New Caselaw 2006 2007 Lessons to Be Learned

50 %
50 %
Information about New Caselaw 2006 2007 Lessons to Be Learned

Published on April 14, 2008

Author: Reinardo


New Interesting Case Law:  New Interesting Case Law Juan J. Cruz Escamilla & Poneck, Inc. Free Speech Issues:  Free Speech Issues Students now disciplined for actions occurring on computers, at home and after school hours. Pennsylvania student with no disciplinary history created a parody of the HS principal on using grandmother’s computer after school According to court documents, his entries ranged from nonsense to crude juvenile humor Out of school speech that subsequently carries over into school setting… What Resulted…:  What Resulted… Student was placed in DAEP Banned from school activities (of which he was a participant) Banned from participation in HS graduation ceremony Sued district and attempted to get a Temporary Restraining Order US District Ct in PA said…:  US District Ct in PA said… Heightened scrutiny for out of school speech However, other issues involved such as disruption of the school day… District presented evidence that computer system actually had to be shut down District technology coordinator had to devote ¼ of his time to dealing with disruption – installing additional firewalls and blocking inappropriate addresses Violation of school policy on use of picture Violation of ban on accessing website from school computer Ct denied student’s request for injunction in Layshock v. Hermitage Schl. Dist., 2:06-cv-116 (W.D. Pa 2006) HOWEVER… Layshock update…:  HOWEVER… Layshock update… PA federal district court has now ruled that student’s free speech rights were violated Off campus speech versus school related speech Not enough connection to alleged disruption of school because three other profiles of the principal were posted and available online at MySpace. Evidence was also unclear as to whether the “buzz” or discussions resulted from the profile itself or the reaction of school officials. Court noted “ the actual disruption was rather minimal,” i.e. no classes were cancelled, and no widespread disorder, violence, or student disciplinary action occurred. Cyberspace issues should be dealt with carefully In Contrast – School Related Speech:  In Contrast – School Related Speech Frederick v. Morse, No. 06-278 (U.S. June 25, 2007) U.S. Supreme Court Case Public school officials may restrict student speech at a school event when the speech is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use. Students at Juneau-Douglas High School in Juneau, Alaska, were released to watch the Olympic torch pass by the school at a event that was school-sanctioned and supervised, but not required. Joe Frederick and other students held up a banner across the street from the school that read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." Principal Morse directed them to take down the banner, which she confiscated. Joe was suspended. He sued, claiming violation of his First Amendment rights. Bong Hits, continued…:  Bong Hits, continued… A U.S. district court held that Ms. Morse "had the authority, if not the obligation, to stop such messages at a school-sanctioned activity." The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the school failed to show a "risk of substantial disruption.“ The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit. The Court rejected the student’s argument that the case was not about school speech, acknowledging "some uncertainty at the outer boundaries as to when courts should apply school-speech precedents, … but not on these facts." It then found that Ms. Morse's interpretation of the banner as conveying a pro-drug message was "plainly a reasonable one." Bong Hits, continued…:  Bong Hits, continued… The governmental interest in stopping student drug abuse allows schools to restrict student expression they reasonably regard as promoting illegal drug use. However, Court rejected argument that the speech was "proscribable because it is plainly 'offensive' as that term is used in Fraser." “Concern here is not that [the student's] speech was offensive, but that it was reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use." No free speech violation. Slide9:  Student Gay Rights Cases Caudillo v. Lubbock I.S.D. (2004):  Caudillo v. Lubbock I.S.D. (2004) A federal district court in Texas ruled that a school district did not violate the First Amendment or the Federal Equal Access Act (EAA) when it denied a gay student club’s request for access to school building. Lubbock Gay Straight Alliance (LGSA) requested permission from Lubbock Independent School District (LISD) to pass out club flyers, use the public address system, and meet on campus. Their request stated LGSA’s goals, which included educating youth about safe sex. Caudillo v. Lubbock I.S.D.:  Caudillo v. Lubbock I.S.D. Addressing their free speech claim first, the district court found that LISD had not engaged in impermissible viewpoint discrimination for two reasons. First, LISD policy forbids discussion of sexual matters and applies to both heterosexual and homosexual viewpoints. Second, under Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988), LISD has the authority to ban speech that is "inconsistent with its basic educational mission." Caudillo v. Lubbock I.S.D.:  Caudillo v. Lubbock I.S.D. The court concluded that EEA’s "maintain order and discipline" exception applied. The court ruled, because LGSA was proposing to discuss illegal activity, i.e., sex by minors. The "well being of the students" exception also applied, because the online material and the group’s goals are at odds with the district’s compelling interest in protecting students from the harms associated with sexual activity by minors and their exposure to sexual matters. Gay Straight Alliance of Okeechobee High School v. Sch. Bd. Of Okeechobee County (2007):  Gay Straight Alliance of Okeechobee High School v. Sch. Bd. Of Okeechobee County (2007) A federal district court in Florida ordered a school board to extend official