The second settlement agreement addresses the narrower set of conditions that the United States identified as noncompliant with the EEOA in 2018. In 2016, the United States began conducting a complaint investigation to determine whether the District was appropriately serving its approximately 5,600 EL students as required by Section 1703(f) of the EEOA. The Section ended its monitoring of the 2010 agreement in 2015. This 2010 agreement addressed, among other things, the school district's obligations to: ensure timely, adequate and appropriate EL services train EL teachers and administrators recruit and hire qualified staff for EL students provide translation services for parents and guardians ensure EL students are appropriately evaluated for special education and receive dual services when eligible provide adequate and appropriate materials for EL classes monitor current and exited EL students and evaluate its EL programs adequately. The first settlement agreement was reached in 2010 and aimed to resolve numerous EEOA violations that the Section had identified during a compliance review of all the District’s English Learner (“EL”) programs and practices. This is the United States’ second settlement agreement with the District. Attorney’s Office (collectively the “United States”) entered into an out-of-court settlement agreement with the Adams 12 Five Star Schools (“the District”) in Colorado to bring the District’s English Learner (EL) program into compliance with Section 1703(f) of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA). On October 3, 2018, the Section and the District of Colorado U.S. On December 9, 2009, the parties informed the court that the case could be closed based on the district's implementation of the consent order. Lastly, the district must pay $152,500 to compensate the student victims and to pay their attorney's fees.
#Synopsis for college website how to#
The consent decree also requires the district to educate school board members and employees regarding how to respond to sexual harassment complaints. The district must retain an expert regarding sexual harassment training and prevention to assist in developing the comprehensive plan, to evaluate the district's sexual harassment policies, to conduct a school climate assessment, and to develop a mandatory training program. On March 22, 2006, the court approved a consent decree that requires the district to develop and implement a comprehensive plan that will ensure a discrimination-free educational environment for all students. On August 25, 2004, the court granted the United States' intervention motion.
The district opposed the United States' intervention, and the United States filed a reply. The United States filed an intervention brief and complaint-in-intervention alleging that Mawhinney sexually harassed the four plaintiff students as well as other female high school students during his ten-year tenure as principal and that the school district violated Title IX by acting with deliberate indifference to known sexual harassment of these students.
The plaintiffs alleged that the school district and Mawhinney violated state and federal laws, including Title IX. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on May 9, 2003, by four current and former high school students and a school employee. Rhinebeck Central School District and Thomas Mawhinney, a sexual harassment case brought against the Rhinebeck Central School District and the former high school principal Thomas Mawhinney. On March 18, 2004, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York and the Section moved to intervene in A.B.
0 kommentar(er)
