Impact Litigation Ohio v. Matthew Aalim – (Supreme Court of Ohio) A brief for Amicus Curiae was filed on January 8, 2016 by CLC on behalf of ten (10) organizations in this state appeal challenging Ohio laws that require mandatory transfer of youth to adult court. S.R. v. Korzenborn — (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky) This federal civil rights case was filed in August 2015 by CLC, Dinsmore & Shohl and the ACLU on behalf of two Covington elementary school students with disabilities. The children, ages 8 and 9, were handcuffed by a school resource officer (“SRO”) unnecessarily and with excessive force. The complaint alleged that handcuffing the young students violated their Fourth Amendment rights, and that the Sheriff’s Department’s policy permitting the handcuffing of students with disabilities violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. After launching an investigation into the district’s disciplinary practices in October of 2015, the U.S. Department of Justice reached a Settlement Agreement with the district in January of 2017. The Agreement requires the district to take effective steps to ensure its disciplinary policies and practices are not discriminatory. Instead of using restraint and seclusion, exclusionary discipline, and law enforcement response to student misconduct, the district will implement an intervention procedure to better identify and meet the needs of students with disabilities. C.C., J.S., & G.S. v. Oldham County Board of Education – (Oldham Circuit Court) A civil complaint was filed in Kentucky state court on behalf of CLC clients challenging the constitutionality of Kentucky's expulsion statute, which allows schools to expel students without services. While the complaint was pending, CLC filed for a temporary injunction asking the judge to order the school to re-enroll the kids and allow them to attend the alternative school in the intermediary time. The trial Judge granted our request for an injunction, but the school board appealed and the Court of Appeals overturned it, 2-1. As a result, the CLC and its clients were presented with the ultimate conundrum attorneys face with impact litigation: insist on the constitutional challenge that provides the greatest impact and relief to countless future students, or forego the constitutional challenge because it is in the best interest of the current clients. After consultation with the parents and clients, it was decided that staying in school was in the best interest of the kids.

8 Publizr Home

You need flash player to view this online publication