Source: http://www.frazerfeldman.com/client-memoranda.php
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 22:24:41+00:00

Document:
FOIL Request from Data Research Partners.
We are writing in response to the numerous Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”) requests that clients have received seeking names and addresses of school district employees. This memorandum reviews the obligation of school districts to respond to such requests seeking lists of names and addresses. Recently, several school district clients have received such a request from an entity known as “Data Research Partners” (“DRP”) seeking the names, email addresses, titles and “primary campus/department” locations of school district employees.
Enclosed is a copy of the latest article published by Frazer & Feldman, LLP, partner Christie R. Jacobson, Esq. This article is entitled, “Principals Must Make Legal Distinctions on Religious Exemptions to Immunization.” It is featured in the April 2019 edition of On Board, the statewide newspaper published by the New York State School Boards Association (“NYSSBA”).
The 2020 New York State Budget that was recently adopted on March 31, 2019, includes the long sought-after authorization for school districts to create TRS reserve funds. School districts may now establish a “TRS reserve sub-fund” within their existing retirement contribution reserve fund for purposes of financing contributions to the New York State Teachers’ Retirement System, subject to specified annual and overall limits. This new authorization is effective April 1, 2019, subject to the Governor’s veto 1 , and, thus, we urge you to promptly determine whether your district wishes to take advantage of the new TRS reserve fund rules prior to the close of the current fiscal school year. The parameters of the new reserve authorization are detailed below.
The purpose of this memorandom is to hsare the results of a conference call in which I participated yesterday afternoon, together with Neil Block, an attorney from Ingerman Smith, and Michael Goldberger, Kaycee Sullivan, Megan Freismuth, and Rachel Evans, attorneys with the Department of Justice ("DOJ"). The purpose of the call was to discuss the content of my February 11,2019 letter to the DOJ arguing that school districts are political subdivisions under Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act ("VRA"), not political units within political subdivisions.
Decision of the Commissioner of Education Regarding Capital Propositions.
This memorandum provides information about a recent decision from the Commissioner of Education ("Commissioner") which reiterates the fact that propositions that are placed on the ballot must be accurate and unambiguous in order to ascertain the intent of the voters.
Recent Federal Guidance on FERPA.
This memorandum provides information on recently issued federal guidance regarding the application of the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act ("FERPA") to health or safety emergencies faced by school districts.
This memorandum provides information about recent state laws that are designed to help ensure educational continuity for children in foster care. See Education Law §§3244, §3202(4) and Social Services Law § 153-k. The legal changes bring State law into compliance with Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 ("ESEA"), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act ("ESSA") of 2015. These laws set forth school district obligations with regard to the education and transportation of children in foster care.
On January 16, 2019, we held our annual seminar on School District Elections for our clients. Twenty five school district clerks, board members and business officials attended. In addition to covering pertinent dates for the upcoming 2019 annual district election, we discussed in detail the federal Voting Rights Act, which requires that school districts provide registration or voting notices, forms, instructions, assistance, ballots or other materials or information related to an election in Spanish as well as in English. A spirited discussion was held among our attorneys and clients as we brainstormed a school district’s various duties and responsibilities involved in conducting the budget vote and school board election. For those of you who were not able to attend, we are attaching the handouts from the seminar. As always, if you have any questions, please feel free to contact us.
As you are aware, the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") has not yet issued finding of guidance regarding their investigation related to school district compliance with Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act ("VRA"). School districts in Nassau and Suffolk Counties were notifed of the DOJ's investigation on or about June 28,2018, when school districts received letters requesting information form the last annual election and budget vote. Through the letter, the DOJ provided notice that school district elections are subject to the federal requirement that election information provided in English must also be provided in Spanish.
In this installment of the Attorney’s Corner, we review federal decisions by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the District Courts of the Southern District of New York and New Jersey, an administrative decision by the State Hearing Office of Arkansas, and guidance from the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP).
Annual District Election and Budget Vote Seminar – Save the Date.
This is to inform you that we will be holding our annual seminar on School District Elections for all Superintendents, Administrators, Board of Education members and District Clerks who would like to attend. Topics to be covered will include pertinent dates for the 2019 annual district election, legal notice requirements, submission of propositions, voter qualifications, absentee and affidavit ballots, campaigning and electioneering, budget issues, recnet Commissioner's decisions and other quirky election-related items. We will also provide an update on the Department of Justice's investigation related to the federal Voting Rights Act, which requires that school districs provide registration or voting notices, forms, instructions, assistance, ballots or other materials or information related to an election in Spanish as well as in English.