recognition and the same privileges as other non-curricular clubs enjoy to a Gay Straight Alliance (GSA) club. The court rejected the school board’s argument that its actions fell under one or more of the EEA’s “safe harbor” exceptions because they were meant to maintain “order and discipline on school premises” and to “protect the well-being of students.” Gay Straight Alliance of Okeechobee High School v. Sch. Bd. Of Okeechobee County:  Gay Straight Alliance of Okeechobee High School v. Sch. Bd. Of Okeechobee County While the court agreed that school officials may restrict access to and expression of obscene and sexually explicit material, it found circumstances in the present case different because here the GSA denied it was a "sex-based" club and, instead, asserted that the club’s purposes were "to provide a safe, supportive environment for students and promote tolerance and acceptance of one another, regardless of sexual orientation." Moreover, unlike the club in Caudillo, the GSA at OHS has not stated its intention to contradict school district policy by promoting safe sex. Slide15:  Equity and Discrimination Parents Involved in Cmty. Schools v. Seattle Sch. Dist. (2007):  Parents Involved in Cmty. Schools v. Seattle Sch. Dist. (2007) The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that student assignment plans in Jefferson County, Kentucky and Seattle, Washington that take a student’s race into consideration violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Issue: Whether a school district that had not operated legally segregated schools or that had been found unitary may choose to classify students by race and rely upon that classification in making school assignments? Parents Involved in Cmty. Schools v. Seattle Sch. Dist.:  Parents Involved in Cmty. Schools v. Seattle Sch. Dist. The Court found that the school districts "failed to show that they considered methods other than explicit racial classifications to achieve their stated goals." Districts’ plans were directed only at racial balance, "rather than any pedagogic concept of the level of diversity needed to obtain the asserted educational benefits," which is not a compelling state interest. "The Fourteenth Amendment prevents states from according differential treatment to American children on the basis of their color or race." Parents Involved in Cmty. Schools v. Seattle Sch. Dist.:  Parents Involved in Cmty. Schools v. Seattle Sch. Dist. Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion broke with the Chief Justice’s opinion to the extent that it rejected diversity as a compelling interest. He argued that diversity "depending on its meaning and definition, is a compelling educational goal a school district may pursue." He added that school boards may use means such as site selection of schools, attendance zones, special programs, targeted recruiting, and tracking data by race, which are race conscious but do not lead to different treatment on an individual basis and so would be unlikely to demand strict scrutiny by a court. Ramirez v. New York City Bd. of Educ.(2007):  Ramirez v. New York City Bd. of Educ.(2007) A U.S. district court in New York ruled in March that a teacher diagnosed with epilepsy, depression, high blood pressure, and arrhythmia, all of which contributed to his excessive absenteeism, was not "disabled" within the meaning of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and that, even if he were disabled, he was not a "qualified individual" under the act. Ramirez v. New York City Bd. of Educ. :  Ramirez v. New York City Bd. of Educ. In assessing whether a disability exists, courts decide case-by-case: (1) whether plaintiff had an impairment; (2) whether the impairment affected a ‘major life activity’ within the meaning of the ADA; (3) whether that major life activity was substantially limited by the impairment.“ Mr. Ramirez’s impairments did not substantially limit his life activity of working Ramirez v. New York City Bd. of Educ.:  Ramirez v. New York City Bd. of Educ. Mr. Ramirez had indicated medication "helped a lot" to alleviate his symptoms. The court rejected Mr. Ramirez’s alternative argument that even if he was not disabled under ADA, his employers regarded him as such. Neither Mr. Ramirez’s direct supervisor nor his principal viewed him as substantially impaired in his ability to teach. Rather, they were concerned over his missed instructional days, 52 during 1999-2000 and 42 in 2000-2001. Although he was able to perform his duties within the classroom as a teacher, he was absent from the classroom for almost a third of the school year, and "in addition to possessing the skills necessary to perform the job in question, an employee must be willing and able to demonstrate those skills by coming to work on a regular basis." Burlington Northern v. White (2006):  Burlington Northern v. White (2006) In order to bring a successful claim under Title VII, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he or she engaged in an opposition practice, suffered an “adverse employment action.” The plaintiff, a female forklift operator, sued her employer under the Title VII retaliation. Plaintiff complained supervisor sexually harassed her, for which the supervisor was later disciplined, but thereafter she was transferred from forklift operator to track laborer duty. Burlington Northern v. White:  Burlington Northern v. White The company suspended her for 37 days without pay for “insubordination” stemming from an incident involving a disagreement with another supervisor over which truck she should ride in. Plaintiff filed an internal grievance, which resulted in Burlington’s conclusion that she was not insubordinate. Burlington reinstated her and gave her full backpay, but by this point the damage was done. At trial, the jury awarded her $43,500 in compensatory damages. Burlington Northern v. White:  Burlington Northern v. White Changing her job responsibilities from forklift operation to track laborer, and her suspension-constituted an adverse employment