Adjunct Law Prof Blog

2d Cir Upholds New York's Ban on Subversive Techniques In Special Education

Bryant v. NYS Education Dep't., ___F.3d___(2d Cir. Aug. 20, 2012).  Download Bryant

Subversive techniques are a form of punishment designed to induce appropriate behavior. They are very controversial, to say the least, and not used in most main stream programs. New York has taken the lead and outlawed them altogether. 

In this decision, the 2d Circuit upholds the New York regulation which ban it. 

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

School Law Jobs

School Law Jobs
Job Title	Employer	Job Location
Special Education Attorneys	Harbottle Law Group	Orange County, California
Associate Attorney	Semple, Farrington & Everall, P.C.	Denver, Colorado
Public Finance Lawyer	Drummond Woodsum	Portland, Maine
School and Special Education Lawyer	Drummond Woodsum	Portland, Maine
Employment Lawyer	Drummond Woodsum	Portland, Maine
School Board Attorney	Portsmouth Public Schools	Portsmouth, Virginia

Davidoff, The Economics of Law Schools, and Adjunct Faculty

There has been much written in the blogosphere about Steven M. Davidoff's essay in the New York Times earlier this week as well as to Paul Campos's response to it, and I do not have much to add other than to say that I have just read the online comments to the Davidoff piece and I found there a substantially positive review for the value that adjunct faculty brings to the overall law school educational experience.  This seems worth observing here, this being the Adjunct Law Profs Blog and all.

Craig Estlinbaum

Vault.com Law Firm Rankings

For what it is worth, vault.com recently released their annual rankings of law firm summer associate programs, here. The top 20 were as follows:

1	NR		Fish & Richardson P.C.	7.967	Boston, MA
2	NR		Baker & Hostetler LLP	7.958	Cleveland, OH
3	NR		Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP	7.933	New York, NY
4	NR		Williams & Connolly LLP	7.812	Washington, DC
5	NR		Arent Fox LLP	7.805	Washington, DC
6	NR		Baker & McKenzie	7.792	Chicago, IL
7	NR		Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP	7.791	New York, NY
7	NR		Ropes & Gray LLP	7.791	Boston, MA
8	NR		Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP	7.766	Los Angeles, CA
9	NR		Chadbourne & Parke LLP	7.747	New York, NY
10	NR		Venable LLP	7.744	Washington, DC
11	NR		Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC	7.742	Memphis, TN
12	NR		Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz	7.736	New York, NY
13	NR		Allen & Overy LLP (US)	7.694	New York, NY
14	NR		O'Melveny & Myers LLP	7.673	Los Angeles, CA
15	NR		Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP	7.659	Philadelphia, PA
16	NR		Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP	7.632	Los Angeles, CA
17	NR		Haynes and Boone, LLP	7.621	Dallas, TX
18	NR		Quarles & Brady LLP	7.612	Milwaukee, WI
19	NR		Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP	7.602	Washington, DC
20	NR		Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP	7.587	Washington, DC

What Does Tenure Mean In The Context Of Private Employment??

With respect to public employment, tenure is equated with permanent employment. It creates a property right and as a result, tenured employees cannot be disciplined without due process. But, what about private employment? Branham v. Thomas M. Cooley Law School, ____F.3d____(6th Cir. Aug. 6, 2012), address this exact issue in the context of a termination of a law professor at a private law school.

The court explains that tenure is NOT lifetime employment. Rather, it is a contractual right and its meaning is derived from the terms of the contract. As the court states:

As the district court noted, and as Branham concedes, “‘tenure’ [does not] mean[]
anything other than what [Branham’s] employment contract provides.”  Further, under
Michigan law, “contracts for permanent employment are for an indefinite period of time
and are presumptively construed to provide employment at will.”  Rowe v. Montgomery
Ward & Co., 473 N.W.2d 268, 271 (Mich. 1991).  The term “tenure” is not defined in
Branham’s employment contract, but Branham contends that “tenure” means “lifetime
appointment” or “continuous employment.”

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Fifth Circuit Upholds Texas Open Meetings Act

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Tuesday issues a 3-0 decision upholding the Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA) over a First Amendment free speech challenge.  The case is Asgeirsson v. Texas Attorney General, No. 11-50441 (5th Cir. Sep. 25, 2012).

TOMA provides that most government meetings be open to the public, and provides that violations are punishable by a $500 fine and up to six months in county jail.  Asgeirsson and other municipal officials challenged this penalty as violating free speech.   The appellate panel rejected the argument, finding the prohibitions against private meetings to be a permissible, content-neutral time, place or manner restriction.  The court also rejected claims that the TOMA public meeting requirement is unconstitutionally overbroad or vague. 

More at Grits For Breakfast and Dallas Morning News Investigates Blog.

Craig Estlinbaum

Some Hospitals are Going Without Malpractice Insurance

This is a scarey thought. Some New York hospitals are going without malpractice insurance. While some of these institutions are saving money on their own to pay out future claims; others are not. A New York Times article about this practice is available here.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

5th Circuit Holds District Did Not Violate IDEA By Removing Student From Regular Education Class

J.H. v. Fort Bend Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 11-20718 (5th Cir. July 26, 2012), is an interesting special education decision. The 5th Circuit upheld a district court’s determination that a Texas district complied with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act when it placed a disabled student in special education science and social studies classes, after he struggled in general education classes for these subjects. J.H.’s parents objected to the placement, but his teachers and independent evaluators testified that J.H. was unable to grasp the concepts being taught in general education classes, leading the panel to conclude that he did not gain an educational benefit from the classes.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

 

9th Circuit Holds District Violated IDEA By Not Providing IEP Notwithstanding Parents Lack of Cooperation

Anchorage Sch. Dist. v. M.P., No. 09-189 (9th Cir. July 19, 2012), is an interesting IDEA case. The 9th Circuit held that a school district failed to provide a special education student with a free appropriate public education as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), when the district failed to update the student’s individualized educational plan annually, concluding that the Parents’ alleged lack of cooperation did not excuse the district from its procedural duty to do so.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein