LATEST SUMMARIES

CIVIL RIGHTS, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, EDUCATION LAW, EVIDENCE, GOVERNMENT LAW, LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW
• Samuelson v. LaPorte Cmty. Sch. Corp.

CIVIL RIGHTS, EDUCATION LAW, GOVERNMENT LAW, HEALTH LAW, LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW
• Filar v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of Chicago

LATEST SUMMARIES

CIVIL RIGHTS, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, EDUCATION LAW, EVIDENCE, GOVERNMENT LAW, LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW
Samuelson v. LaPorte Cmty. Sch. Corp., No. 06-4351
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action for violations of plaintiff's First Amendment rights when his contract as a coach was not renewed in alleged retaliation for comments made about the school, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the school's chain of command policy requires staff members to follow the chain of command only on matters requiring administrative attention, and thus does not restrict protected speech; and 2) plaintiff failed to demonstrate that his contract as coach was not renewed because of the incidences of speech at issue. Read more...

CIVIL RIGHTS, EDUCATION LAW, GOVERNMENT LAW, HEALTH LAW, LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW
Filar v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of Chicago, No. 07-1275
In a disability and age discrimination action arising from a Board of Education's decision to change plaintiff's full time teacher status to a substitute teacher, as well as their refusal to accommodate her need to be assigned to schools close to public transportation due to her health condition, summary judgment for defendant is reversed as to the age discrimination claim and affirmed as to the disability claim where: 1) the court erred as to the issue of similarly situated employees since the seniority scheme at the school could easily be manipulated due to the discretionary freedom given to the principal to make decisions; 2) a legitimate non-discriminatory reason give by defendant was open to two interpretations and slightly preponderated towards a showing of age discrimination; and 3) a requested accommodation was not reasonable since it would amount to preferential treatment under a collective bargaining agreement in excusing plaintiff from certain job requirements, and the ADA does not require waiver of normal job requirements. Read more...