action Court held, the proper analysis is whether the challenged action “well might have ‘dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” The anti-retaliation provision offers employees further protection than the anti-discrimination portions of Title VII when dealing with employees who have filed grievances and EEOC charges, or engaged in any other opposition practice with respect to the Tiltle VII discrimination, school districts must consider whether any contemplated employment action can be reasonably perceived as “dissuading” an employee from making or supporting charge of discrimination. New Federal Regulation Regarding Age Discrimination Issued in Response to Supreme Court Decision :  New Federal Regulation Regarding Age Discrimination Issued in Response to Supreme Court Decision General Dynamics Land Systems Inc. v. Cline, 540 U.S. 581 (2004) Group of employees between ages 40 to 49 could not state an age discrimination claim against General Dynamics for eliminating their retiree health benefits while retaining such benefits for employees ages 50 and over. Age Discrimination, continued…:  Age Discrimination, continued… Former EEOC regulation prohibited any age-based preference among persons 40 or over, regardless of whether the treatment favors the older or the younger person. The new regulations state that favoring an older person over a younger person is not unlawful discrimination, even if the younger person is at least 40 years old. The final regulations are effective July 6, 2007. Final Regulations:  Final Regulations 29 CFR 1625 Clarifies that prohibition against age discrimination is against older age discrimination not against discrimination based on age in general Okay to favor relatively older individuals Example: Help Wanted – 25 to 35, young, recent college graduate – not o.k. Help Wanted – prefer individual over 60 years of age, retiree, or supplement retiree income – o.k. Special Education:  Special Education Winkelman v. Parma City Schl. Dist., 127 S.Ct. 994 (2007) Autistic child’s parents filed for due process in response to an IEP with which they disagreed. Continued to challenge decision of District Court that FAPE had been provided 6th Circuit Ct of Appeals dismissed case and told parents to get an attorney b/c the rights to challenge District belonged to child – not parents who could not represent child as nonlawyers USCt heard case and held - Parents enjoy rights under IDEA; and they are, as a result, entitled to prosecute IDEA claims on their own behalf. Pro se litigant parents can take an IDEA case “all the way up” Slide29:  A Word on Religious Activities over the Holidays Permissible Activities:  Permissible Activities Student Prayer Individual or collective student prayer is permissible during the Christmas season. Students have the absolute right to freely exercise their religious beliefs, whether they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or a member of another faith. Furthermore, students have the right to pray, either individually or collectively, so long as the occasions during which they pray comply with the rules and regulations of the school. Secular Parts of Christmas Hanging pictures of Santa Claus or reindeer in a classroom, giving out Christmas gifts at a party, or singing Jingle Bells as part of a school play is not a violation of the First Amendment *Excerpt taken from “Let’s take the Bah Humbug out of the Holidays: A Guide to Permissible Activities and Accommodations During the Holiday Season,” Jeffrey J. Horner, NSBA COSA Conference (2007). Permissible Activities:  Permissible Activities Holiday Parties Parties that focus on the secular side of the holidays are permissible. For example, exchanging gifts, singing Rudolf the Red-Nosed Reindeer, and enjoying a visit from Santa Claus do not implicate the Establishment Clause. Children should not be compelled to observe or celebrate even the secular parts of the holiday season against their wishes. Christmas Caroling Any Christmas caroling at school, while permissible, should focus on the secular genre of songs. Songs which more directly implicate the birth of Christ, such as Silent Night and 0 Little Town of Bethlehem, would be more problematic. Permissible Activities:  Permissible Activities School Sponsorship of Secular Activities School activities that relate to the secular side of the holidays are not barred by the First Amendment. For example, sleigh rides, gift exchanges, the viewing of Christmas-oriented movies, and other activities which do not promote or inhibit religion are permissible. Permissible Activities:  Permissible Activities Holiday Displays Holiday displays which do not overemphasize the religious side of the holiday are permissible. In the Lynch case, a nativity scene, which was displayed closely to a Santa Claus house, Christmas tree, and a “Seasons Greetings” banner, did not violate the U.S. Constitution. However, in the County of Allegheny case, a nativity scene standing alone inside a courthouse was violative of the Establishment Clause, but a menorah standing next to a Christmas tree and a sign saluting liberty was not. *The lesson learned: Objects which depict the religious side of the holiday, when standing alone, could be violative of the law. That is, a menorah or a nativity scene standing alone could spell trouble. Impermissible Activities:  Impermissible Activities School-Led Prayer. Any prayer led by a school official, or the agent of a school such as a priest, rabbi, or minister, would be violative of the First Amendment. School-Led Songs. Any school-led singing of religious holiday songs, much like a sermon delivered by a priest, would also likely violate the First Amendment. Overtly Christian Displays. As stated in County of Allegheny, any display standing alone which plainly suggests a religious deity or a recognized religious practice would most likely be considered violative of the First Amendment. Impermissible Activities:  Impermissible Activities School Restriction on Student Activities. - Any