April 22, 2024
When considering the involuntary transfer of a teaching staff member, district administrators and boards of education are encouraged to speak with their board attorney to ensure, based on Muldrow, that the full extent of any potential “harms” to the employee are considered and analyzed.
December 27, 2023
On appeal to the Appellate Division, the court considered whether the commissioner of education erroneously expanded the meaning of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) by finding that the named respondents committed a violation, and whether the commissioner erroneously rejected the named respondents’ advice of counsel defense.
November 29, 2023
PERC recently found that a board of education’s refusal to meet and negotiate with the education association in the presence of its bargaining council violated multiple provisions of the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act.
November 20, 2023
The court required the commissioner of education to examine “the claim in question to determine whether it portends the likelihood of protracted, and intractable, litigation between the parties."
September 21, 2022
Courts have struggled to distinguish religious-themed activities and symbols that cross the line from those with enough secular significance to pass constitutional muster.
August 08, 2022
The student’s parent, the petitioner in this case, requested the student to be picked up and dropped off from a daycare center instead of from home, and contended that the student would have made less progress absent the daycare program.
August 04, 2022
The recent Supreme Court decision involving prayer will be the subject of a lively discussion at noon Aug. 11, when Ray Pinney, director of county activities and member engagement at New Jersey School Boards Association, interviews Marc Zitomer, a partner with Schenk, Price, Smith & King LLC
July 22, 2022
Practicing school board attorneys shared insights on recent court decisions, administrative rulings, statutes and codes that affect public education and school district governance.
June 28, 2022
In sum, the court concluded that the district had violated the football coach's First Amendment rights because he was engaging in private speech during time when other coaches were also engaged in private, albeit secular, speech.