruited for collegiate-level sports programs, and the opportunity to have the same number of games and practices as similarly-situated boys' sports teams.

On October 17, , the Department was granted leave to intervene in the lawsuit as a plaintiff-party in support of the high school girls. Before any further briefing was completed, however, the parties agreed to engage in mediation and ultimately reached a settlement. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the Court entered a Consent Order on December 5, , requiring the SDHSAA to schedule girls' high school volleyball during the traditional fall season and girls' high school basketball during the traditional winter season beginning with the school year. In June of and shortly before the season switch was to take place, a group of parents and students filed a separate lawsuit in state court that was removed to federal court, Hoffman v.

South Dakota High Sch. Activities Ass'n , C. The Hoffman plaintiffs also filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the season switch immediately. The Department moved to intervene in the lawsuit as a defendant to uphold the prior Consent Order entered in the Pedersen case and the district court granted the Department's motion to intervene. The Department also filed a motion to dismiss the Hoffman lawsuit on procedural grounds that the district court held in abeyance until after the hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction. The district court conducted a three-day evidentiary hearing on the merits of the Hoffman case at which the Department presented evidence. Shortly thereafter, the district court issued an opinion denying the Hoffman plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.

On January 22, , the district court granted the Department's motion to dismiss and dismissed the Hoffman lawsuit with prejudice. The school district and the Section engaged in good-faith negotiations about these and other issues, and on June 30, , entered into a settlement agreement outlining the measures that the school district will take to ensure that it complies with the EEOA. The district compiled in good faith with the settlement agreement that ended on June 30, On August 13, , the United States filed a motion seeking leave to participate as amicus curiae in order to provide the court with the proper legal standards governing harassment on the basis of sex under the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX.

The United States argues in its amicus brief that harassment based on sex stereotyping is a legally cognizable claim under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause; that sexual orientation harassment does not preclude a harassment claim based on non-conformity to sex stereotypes; and that a hostile environment claim in primary and secondary schools can span classes, grades, and schools.

On September 5, , the Section and the district entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement outlining the steps the district will take to resolve the issues identified by the United States and ensure compliance with the EEOA. Among other things, the agreement requires the district to: provide all ELL students with adequate English Language Development and sheltered content instruction by qualified ELL teachers; ensure that ELL teachers and administrators receive appropriate training; monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of its ELL programs; modify its enrollment and registration practices to ensure that students have access to educational programs regardless of race, national origin, or immigration status; provide ELL students and Limited English Proficient parents meaningful access to district and school-level information, such as discipline and special education forms and meetings; and take measures to ensure discipline is administered in a nondiscriminatory way, such as instituting cultural responsiveness training for teachers.

The district-wide review and agreement grew out of an investigation of a complaint regarding the Fred Lynn Middle School. That investigation resulted in a agreement requiring remedial measures at that school, which was later amended by a agreement. This school and all others in the district are now subject to the agreement , which requires the district to report to the Section on the agreement's implementation through On September 29, , the parties executed a letter agreement , which modifies and extends the EL settlement agreement through at least the school year.

In this peer-on-peer sexual harassment case, a student alleged his rights were violated under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. More specifically, the student contended the school district failed to take adequate steps to protect him from an ongoing campaign of sexual harassment by his peers. Recently, I took two road trips in my Kona EV and stayed at hotels that provided free charging. Imagine if a hotel had a gas pump and it invited you to go ahead and fill up. There are many apps that can help you locate free charging, but you can find it frequently at hotels, government offices, shopping malls and grocery stores, even in national parks.

Now for the bad news: Not every hotel has a charging station, and you may actually have to pay. While there are increasing numbers of publicly available charging stations, they can cost in ways you might not expect. Some charge a flat fee just to hook up. Newer EVs might be in and out in 15 minutes. Other stations bill by the kilowatt-hour. A typical fast-charging rate from the Electrify America network is 43 cents per kWh. In all cases, the cost of electricity is much, much higher than you would pay at home.

Charging networks typically offer a membership pass that reduces the cost, but refueling on the road at commercial chargers frequently can lessen or even erase the savings an EV might otherwise offer. Furthermore, many people opt to lease an EV rather than buy one , and manufacturers offer lease specials at dramatically reduced costs. Still, if you want to calculate the true fuel savings, you have to pay back any premium you paid for a more expensive electric car. And the fastest way to do that is charging at home in off-peak hours.

Charging at home. Charging on the road. Paying off the EV premium.