restrictions by the school to forbid student activities which are religious in nature but impinge on student free speech rights are likely impermissible. The Equal Access Act (Act) makes it unlawful for a public secondary school which has created a limited open forum and receives federal financial assistance to deny access to students who wish to conduct a meeting at school facilities on the basis of their speech, religious or otherwise. Student Religious Groups Organized by the School. - It would likewise be impermissible for school officials to organize student groups that promote or engage in religious activity. Any student-led or student-related groups, such as Young Life or the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, are certainly permissible, but the school sponsorship of these or similar groups could run afoul of the Establishment Clause. From 2006-2007 Texas Case Law:  From 2006-2007 Texas Case Law Lessons to Learn Slide37:  Student Discipline Court analyzed “terroristic threat”:  Court analyzed “terroristic threat” In the Matter of T.T., 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 9927 Student argued with nearby girls and donned latex gloves while beginning to “count down” and rummage in his pockets. Girls fled to principal’s office No requirement that victim or any other person is actually placed in imminent serious bodily injury Requirement – defendant acting with the specific intent to threaten imminent harm Countdown actually heightened imminence of assault. Who is a “Public Servant”:  Who is a “Public Servant” In the Matter of P.N., Ct. App. –Austin, 2006 Tex.App. LEXIS 6878 2006 Assault on public servant charges Court determined that a substitute teaching assistant is a public servant Restraint training was significant in Court decision that employee was engaged in lawful discharge of official duty Policies and practices regarding restraint usually become significant in court decision. Another assault on public servant case:  Another assault on public servant case In the Matter of SC, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS (Ct. App. – Texarkana 2007) “Who started the pushing that morning at Paris High School was disputed…” Duty of teacher’s aide was to keep all students out until a certain time unless they had authorized business. Student charged with assault on public servant when student pushed teacher’s aide Student found guilty of assault against public servant when a 6 person jury found that the student initiated contact against teacher aide. IDEA “stay-put” Provisions Do Not Extend to Juvenile Court :  IDEA “stay-put” Provisions Do Not Extend to Juvenile Court In the Matter of P.E.C., 211 S.W.3d 368 (Tex.App. – San Antonio 2006) Juvenile delinquent charged with burglary asserted “stay-put” under IDEA Cannot be committed to TYC because this would change educational placement Argument rejected Juvenile court is not limited by IDEA which only applies to state or local school authorities Unknowing Possession of a Weapon :  Unknowing Possession of a Weapon Tarkington ISD v. Ellis, 200 SW3d 794 (Tex. App. – Beaumont 2006) (request for injunction granted) Does Texas law mandate the expulsion of student for unknowingly possessing a weapon on school property? Ct said NO – whether discretionary or mandatory, if District sets forth in its SCOC that “intent or lack of intent” IS to be considered than knowledge must be a consideration when determining whether expulsion was warranted Tarkington, continued…:  Tarkington, continued… This does not mean that District must conclusively prove intent whenever it tries to expel for a weapons possession violation What it does mean is that if your District SCOC states that intent or lack of intent will be a factor in decision-making regarding expulsion, then such decision-making must take place Hearing officer should consider information presented by both sides on this issue. In Tarkington, student presented much evidence regarding his lack of knowledge regarding brass knuckles in glove box of his vehicle in school parking lot School’s position was that this was irrelevant – it was not considered in decision to expel Tarkington, continued…:  Tarkington, continued… Hearing officer can consider – and reject – this evidence but should consider if presented Tarkington case had good facts for the student – Passed a polygraph regarding no knowledge Administration agreed that student appeared surprised when brass knuckles were in his car Disciplinary file was “on the higher end of being good” Baseball, track, honor society, maintaining A average “Students are responsible for what they bring on to the campus w/o regard to whether they admit that they know it is there or not” can be changed by language in SCOC “consideration of intent or lack of intent” Slide45:  Transportation Operation and Use of School Bus:  Operation and Use of School Bus Breckinridge ISD v. Janine Valdez, 211 SW 3d 402 (Ct. App. – Eastland 2006) Four yr. old seriously disabled nonverbal and immobile child left on the bus for 2 hrs The court ultimately held that the bus driver’s actions did not constitute the “operation” and “use” of the bus Found that the driver’s conduct was a failure to supervise and immunity was not waived Nevertheless, expensive, time-consuming and negative publicity More Regarding Operation or Use of Motor Vehicle…:  More Regarding Operation or Use of Motor Vehicle… Morales v. Barrett & Luling ISD, 219 SW3d 477 (Ct.App.