In this installment of the Attorney’s Corner, we review two federal Court of Appeals decisions, a federal court decision, one administrative decision from the Office of State Review (“SRO”), and an advisory opinion from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Services and Educational Programs (“OSEP”).
Amendments to Civil Service Law §75.
Preparation for 2019 Annual Election and Budget Vote.
The following provides an outline of pertinent election dates for the May 21, 2019 Annual Election and Budget Vote. Our annual election workshop will take place in mid January, at which time we will address all elements of the school district election process and review the latest Commissioner's decisions. We will also provide an update on the implications of the Department of Justice's ("Dal") investigation related to school district compliance with the federal Voting Rights Act ("VRA"). In the meantime, we would recommend that you begin the process of translating all election material related to voter registration and the election into Spanish.' We will notify you of the date and time of the workshop in early December.
In this installment of the Attorney’s Corner, we review a circuit court decision, three federal district court cases, and an advisory letter from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (“OSEP”). We start with a case from the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit that addresses what constitutes an appropriate response to bullying in an individualized education program (“IEP”). We follow with a decision by the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York that explores what sort of information is disclosable as ‘directory information’ under FERPA. This is followed by a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania discussing measurable annual goals, and how critical it is for a school district to monitor a student’s progress throughout the school year. We also examine a decision from the Southern District of New York which weighs the impact of a school district’s agreement to provide transportation services for a student to his nonpublic school in determining the student’s stay-put setting. We conclude with a letter from OSEP which discusses a school’s responsibility to provide make-up services following the administration of state assessments.
Second Circuit Court Appeal – F.L. et al v. Board of Education of the Great Neck Union Free School Dist., Case No.: 17-2881.
We are extremely pleased to enclose a favorable decision from the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals, upholding the decision of Judge Feuerstein of the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and dismissing the above-referenced proceeding in its entirety.
Private School Transportation Requests - Students with Disabilities.
Special Education Departments often receive a rush of transportation requests from families who have unilaterally placed their children in private, non-state-approved programs. To that end, this memo reviews the conditions under which transportation must be provided, as well as the information school districts should request from the family to make the determination of eligibility to receive transportation.
The New York State Board of Regents recently adopted emergency regulations' to implement New York's plan for the implementation of the federal Every Student Succeeds Act ("ESSA") 20 U.S.C. 0301 et seq., which sets forth the conditions under which schools receive federal funding. ESSA requires that public schools implement challenging academic content and achievement standards, applicable to all students.
Status Update - U.S. Department of Justice Review of Nassau and Suffolk County School District Elections for Compliance with the Voting Rights Act.
As you are aware, virtually every school district in Nassau and Suffolk Counties has now received a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") seeking information related to the May 2018 annual district election and budget vote. Through the document request, the DOJ is attempting to determine the extent to which school districts have complied with the federal Voting Rights Act ("VRA" ).1 DOJ has designated school districts as "political subdivisions" under Section 203 of the VRA, mandating that they provide registration or voting notices, forms, instructions, assistance, ballots or other materials or information related to an election in Spanish as well as in English.
Dues Deductions after Janus v. AFSCME.
Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, public employers may no longer deduct agency shop fees from employees who decline to join the union which represents their bargaining unit. The decision has placed a focus on what may be considered a ministerial function of school districts, namely, the automatic deduction of union dues from employees' paychecks.
Guide – How to PWN.
In this installment of the Attorney’s Corner, we review three federal cases and a Question and Answer Guidance document issued by the Federal Privacy and Compliance Office. We start with a case from Northern District of New York that addresses IEP errors made by the school district in its attempt to address a student’s school avoidance. We follow with a multi-year challenge in the Southern District of New York which examines the steps a CSE must take to ensure meaningful parental participation when the parent of the student in question speaks English as a second language. We also review a second decision from the Southern District of New York, which examines the dangers associated with over-reliance on progress reports from the student’s unilateral placement. We conclude with a Frequently Asked Questions (“FAQ”) guidance document from the U.S. Department of Education’s Federal Privacy and Compliance Office describing the steps districts must take to ensure interested stakeholders have appropriate access to photo and video records.
Newsday FOIL Request for Payroll Information.
This memorandum addresses school districts' legal obligation to comply with the most recent Freedom of Information Law ("FOIL") request from Newsday, which seeks a substantial amount of employee data for a three year period.' Specifically, Newsday has requested employee payroll data, including each employee's full name, department, title, rate of pay, hire date, termination date, overtime compensation, termination/retirement compensation, and total compensation for each of the three years. A number of clients have asked whether it is necessary to comply with this request. The short answer is yes. A few caveats are set forth below.
