Court: Schools must
protect gay students
LCraven, Star-Ledger
(NJ.com) from the Web, February 21, 2007
Much like employees in a workplace,
gay students have the right to attend school without being subjected to repeated
taunts from other children, the state Supreme Court said today in a ruling that
puts the onus for stopping the harassment on school districts.
The court ruled unanimously that New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination is
intended to protect children from "student-on-student harassment based on an
individual's perceived sexual orientation" and allows those children to sue the
school district if it fails to stop repeated taunts.
"A contrary conclusion would be incongruous with the LAD's prohibition of
discrimination in other settings, including the workplace," Chief Justice James
Zazzali wrote in the opinion. "We do not suggest, however, that isolated
schoolyard insults or classroom taunts are actionable."
The bullied student must claim the discriminatory conduct created a intimidating
school environment that would not have occurred "but for" the student's
perceived sexual orientation and that the school district failed to reasonably
address, according to the ruling.
The state's high court found school districts do not have to eradicate all types
of harassment to avoid liability, but only "implement effective preventive and
remedial measures" to curb the discrimination.
"A school cannot be expected to shelter students from all instances of peer
harassment," Zazzali wrote. "Nevertheless, reasonable measures are
required to protect our youth, a duty that schools are more than capable of
performing."
The decision comes in discrimination case brought by a student against the Toms
River Regional School District. The student, identified only as L.W.,
alleged he was slapped, punched and repeatedly taunted by classmates who thought
he was gay, beginning when the boy was a fourth grader and continuing through
his freshman year in high school.
State Civil Rights Director J. Frank Vespa-Papaleo ordered the district to pay
the student $50,000 for his emotional suffering.
The Appellate Division upheld the order in a 2-1 decision that rejected the
district's arguments that the tough standards applied in the workplace are
unrealistic in the classroom because students, unlike employees, cannot be
fired. The split opinion meant the appeal automatically went to the
Supreme Court.
Contributed by Rick Hepp
|