—Austin 2007) Cross country team practiced by running on side of highway. Coach was in his own vehicle pulled to side of road with flashers on Oncoming car struck and killed student Efforts to overcome immunity argued that parking on road and use of flashers = operation of motor vehicle Court held that decisions made by coach regarding supervision of team were analogous to supervision of passengers by bus driver and not equal to operation or use Discretionary Function v. Ministerial:  Discretionary Function v. Ministerial Allen and Mata v. Gregory-Portland ISD and Ortiz, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 5045 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 2007) Bus driver made U-turn and pulled to the shoulder of highway to let students off bus Two other cars collided with one another trying to stop for bus Sued district and driver individually Ortiz, continued:  Ortiz, continued Driver tried to establish “official immunity” One element for summary judgment for official immunity -- must show that at time of act, employee was performing a discretionary duty Driver said – discretionary -- I decide how to drive bus – speed, control of maneuvers, when and where to stop, etc Court said – driving bus = ministerial function No summary judgment for driver Very recent case – most likely the outcome will be favorable for driver, but….time, expense still involved Child Endangerment:  Child Endangerment Teeter v. State, 2007 Tex.App.LEXIS 1248 (Ct.App.—Dallas 2007) Intoxicated bus driver Convicted on 16 counts of endangering a child – one charge for each student on the bus Tex. Penal Code 22.041(c) Inappropriate actions can lead to criminal charges Slide51:  Personnel Improper Relationship Between an Educator and Student:  Improper Relationship Between an Educator and Student In re Shaw, 204 SW3d 2006 (Ct. App. – Texarkana 2006) Constitutional challenges Statute title says “educator” and language within says “employee” Liberty interest between consenting adults balanced with state’s desire to protect all students – even those of age – from pressures and other difficulties brought on by sexual conduct with persons, not their spouse, employed at their school Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies:  Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies Venegas v. Silva, 2006 Tex.App. LEXIS 8269 (Ct.App. Eastland 2006) Allegation of use of excessive force in use of discipline with student against an assistant principal from Midland ISD Grievance process is important Parent failed to follow through with Level 3 grievance process Lawsuit Dismissed Demonstrates importance of District properly following grievance process Reverse Discrimination Charges:  Reverse Discrimination Charges Beaumont ISD v. Wortham, 2006 Tex.App. LEXIS 8123 (Ct. App. – Beaumont 2006) Caucasian employee charging race discrimination after applying for 20 counselor and asst principal positions Policy says no discrimination In deposition, superintendent pretty much acknowledged the fact that race did play a part in hiring “Best-fit” personnel placement approach did consider race and culture of student population Beaumont, continued…:  Beaumont, continued… Ultimately, court overturned a jury award of over a half million in damages District was able to make showing that despite less qualifications, those selected were selected for valid reasons that were not race-based “An employer is not liable under the statute for a ‘careless’ decision that does not violate the statute.” Nevertheless, a reading of this case shows that it was a very close call for the District Time, energy, expense despite a court win that could be appealed Age Discrimination:  Age Discrimination Kelley v. Humble ISD, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 2504 (Tex. App. – Houston 2007) Substitute teacher was terminated Subfinder system had detailed accounting – demonstrated that she did not accept enough substitute jobs Poor subfinder records – much of case rested with decisions based upon computer generated reports No discrimination – summary judgment for district Immunity – Acting Within Scope of Duty:  Immunity – Acting Within Scope of Duty Lane v. Young, 2007 Tex.App. LEXIS 144 (Ct. App. – Beaumont 2007) Superintendent sued by subject of investigation after investigation into allegations of misappropriation of funds Immunity for acts incident to or within the scope of duties… Similar issue to restraint training Imperative to retention of immunity that employees do not act outside scope of their employment. Lane v. Young, continued…:  Lane v. Young, continued… Superintendent was asked to investigate possible misappropriation of district funds Investigation was turned over to DA CT held that sup’s investigation of transfer of $ out of Dist. account into a private bank account fell within sup’s duties under state law. “The exercise of judgment or discretion” Hazing Offense:  Hazing Offense State of Texas v. Zascavage, 216 SW3d 495 (Tex.App.—Ft. Worth 2007) Wrestling coach at party for athletes, parents, etc. at private home Wrestling team sponsored party but it was not authorized by school administration New members were “slapped or struck” to initiate them into the wrestling team State of Texas v. Zascavage, continued…:  State of Texas v. Zascavage, continued… TEC 37.152(a)(3) is more general than most Chapter 37 language Prohibits a person from “recklessly permitting hazing from occurring” Coach was indicted on four counts of hazing Imposition of a duty on “every living person in the universe to prevent hazing” Held unconstitutionally vague by this court Should serve as a warning to others who are arguably in educator-student relationship Contract Abandonment:  Contract Abandonment SBEC v. Ferester, SOAH Dkt. No. 701-06-2462.EC (Aug. 2006) Teacher resigned from district on January 7, 2005, to be retroactively effective on December 17, 2005, (date he stopped coming to work) Board filed a contract abandonment complaint on January 19, 2005, after finding no good cause for failure to carry out contract SBEC filed for revocation on June 9, 2006 and received default judgment on August 15, 2006 Approximately 1.5 years from date of contract abandonment Constructive Discharge:  Constructive Discharge Baylor University v. Coley, 04-1906 (Tex. 2007) Librarian’s job description and title changed to research librarian– she considered this a demotion and ultimately resigned Sued saying discrimination and constructive discharge She argued – demotion = constructive discharge Ct disagreed – Intolerable conditions must compel resignation THE END:  THE END

