What is a student discrimination and harassment prohibition?

Useful Rulings on Student Discrimination and Harassment Prohibition

Recent Rulings on Student Discrimination and Harassment Prohibition

LYNNEL DAVIS, ET AL. VS MONROVIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

The special notion to strike was denied as to the first cause of action for failure to discharge mandatory duties under Education Code section 32281 and fifth cause of action for negligent hiring on the ground the gravamen of those causes of action was not protected activity.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

PAUL A. VS. WCCUSD

The opposition cites Education Code section 201(g) to support this contention. Section 201(g) does not exempt a section 220 claim from the claims presentation requirement. Section 201(g) deals with remedies. In essence, it says that the remedies afforded a claimant under the Education Code are not exclusive remedies, but can be combined with the remedies provided by the other statutes listed in subsection (g).

  • Hearing

LYNNEL DAVIS, ET AL. VS MONROVIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

Demurrer to the first cause of action for Failure to Discharge Mandatory Duties Under Education Code section 32281 is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND on the ground the pleading does not sufficiently establish that the statutory section is a mandatory duty.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

FAIR EDUCATION SANTA BARBARA, INC., ET AL. V. SANTA BARBARA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

Education Code Section 201 provides: “(a) All pupils have the right to participate fully in the educational process, free from discrimination and harassment. “(b) California’s public schools have an affirmative obligation to combat racism, sexism, and other forms of bias, and a responsibility to provide equal educational opportunity.

  • Hearing

FAIR EDUCATION SANTA BARBARA, INC., ET AL. V. SANTA BARBARA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

(Ed. Code, § 201, subd. (a).) “California’s public schools have an affirmative obligation to combat racism, sexism, and other forms of bias, and a responsibility to provide equal educational opportunity.” (Ed. Code, § 201, subd. (b).)

  • Hearing

INRI COBA VS PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

I § 28(c); Ed. Code §§ 201, 234.1, 8202, 44807, 48915; 5 CCR § 5552.) However, the judicially noticeable documents unequivocally demonstrate that the City does not control or supervise the schools of Pasadena, including the subject school Wilson Middle School.

  • Hearing

ERIC ROBINSON VS LOEWS SANTA MONICA HOTEL INC ET AL

I § 28(c); Ed. Code §§ 201, 234.1, 8202, 44807, 48915; 5 CCR § 5552.) However, the judicially noticeable documents unequivocally demonstrate that the City does not control or supervise the schools of Pasadena, including the subject school Wilson Middle School.

  • Hearing

CHRISTINA CASTANEDA VS B&V ENTERPRISES INC

I § 28(c); Ed. Code §§ 201, 234.1, 8202, 44807, 48915; 5 CCR § 5552.) However, the judicially noticeable documents unequivocally demonstrate that the City does not control or supervise the schools of Pasadena, including the subject school Wilson Middle School.

  • Hearing

JESUS PRADO VS GERSHMAN PROPERTIES PASEO SEPULVEDA LLC ET AL

I § 28(c); Ed. Code §§ 201, 234.1, 8202, 44807, 48915; 5 CCR § 5552.) However, the judicially noticeable documents unequivocally demonstrate that the City does not control or supervise the schools of Pasadena, including the subject school Wilson Middle School.

  • Hearing

ANTHONY TANON VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

I § 28(c); Ed. Code §§ 201, 234.1, 8202, 44807, 48915; 5 CCR § 5552.) However, the judicially noticeable documents unequivocally demonstrate that the City does not control or supervise the schools of Pasadena, including the subject school Wilson Middle School.

  • Hearing

GEORGE NUA VS GABRIEL JIMENEZ JR ET AL

I § 28(c); Ed. Code §§ 201, 234.1, 8202, 44807, 48915; 5 CCR § 5552.) However, the judicially noticeable documents unequivocally demonstrate that the City does not control or supervise the schools of Pasadena, including the subject school Wilson Middle School.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

YOUSEF EBRAHIMIAN VS DOMINIC SCOLIERI

I § 28(c); Ed. Code §§ 201, 234.1, 8202, 44807, 48915; 5 CCR § 5552.) However, the judicially noticeable documents unequivocally demonstrate that the City does not control or supervise the schools of Pasadena, including the subject school Wilson Middle School.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

JANE CJD DOE ET AL VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET

Educ. Code § 201 states in relevant part as follows: “(a) All pupils have the right to participate fully in the educational process, free from discrimination and harassment. … (f) It is the intent of the Legislature that each public school undertake educational activities to counter discriminatory incidents on school grounds and, within constitutional bounds, to minimize and eliminate a hostile environment on school grounds that impairs the access of pupils to equal educational opportunity.

  • Hearing

1

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.