This memorandum is designed to introduce new obligations imposed on school district employers by legislation enacted in the 2019 New York State Budget to train staff about the prevention of sexual harassment in the workplace. These new mandates, which were signed into law by the Governor on April 12, 2018, impose several new obligations on New York employers, including school districts, to help prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. Among other things, employers are required to distribute a written sexual harassment prevention policy and provide annual sexual harassment training. These and other changes in the law concerning sexual harassment are detailed below.
This week, each school district in Nassau and Suffolk Counties can expect a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") entitled "Compliance with Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act." The letter seeks certain information related to your most recent annual district election and budget vote in an attempt to determine the extent to which school districts are complying with the federal Voting Rights Act ("VRA").
New Legislation Prohibiting "Lunch Shaming"
This memorandum provides guidance regarding a recently adopted provision of the Education Law which is intended to eliminate embarrassment to students unable to pay for meals at school, sometimes referred to as "lunch shaming." 1 The statute requires school districts to adopt a plan which, among other things, requires school districts to take affirmative steps to assist families to apply for federal or local programs which enable students to receive meals at school free or at a reduced price. It specifically prohibits school districts from implementing practices which single out children who cannot pay for a meal, and requires school districts to take affirmative steps to determine if a family is eligible to receive free or reduced price meals at school.
This memorandum provides important information about new policy guidance from the New York State Education Department (“SED”) regarding the education of homeless students under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (“McKinney-Vento”).
Effective March 18, 2018, school district employees will be entitled to an excused paid leave, not to exceed four (4) hours, for expanded cancer screenings. The purpose of this law is to encourage regular screenings for all types of cancers as a matter of improving public health.
This memorandum supplements our March 1, 2018 memorandum entitled, "Walkout" Scenarios and Student Speech Considerations" As you know, school districts across the country are anticipating a surge in student protests in the upcoming days and weks in response to recent events such as the tragedy in Parkland, Florida. This memorandum lists a few reminders to help districts respond in the case of a student walkout or other mass protest.
In the wake of the tragedy that occurred at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, school districts across the country are experiencing student protest movements in response to school violence. This memorandum provides guidance to help districts respond in the case of a school "walkout" and other mass protests in the school setting.
This memorandum is to inform you of a recent case regarding the eligibility of per diem emiployee for unemployment benefits during school recess periods, such as the Christmas, February and Spring recess periods. In Matter of Papapietro, 2017 WL 6043435 (3d Dept., 2017), the New York State Appellate Division, Third Department ruled that, in the absence of reasonable assurance of continued employment following the Chirtmas recess, a per diem substitute teacher who had worked in the week immediately prior to the recess period was entitlted to unemployment benefits.
This is to inform you that we will be holding our annual seminar on School District Elections for all Superintendents, Administrators, Board of Education members and District Clerk annual district who would like to attend. Topics to be covered will include pertinent dates for the 2018 annual district elections, legal notice requirements, submission of propositions, voter qualifications, absentee and affidavit ballots, campaigning and electioneering, budget issues, recent Commissioner's decisions and other quirky election-related items.
This memorandum provides information about a recent federal court decision addressing the critical importance of collecting data when drafting annual goals for a student's IEP. In Methacton Sch. Dist. v.D.W. and R.W.,o/b/o G.W,1, the Court found that a district's "failure to obtain any baseline data means that the goals themeselves were insufficient to provide guidance to teachers regarding Student's specific instruction [sic] needs."
This memorandum provides information for those of our public employer clients who have made Disability Insurance benefits available to members of any of their employee bargaining units thorugh the New York State Insurance Fund ("NYSIF"). As we have previously advised, such employers are not required to make Paid Family Leave ("PFL") available to these, or any other, employees. Rather, PFL can only be provided, by public employers, as a result of a negotiated agreement with individiual employee bargaiing unit(s).
This is to inform you of new legislation signed by Governor Cuomo on August 21, 2017, originally known as the “Dyslexia Bill.” The bill requires the State Education Department (“SED”) to issue guidelines for school districts to use when evaluating the eligibility requirements and needs of students with specific disorders—such as dyslexia, dyscalculia and dysgraphia.
