Gulliver Schools, Inc. v. Snay is based about the importance to respect the confidentiality clauses in a contract.
The case started when Patrick Snay’s, who was headmaster at Gulliver Preparatory School, sued for age discrimination and retaliation a when the school didn’t renew his contract. After that, the parties settled an agreement of confidentially for $150,000, “$10,000 of back pay to Snay, $80,000 to Snay as a “1099, and an $60,000 of attorneys’ fees”1. Also Snay has to kept strictly confidential any information related to the settlements. After that, Snay and his wife commented with his daughter that there were happy with the results of the settlement.
However, four days later Gulliver School decided to reverse the settlement due
This case study is a situation from Case Studies on Educational Administration (Kowalski, 2011). The background information is listed below.
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier of 1987-1988 Background: At Hazel East High School, the school has a sponsored newspaper called “The Spectrum” that is written and edited by the students. In May of 1983, the high school principal, Robert E. Reynolds, received the edited version of the May 13th edition. Upon inspecting the paper, he found two articles that he found “inappropriate.” The two articles contained stories about divorce and teen pregnancy. An article on divorce featured a student who blamed her father’s actions for her parents’ divorce.
FACTS: Respondent, Davis, a licensed LPN for over ten years who also lives with hearing loss applied for admissions to Southeastern Community College. The Petitioner, requested Davis see an audiologist before accepting her to the RN program. The audiologist concluded that Davis required lip-read in order to fully understand audible communication. The school subsequently denied Davis entry, assuming her hearing loss would affect her ability to effective care for patients safely.
A teacher’s most important duty is to protect the students they are in charge of. This duty includes both reasonably protecting students from harm and, when a student is harmed, reporting it to the proper authorities (Gooden, Eckes, Mead, McNeal, & Torres, 2013, pp. 103-109). There have been many court cases that reiterate this duty of school staff. One such case is Frugis v. Bracigliano (2003) where many staff at a school failed in their duty to protect students and allowed abuse to continue for years.
Five students, lead by Senior Steven Pico, gathered to object the school board's ruling and filed a lawsuit that made it to the Supreme Court in 1982. They stated that the Parents of New York United's concern was based solely in a complain about the books going against the group's subjective values, and not the objective value of providing quality education to the students of the Island Tree School District. The student's objection to the school board's ruling to remove the ...
In 1974, Brooker T. Hillery Jr., John Larry Spain, Bobby Bly, and Michael Shane Guile, four Californian prison inmates, and Eve Pell, Betty Segal, and Paul Jacobs, three journalists, filed a lawsuit against Raymond K. Procunier, the Director of the California Department of Corrections. The suit was filed in regards to the constitutionality of the California Department of Corrections Manual Regulation 415.071. The manual regulated that the press and media could not specify particular inmates to be interviewed. However, the regulation did allow random inmates to be interviewed by the media. This regulation was passed following a brutal prison incident that officers believed was the result of allowing specified prisoner and press interviews. The
"Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26, ET AL. v. Pico, By His Next
Jackson vs. Birmingham Board of Education (2005) is a more recent case that still fights against one of history?s most common topics; equal rights. This will always stand as one of the greatest problem factors the world will face until eternity. These issues date back for years and years. This case was brought to the Supreme Court in 2004 for a well-known topic of sexual discrimination. It helped to define the importance of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972
The students’ parents believed the issue was still unresolved so they hired attorneys to try the case in court. The lawsuit asked for two things; the first was an injunction to stop the school from enforcing the rule prohibiting the black armbands. They had also requested nominal damages which was a small amount of money sought for the violation of the plaintiff’s rights. In this case, nominal damages equaled one dollar (Farish, 33). The first trial took place in July 1966 and was tried by only a judge. There was no jury involved (Farish, 38). Five weeks later the judge returned with his decision; the plaintiff’s request for injunction and nominal damages was denied. The Tinkers were still not satisfied with the outcome and decided to appeal to the next higher court which was the Eighth Circuit. Meanwhile back in Des Moines, Iowa the community reacted angrily to the act of the students while the trial was taking places. Mary Beth Tinker recalls red paint being thrown at the Tinker residence and threatening phone calls (Farish, 41). When the trail in the Eighth Circuit had finally concluded, it had ruled that the Tinkers had lost yet again. The case was then taken to Supreme Court after careful consideration by both sides’
Fraser's father brought action against the school board in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. He alleged the suspension and punishment were a violation of his son's First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The father sought injunctive and monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. of 1983. The district court awarded the student $278 in damages, $12,750 in litigation costs and attorney's fees, and ordered the school district not to prevent the student from speaking at the commencement ceremonies.
Vernonia School District v. Acton was a US Supreme court decision that aims to uphold the constitutionality affecting random drug testing implemented by local public schools in Vernonia, Oregon States. This provision mandates student athletes to undergo drug testing before they are going to be allowed to participate in sporting activities. This particular measure established by the constitution stated that it propagates any illegal use of any prohibited substances for students in order to preserve the integrity of the society in particular with handling against drug use. An official investigation led to the discovery that high school athletes in the Vernonia School District participated in illicit drug use. School officials were concerned that drug use increases the risk of sports-related injury. Consequently, the Vernonia School District of Oregon adopted the Student Athlete Drug Policy which authorizes random urinalysis drug testing of its student athletes Substance abuse materials may include marijuana, which is cannabis that is commonly used by teens.
The case under review involves Bill Foster, who attends a large high school in the northeastern part of the United States. Due to a strong gang presence in the high school, the administrators created a strict policy which denies students the wearing of earrings, jewelry, athletic caps, and emblems. Foster was suspended for wearing an earring to school. He claims that wearing the earring was a form of his self expression and individuality; his intention was not as a gang emblem, but rather a means to attract girls. Foster is suing the school district for violation of his freedom of expression right, guaranteed under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Dred Scott v. Stanford is a case in which an African-American man sued for his freedom. In 1833, Dr. John Emerson purchased a slave. He moved to the Wisconsin Territory with Dred Scott, his slave. Slavery was banned there due to the Missouri Compromise. Because Emerson was in the army, he would go away for long periods of time, and Scott would get small paying jobs while Emerson was away. In 1843 Dr. Emerson passed away, and left Dred Scott, Scott’s wife, and their children to his wife, Eliza Irene Sanford. In 1846, Dred Scott attempted to use the money he had earned over the years to buy his family’s freedom from Sanford, but she would not accept the offer. When Dred Scott was refused his freedom, he decided to sue Sanford for his freedom in a state court. His argument was that he was legally free because he had been living in a territory were slavery had been outlawed. In 1850, Scott was declared free, but Eliza Sanford did not want to deal with the case, so she left the Scott family to her brother, John Sanford, to deal with her affairs. During the time of the case, Scott’s wages were being withheld, and he was owed money from Mr. Sanford. He was not willing to pay Dred Scott his money, so he appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court overruled the state court’s decision, ruling in favor of Sanford.
In Morse, Joseph Frederick, a student at a school supervised event, held up a banner with the message “Bong Hits 4 Jesus”. After he refused to take it down, Deborah Morse, the school principle, took the banner and suspended Frederick for 10 days. This punishment was based on his violation of school policy, which forbids the display of anything promoting illegal drug use. The Supreme Court held that schools are not violating a student’s First Amendment rights when they take measures to protect the students from the promotion of illegal drug use while under the supervision of the school.
...‘Consideration: Practical benefit and the Emperor’s new clothes’ in Beatson and Friedmann (eds). Good Faith and Fault in Contract Law (Oxford University Press, 1995);