Eh? Is this rule specific to Indiana? States/subdivisions are generally vicariously liable for constitutional violations by law enforcement officers (in Section 1983 suits or the local equivalents). I don’t see why it should be any different for teachers.
ETA: Colley Cibber wasn’t a lawyer.
This is not correct.
States are not liable for the conduct of their agents because states are never liable under 1983 because of the Eleventh Amendment. See Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974). Individual state officials can be enjoined from future conduct, Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 123 (1908), but that’s not about vicarious liability. Agents of the state have to be sued in their individual capacity if you want money damages under 1983.
Subdivisions can be liable, but not vicariously liable.See Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U. S. 658, 691 (1978) (“[A] municipality cannot be held liable solely because it employs a tortfeasor - or, in other words, a municipality cannot be held liable under 1983 on a respondeat superior theory.”).
Ah, thank you.
That doesn’t necessarily mean that the allegations concerning the incident are substantially true. It could simply mean that, faced with angry (and potentially litigious) parents, the school revoked fully-merited discipline in order to avoid hassle (which they got anyway).
It isn’t realistic to reason that the allegations are true from the fact that trhe school dropped the discipline.
Yes, obviously. There’s a big difference between “this evidence tends to support the accuracy of the allegations” and “this evidence means the allegations are true.”
I’m not even of the view that the school dropping the discipline under parental pressure tends to support the accuracy of the allegations.
It is something likely to happen whether the allegations are true or not, as the natural tendency of administrators everywhere is to attempt to make ‘the problem’ go away.
Lawyers know that giving in to demands looks like guilt when stuff is tried in court. Administrators believe that giving in to demands will likely appease the demanding party, meaning that the question of guilt will never arise because there will be no court. The importance of ‘justice’ in the sense of supporting classroom discipline over some alleged petty children’s fault is likely to be a distinctly secondary consideration.
I’m not making some categorical claim of absolutes. I’m saying that the administration rolling over in this case suggests to me that they didn’t think the kid actually said “you’d have to be an idiot to believe in God.”
In my experience–and I’ve sued a few schools for constitutional violations–administrators tend to support teacher discipline because, especially these days, parents fight every little thing.
It depends on the district and the parents and a million other facts, of course. But if you tell me that the administration rescinded the punishment when asked, I’m gonna put a small check box on the side of the ledger that says the kids characterization is more likely true.
In your effort to defend atheism as the greatest thing ever you got whooshed Dude.
Thank God you corrected this fact. Otherwise it completely changes the story to something that is completely different from the actual story.
To me, it isn’t indicative. To put that check in the box, you’d have to believe that the adminstration knew what was true in the first place, presumably because they asked the teacher and/or investigated.
However, the Complaint doesn’t exactly state this. In fact, it doesn’t actually state that the punishment was lifted because of the parent’s complaint.
I went back and looked at it, and it says this:
The compaint doesn’t specify what the punishment consisted of in the first place, or whether the “sanctions and restrictions” were “lifted” because of the demands of the parents or not. In fact, it is careful not to state that (though it is implied by the ordering of the paragraphs).
It could equally be the case that the “punishment” was simply a three-day sitting by herself thing that ran out. We don’t know.
I find this an extraordinarily flimsy basis for making assumptions.
I think maybe you’re missing the context here. You keep characterizing me as suggesting that I’m assuming the kid’s version is correct because of this. But if you’ll read my posts you’ll find I wasn’t doing anything remotely like that. I was addressing a hypothetical, and noted this as one piece of evidence among others for why I didn’t think that hypo was very persuasive.
Your pointing out that the lifting of the punishment is merely an inference and not clearly established only underscores that you misunderstand my point, which was merely about which side of the column this falls on as to the hypothetical proposed. Lots of very inferential stuff nevertheless has the tendency, however marginal, to support one position or another.
You don’t want to be an atheist in Altamont, Tennessee either. An atheist mother received some nasty threats when she complained about a preacher, nicknamed “Bible Man”, that was visiting the children during school hours each month at school. The school would have an assembly(which they claimed children could opt out of, although her child said he didn’t know this was possible and no notices were ever sent home), and the “Bible Man” would indoctrinate the kiddies.
Why wouldn’t you be a believer in Ft Wayne? It’s right there on the map. And as far as I can tell, there is only one Fort Wayne in the world, so you don’t have to worry about believing in the wrong one!
There’s one in Detroit and some remains of one in Oklahoma. Fort Wayne in Three Persons, Blessed Trinity!
Making an “inference” of this sort strikes me as flimsy - even though all you were doing is refuting a hypo. The Complaint simply doesn’t provide any basis for such a refutation that can withstand scrutiny.
Not sure how pointing this out underscores that I don’t understand your point. I do. I just think it isn’t a very good point.
*Full disclosure, didn’t read the article because it is asking for my email to sign up for a free trial.
How could anyone sue the Post for libel? Aren’t they just reporting what the lawsuit says? You can’t be sued for reporting what is in official court documents.
I think he was speaking in generalities, not about this particular incident. As in NO ONE should do this, period, not just teachers in public schools.
Maybe they tried to schedule Superman, but he was busy, so he sent one of the Justice League rejects?
Because you seemed (and still seem) to be conflating weak inference with irrelevance. The existence of other possible explanations for certain conduct does not render that conduct irrelevant or neutral, it just means the inference is weaker.
If you’re not actually making that mistake, then we just disagree on the strength of the inference that can be made from the administration immediately reversing course. C’est la vie.