This is to inform you that the New York State Education Department has published a new Procedural Safeguards Notice: Rights for Parents of Children with Disabilities, Ages 3-21 (“Notice”). Districts must begin using the amended Notice immediately. The revised Notice can be found at http://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/timely.htm and http://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/formsnotices/. The Notice now incorporates procedural changes to Part 279 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education relating to appeals of impartial hearing officer decisions to the State Review Officer (“SRO”). For example, the Notice now includes language to reflect that the SRO must issue a decision within 30 days of an appeal.
This memorandum provides information about a new State law that bans electronic cigarettes, or “e-cigarettes,” on school grounds throughout the State. Effective July 25, 2017, the State Public Health Law was amended to prohibit the possession of e-cigarettes on all school grounds. See id., §1399-o(5). As you may know, “school grounds” include any building, structure and surrounding outdoor grounds that are contained within the legal boundaries of any public or private pre-school, nursery school, elementary or secondary school. See id., §1399-n(6). The term “school grounds” also includes any vehicles that are used to transport children or school personnel. See id.
In the seminal 1982 case, Board of Educaton v. Rowley, the Supreme Court held that, in order for a school district to meet its obligation to provide a free and appropriate public education (FAPE), a child's program must be reasonably calculated to confer an educational benefit.
This memorandum provides information about the newly enacted New York State Paid Family Leave (“PFL”) program. Effective January 1, 2018, amendments to the State Workers’ Compensation Law (“WCL”) will provide for paid family leave throughout New York State. However, it is important to note that, while PFL will be mandatory for virtually all private employers in the State, school districts and other public employers will not be obligated to participate.1 Any public employer that wishes to participate in the PFL program may do so voluntarily, or through collective bargaining in accordance with the Taylor Law.
This is to alert you to a July 2017 document from the State Education Department (“SED”) which contains revised immunization guidelines for schools, and a May 2017 document from SED which contains revised medication management guidelines for schools1 . Please note that although the guidelines do not have the same force and effect of laws or regulations, it is suggested that they be followed. Moreover, a decision not to follow SED’s suggested guidelines which results in injury could result in additional liability for recklessness or gross negligence.
This memorandum provides information about a new Portal available through the New York State Education Department (NYSED) which school districts must utilize when submitting annual reports for legal services rendered to school districts. Please note that for the current school year, annual reports must be submitted electronically through the e-filing system by June 30, 2017. Paper submissions will not be accepted.
This is to inform you of recent revisions from the Office of Special Education division of the State Education Department (“SED”), regarding: (1) the administration of state assessments over multiple days to students with disabilities; (2) superintendent determination of graduation with a local diploma; and (3) application procedures for extended school year (“ESY”) programs.
The following is a reminder of a school district's responsibility to submit timely requests for tuition reimbursement for New York State Education Department ("SED") approved residential placements.
In this installment of the Attorney’s Corner, we review two decisions by the United States Supreme Court; two federal district court decisions, and a “Refusal to Investigate” by the Family Policy Compliance Office.
The United States Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools, which described the circumstances under which a family must exhaust administrative remedies in suits against school districts. Shortly thereafter, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, holding that in order to provide FAPE, an IEP must be “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances[,]” establishing that the validity of an IEP will be determined based upon the needs and abilities of each child. We also look at two federal court decisions. The first analyzes the details important to the courts concerning how a district would implement a student’s IEP. The second clarifies that a committee on special education (CSE) is not required to consider increasingly restrictive program requests from the parent once an appropriate educational program has been identified. We also review an opinion by the Family Policy Compliance Office, which refused to investigate a parent’s request to challenge a child’s quarterly progress reports pursuant to – and the school’s refusal to hold a hearing under – the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) statute.
This is to inform you of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding the level of educational benefit that school districts must provide to children with disabilities to satisfy the free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) standard under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”). In Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, No. 15-827 (March 22,2017), Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the unanimous decision which vacated and remanded the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeal's ruling. The Tenth Circuit decision established that the standard was that an Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) is sufficient if it is calculated to provide a child with some progress. The Supreme Court reversed the decision and ruled that in order to provide FAPE, an IEP must be “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” In doing so, the Supreme Court established that the validity of an IEP will be determined based upon the needs and abilities of each child.
This memorandum is to inform you that on February 27, 2017, the New York State Education Department (“SED”) issued a memorandum entitled Available Guidance and Resources to Combat Harassment, Bullying and Discrimination in Schools in Light of Recent Immigration-related Actions. 1 SED’s memorandum describes resources school districts may access to ensure the Dignity For All Students Act (“DASA”) is fully implemented across the state to foster and maintain a safe school environment.

References: §3202
 § 153
 §75
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §1399
 §1399
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.