Add a comment

Related presentations

Related pages

Medicare Part D Update — Lessons Learned and Unfinished ...

... Update — Lessons Learned and Unfinished Business. Health Policy Report from The New England Journal ... between 2006 and 2007 27 and between 2007 ...
Read more

The Delaware River Floods of 2004, 2005, and 2006: Causes ...

... 2005, and 2006: Causes and Lessons Learned Daniel Kucz, ... World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2007: ... 2006 flooding in the New
Read more

Project Management: Challenges & Lessons Learned

Project Management: Challenges & Lessons ... Learned on projects is that people initiating new projects ... Lessons Learned, Rev. 1.1. March 7, 2006
Read more

Carrie Underwood - Lessons learned - YouTube

... Lessons learned YouTube; 110 videos Play all Top Tracks ... Carrie Underwood So Small CMA's 2007 ... Try something new! Loading ...
Read more

Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned - Chapter Five: Lessons ...

... Lessons Learned. This government will learn the lessons of Hurricane Katrina. ... it flooded three Superfund 81 sites in the New Orleans area, ...
Read more

Tracy Lawrence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

... and "Find Out Who Your Friends Are" (2007). ... 2005-2006: Label change and ... Lessons Learned; Tracy Lawrence; Strong;
Read more

Caselaw: Cases and Codes - FindLaw Caselaw

FindLaw's Cases and Codes section contains resources and links for both state and federal laws. This includes resources pertaining to constitutions ...
Read more

As I Am - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As I Am (2007) The Element of Freedom ... The New York Times stated "As I Am radiates not ... Collaboration with Vocals for "Lesson Learned" along with ...
Read more

Document Title: Police Innovation and Crime Prevention

Document Title: Police Innovation and Crime Prevention: Lessons Learned from Police Research over the ... 2006). Moreover, in New York City and three other ...
Read more