An arrest does NOT guarantee a conviction. We may be able to get the charges reduced or dismissed without a trial. Visit our page on Nevada criminal defense laws to learn more.
Recently there has been a rash of lawsuits in which parents have accused Nevada teachers, school officials and school districts of abuse or causing serious injury to students.
Some of these suits have made headlines – particularly in cases involving criminal activity, such as sexual assault.
But even simple accidents and mistakes can leave students damaged and teachers vulnerable.
To help you better understand when parent can sue for injuries to a student, our Las Vegas personal injury lawyers have compiled a list of five common situations which can lead to liability in Nevada schools.
In Nevada, a teacher can be sued for any breach of a duty of care to a student.
Such claims fall into two broad categories:
Intentional wrongs include actions such as bullying, defamation and acts that can result in criminal charges, such as violations of:
Lawsuits for such intentional acts often include additional charges, including (without limitation) liability under Nevada’s intentional infliction of emotional distress law.
School districts and officials are generally not liable for intentional wrongs committed by teachers or during other acts outside the scope of the teacher’s employment unless the school district itself was negligent in the hiring, retention or supervision of the teacher (discussed below).
When a teacher is negligent, however, the school district can generally be held liable under Nevada’s doctrine of (vicarious employer liability) as long as:
Example: Madison, a 6-year old, is injured when she falls off school climbing equipment at recess. At the time of the accident, Madison’s teacher was checking her text messages instead of watching the kids. Supervising the playground was within the scope of the teacher’s employment and playground injuries are a normal risk at school. Thus both the teacher and the school district are potentially liable for Madison’s injuries.
Normally, a school district is not responsible for wrongs intentionally committed by teachers or other employees.
However, under certain circumstances, a school district may be liable under Nevada’s law on negligent hiring, retention, or supervision. The law applies when the school:
This cause of action is often alleged in civil lawsuits based on teacher abuse or harassment. When it is established, it allows plaintiffs to recover from the school district, which usually has deeper pockets than the teacher alone.
For example, in 2016, the Washoe County School District was sued for the abuse of disabled students by school employees three times in a two-month period in 2015. The suits came on the heels of a $1.35 million settlement for similar claims of abuse against a teacher at Picollo School, the district’s segregated site for children with severe disabilities.
During one incident alleged in the suit, a teacher’s aide reportedly slapped a disabled child and told him, “That’s what you get for hitting another kid and now you know how it feels.”
And in 2015, the Las Vegas Sun reported that more than 30 Clark County School District employees were arrested for alleged sexual misconduct in the previous decade.
While some teachers are convicted under Nevada’s criminal laws, getting a criminal conviction can be difficult. And unfortunately, teacher contracts in Nevada often prevent a teacher from being fired for abuse absent such a conviction.
However, once a school is on notice that an employee presents a potential danger to students, officials must take reasonable steps to protect child safety. Reasonable steps might include requiring an aide to be present at all times a teacher is with students, or removing the teacher from active classroom duties.
Lawsuits against school districts sometimes result from an alleged violation of a student’s constitutional rights. Such claims often include (without limitation):
Claims for violating students’ constitutional rights in Nevada are typically brought in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada — either at the Lloyd D. George Courthouse in Las Vegas or the Bruce R. Thompson Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in Reno.
These claims can be difficult to win. Courts give schools more freedom to limit student activities at school than apply to adults in other situations.
For instance, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held that mandatory dress codes s in schools are legally enforceable as long as:
Thus a rule preventing students from exposing their midriff would most likely be upheld as reasonable since such a rule would be gender-neutral and arguably would help prevent against sexual assault.
However, what is considered reasonable today might be different tomorrow. For instance, in 1971 the 9th Circuit upheld a rule prohibiting male students from having long hair. Today, such a rule would likely not be considered gender-neutral. It might also constitute gender discrimination in violation of Title IX (discussed below).
Schools are also not allowed to prohibit speech merely because they find the content offensive. For instance, in a famous free speech in schools case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a school could not prevent students from wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. On the other hand, a rule preventing children from wearing gang colors would probably be upheld as it serves the purpose of preventing violence.
Schools may also not require students to engage in or promote speech they or parents find offensive. For instance, a school cannot require students to say the pledge of allegiance or salute the flag. Nor can a student be forced to wear a uniform containing a school motto.
And finally, federal courts have upheld the right of students to be free from unreasonable searches. For a search to pass muster under the Fourth Amendment, three conditions must be satisfied:
For instance, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld as reasonable the search of the purse of a student who was accused of smoking in the bathroom. But requiring a student accused of drug possession to remove her clothes down to her underwear, and then pull out the bands on her bra and underpants constituted an unreasonable strip search by the school.
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any educational programs. It applies to all schools receiving federal funds for any purpose.
Schools that violate Title IX can be liable to students for damages arising from intentional torts by teachers, such as:
To maintain an action for damages under Title IX, however, the plaintiff must prove that:
For instance, recent lawsuits over North Carolina’s controversial bathroom bill have used Title IX discrimination as their basis.
In 2015, the Nevada legislature introduced a law similar to N. Carolina’s after the Washoe County (Reno) school district adopted a policy allowing transgender students to use restroom and shower facilities of their choice, based on their self-perceived gender. The Nevada law — AB 375 — would have required students to use bathrooms and locker rooms that corresponded to their biological sex. However, the Nevada assembly narrowly rejected AB 375 on a 22-20 vote.
Some injuries that occur at a school have nothing to do with teachers or school districts, but are the result of accidents over oversights that could occur anywhere.
However, just because an injury resulted from an accident, it doesn’t mean the school wasn’t liable.
Common causes of injuries for which Nevada schools may be liable include (without limitation):
School shouldn’t have to be a scary or dangerous place for you or your child. Unfortunately, it sometimes is.
If you or your child was injured at school in Nevada we invite you to call our Las Vegas personal injury attorneys for a free consultation to find out whether you might have a remedy.
A former Los Angeles prosecutor, attorney Neil Shouse graduated with honors from UC Berkeley and Harvard Law School (and completed additional graduate studies at MIT). He has been featured on CNN, Good Morning America, Dr Phil, The Today Show and Court TV. Mr Shouse has been recognized by the National Trial Lawyers as one of the Top 100 Criminal and Top 100 Civil Attorneys.