appropriate administrator or the head of school so upper administration can ensure their assessment was accurate. There have been many circumstances in which an employee erroneously believed, for example, that a nonschool event is not reportable, when in fact it was. Having this “failsafe” procedure may ensure that all such incidents are reported.


The 21st Century Scourge of Sexting


Finally, many employees and administrators do not always realize that sexting may constitute reportable abuse in certain circumstances. Under many state laws, a reportable incident may occur even if the photo does not fit into the definition of juvenile sexual abuse set forth above. In many states, any photograph, video, or image of a minor taken by another minor is reportable as child abuse if it evidences nudity, partial nudity, or lewd or sexual acts by minors; is then transmitted over the Internet; and the image reflects coercion or is transmitted to a large number of individuals.


Child abuse authorities have not clearly defined how many people constitute a “large number” of individuals. Our advice to school clients is that if the image is transmitted over the Internet to more than three people, the school should report it out of an abundance of caution. After all, a mere three people can transmit the image to many more recipients, and it may quickly fill the Internet.


Your obligation, at the end of the day, is to protect the child. When child abuse authorities receive reports


of sexting, they typically turn the matter over to law enforcement. In most cases, law enforcement approaches the situation with the intent to remove the images from the Internet. In the most egregious circumstances they charge students with crimes, but more often they take an educational approach. They may also confiscate the student’s electronic devices.


Conclusion


All of these issues are good reasons for you to regularly update your institution’s child abuse policies (the laws change frequently) and to repeatedly train your employees. We know that many administrators feel there are more important subjects to cover during teacher workweek or in-service days. However, it is far better to spend an hour or two at the beginning of each school year addressing these important issues (along with student-adult boundaries) than incorrectly believing that your community members understand their obligations and your school’s expectations.


For more information, contact the author at SBogdan@ fisherphillips.com or 954.847.4705. Suzanne Bogdan is the managing partner in the Fort Lauderdale office. She handles all types of employment-related matters, including claims for age, race, sex, disability, religious, and national origin discrimination arising under the various civil rights laws, as well as claims involving family leave issues, wage hour matters, and breach of contract. Suzanne is also the chair of the firm’s Education Practice Group, actively representing more than 100 private educational institutions in employee, student, and board issues.


Avoid Uber-Liability by Restricting Ridesharing


Services on Campus By Dana Chang Reprinted with permission from Fisher Phillips Education Update (No.4, October 2016).


It’s 4:30 p.m., school soccer practice has just ended, and 11-year-old Cynthia calls her mom to pick her up at school. Her mom tells Cynthia that she is busy at work, but has requested an Uber to pick her up. Just as she gets off the phone, a car with an Uber sticker on the window pulls up to your school’s pick-up area, and Cynthia enters the stranger’s car to be taken home. While the story may end with Cynthia arriving home safely, what if it does not? What responsibility, if any, might your school bear?


An increasing number of students and parents are abandoning yellow school buses and parent carpools for ridesharing services such as Uber and Lyft. While these methods of transportation may be a welcome alternative for parents, you should be aware of the potential liability associated with permitting your students to leave campus using such a service.


Schools Are Responsible for Student Safety


Under the doctrine of in loco parentis, schools are charged with the responsibility to provide care and safety for their students. The term “in loco parentis” literally means “in the place of the parent.” Because of this special relationship, schools have an affirmative duty to protect students from known and foreseeable dangers on school campuses during school hours.


This duty can extend outside school hours when students remain within the school’s charge and, in some circumstances, off school premises when the risk of harm is foreseeable. Many courts have determined that schools have a duty of reasonable care to ensure that a responsible person assumes the care and control of the student after dismissal.


32 |


27.2


© 2016 by the Association of Christian Schools International


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24