
Andrew Brown
Partner
201-896-7703 abrown@sh-law.comClient Alert
Author: Andrew Brown
Date: September 12, 2023
Partner
201-896-7703 abrown@sh-law.comAs another school year kicks off, the New Jersey Department of Education (NJDOE) and New Jersey Office of the Attorney General issued guidance regarding discrimination in school discipline. According to the agencies, the guidance is intended to help schools ensure that their student codes of conduct and discipline policies do not discriminate, either intentionally or unintentionally, against students on the basis of a protected characteristics under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD).
The NJDOE and NJAOG’sguidance document addresses preventing discrimination in school discipline. It explains how the Division on Civil Rights (DCR) applies the LAD to student discipline, with a particular focus on discrimination based on race, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and disability.
As set forth in the new guidance, as applied to student discipline, the LAD prohibits discriminationbased on race, national origin, religion, gender, disability, and other protected characteristics in the implementation of school discipline policies. This includes all steps of the disciplinary process, from behavior management in the classroom or hallways, to referrals to the principal or any other authority figure outside the classroom, to the imposition of discipline in any form, including detention, suspension, expulsion, alternative school placement, or any other disciplinary measures. The NJDOE/NJAOG further advises that the LAD’s protections apply to anyone whom the school or district authorizes to discipline students, including teachers, administrators, school staff, security guards, school resource officers or other officers authorized by the school to engage in formal or informal discipline, and other agents.
The state guidance also identifies two legal claims that may apply to discrimination or bias-based harassment in the administration of student discipline. Differential treatment applies where a student is disciplined differently because of their race or other protected characteristic, either because a policy explicitly treats students of different races differently or because authority figures apply a policy differently to students of different races or other protected characteristics. Meanwhile, disparate impact applies where a race-neutral practice or policy impacts students of one race more severely than it does students of another race, or students with disabilities more severely than students who do not have disabilities.
“With regard to disparate treatment, schools generally violate the LAD when they discipline students differently because of their race, national origin, gender, disability, or other protected characteristic, even if the differential treatment results from unconscious rather than conscious bias on the part of school personnel,” the guidance explains. “With regard to disparate impact, schools also violate the LAD when they discipline students pursuant to neutral policies or practices that have an unequal impact on members of a protected class, unless the school can show that the practice or policy is necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest.”
The NJDOE and NJAOG make clear that, in either case, schools have a responsibility to monitor and address bias-based disparities in student discipline. Moreover, schools that fail to do so can be held accountable under the LAD.
To aid compliance, the guidance also provides several recommendations for school administrators to ensure that students are not subjected to discriminatory disciplinary actions. The recommendation include:
New Jersey school district administrators should thoroughly review this new state guidance and its attendant summaries. It is important to educate school administrators, faculty, teachers, and other staff and make any changes needed to bring school policies into compliance. While the guidance document breaks no new legal ground, it clearly adds to the district’s workload and creates the potential for both compliance challenges and legal liability. Scarinci Hollenbeck’s Education Law Group stands ready to answer your questions or otherwise assist your district as it implements these guidelines.
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Andrew Brown, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at 201-896-4100.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
FinCEN Beneficial Owner Reporting Must be Completed by January 13 for pre-2024 Companies On December 23, 2024, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals lifted the injunction that stayed the enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act put into place by a federal judge in Texas. The result is that if you are required to file a […]
Author: Scott H. Novak
IMPORTANT UPDATE! FinCEN Corporate Transparency Act filings shut down by the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Under the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), entities that were in existence before January 1, 2024 are required to file Beneficial Owner Reports (BOR) with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) before January 1, 2025. Requirements […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
On September 12, 2024, Gov. Phil Murphy signed controversial legislation that will dramatically alter New Jersey’s cannabis, hemp, and liquor industries. The new law aims to regulate the influx of intoxicating hemp products into the marketplace by bringing them under the purview of the New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory Commission (CRC). That means that edibles, THC-infused beverages, […]
Author: Daniel T. McKillop
On May 16, 2024, President Joe Biden announced that his administration is committed to reclassifying cannabis. Shortly thereafter, Attorney General Merritt Garland initiated the formal rulemaking process to move cannabis from a Schedule I to a Schedule III drug under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). “This is monumental,” President Biden said in a video statement […]
Author: Daniel T. McKillop
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to take significant action regarding the regulation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances or PFAS. On April 19, 2024, the EPA released its Final Rule designating PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), which will allow EPA to use the […]
Author: Daniel T. McKillop
Parties involved in a civil enforcement matter by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could soon find themselves facing even more serious criminal liability. On April 17, 2024, the EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance announced a new “Strategic Civil-Criminal Enforcement Policy” (Policy). The Policy is effective immediately and applies to all civil and […]
Author: Daniel T. McKillop
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
As another school year kicks off, the New Jersey Department of Education (NJDOE) and New Jersey Office of the Attorney General issued guidance regarding discrimination in school discipline. According to the agencies, the guidance is intended to help schools ensure that their student codes of conduct and discipline policies do not discriminate, either intentionally or unintentionally, against students on the basis of a protected characteristics under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD).
The NJDOE and NJAOG’sguidance document addresses preventing discrimination in school discipline. It explains how the Division on Civil Rights (DCR) applies the LAD to student discipline, with a particular focus on discrimination based on race, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and disability.
As set forth in the new guidance, as applied to student discipline, the LAD prohibits discriminationbased on race, national origin, religion, gender, disability, and other protected characteristics in the implementation of school discipline policies. This includes all steps of the disciplinary process, from behavior management in the classroom or hallways, to referrals to the principal or any other authority figure outside the classroom, to the imposition of discipline in any form, including detention, suspension, expulsion, alternative school placement, or any other disciplinary measures. The NJDOE/NJAOG further advises that the LAD’s protections apply to anyone whom the school or district authorizes to discipline students, including teachers, administrators, school staff, security guards, school resource officers or other officers authorized by the school to engage in formal or informal discipline, and other agents.
The state guidance also identifies two legal claims that may apply to discrimination or bias-based harassment in the administration of student discipline. Differential treatment applies where a student is disciplined differently because of their race or other protected characteristic, either because a policy explicitly treats students of different races differently or because authority figures apply a policy differently to students of different races or other protected characteristics. Meanwhile, disparate impact applies where a race-neutral practice or policy impacts students of one race more severely than it does students of another race, or students with disabilities more severely than students who do not have disabilities.
“With regard to disparate treatment, schools generally violate the LAD when they discipline students differently because of their race, national origin, gender, disability, or other protected characteristic, even if the differential treatment results from unconscious rather than conscious bias on the part of school personnel,” the guidance explains. “With regard to disparate impact, schools also violate the LAD when they discipline students pursuant to neutral policies or practices that have an unequal impact on members of a protected class, unless the school can show that the practice or policy is necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest.”
The NJDOE and NJAOG make clear that, in either case, schools have a responsibility to monitor and address bias-based disparities in student discipline. Moreover, schools that fail to do so can be held accountable under the LAD.
To aid compliance, the guidance also provides several recommendations for school administrators to ensure that students are not subjected to discriminatory disciplinary actions. The recommendation include:
New Jersey school district administrators should thoroughly review this new state guidance and its attendant summaries. It is important to educate school administrators, faculty, teachers, and other staff and make any changes needed to bring school policies into compliance. While the guidance document breaks no new legal ground, it clearly adds to the district’s workload and creates the potential for both compliance challenges and legal liability. Scarinci Hollenbeck’s Education Law Group stands ready to answer your questions or otherwise assist your district as it implements these guidelines.
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Andrew Brown, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at 201-896-4100.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!