Legal Update Memo No. 12-2019 – SB 778 Extends Sexual Harassment Prevention Training Deadline by One Year (CCD)

Download pdf: 12-2019(CC) – SB 778 Extends Sexual Harassment Prevention Training Deadline by One Year (CDC)

As previously referenced in our Legal Update 16-2018, Senate Bill (“SB”) 1343 required private employers (with five or more employees) and public employers such as, but not limited to, school districts, county offices of education, charter schools, and community college districts to provide training on sexual harassment and abusive conduct prevention to all staff.  The training must include at least two hours of effective interactive training for supervisors and at least one hour of effective interactive training for non-supervisors.  SB 1343 required the training to be provided by January 1, 2020, and every two years after.

On August 30, 2019, the Governor approved SB 778[1], which extends the sexual harassment and abusive conduct prevention training deadline for all staff to January 1, 2021, and every two years after.

For those agencies that have already provided the training during the year 2019, the training does not have to be completed again for two years.[2]

As a gentle reminder, new non-supervisory employees are to receive the training within six months of hire and new supervisors are to receive the training within six months of the assumption of a supervisory position.[3]

Please contact our office with questions regarding this Legal Update or any other matter.

Legal Update written by Carl D. Corbin, General Counsel.

The information in this Legal Update is provided as a summary of law and is not intended as legal advice.  Application of the law may vary depending on the particular facts and circumstances at issue.  We, therefore, recommend that you consult legal counsel to advise you on how the law applies to your specific situation.

© 2019 School and College Legal Services of California

All rights reserved.  However, SCLS grants permission to any current SCLS client to use, reproduce, and distribute this Legal Update in its entirety for the client’s own non-commercial purposes.

[1] As “urgency legislation” SB 778 took immediate effect.

[2] Government Code § 1290.1(a).

[3] Id.

Legal Update Memo No. 24-2019 – SB 778 Extends Sexual Harassment Prevention Training Deadline by One Year (K-12)

Download pdf: 24-2019 – SB 778 Extends Sexual Harassment Prevention Training Deadline by One Year (CDC)

As previously referenced in our Legal Update 38-2018, Senate Bill (“SB”) 1343 required private employers (with five or more employees) and public employers such as, but not limited to, school districts, county offices of education, charter schools, and community college districts to provide training on sexual harassment and abusive conduct prevention to all staff.  The training must include at least two hours of effective interactive training for supervisors and at least one hour of effective interactive training for non-supervisors.  SB 1343 required the training to be provided by January 1, 2020, and every two years after.

On August 30, 2019, the Governor approved SB 778[1], which extends the sexual harassment and abusive conduct prevention training deadline for all staff to January 1, 2021, and every two years after.

For those agencies that have already provided the training during the year 2019, the training does not have to be completed again for two years.[2]

As a gentle reminder, new non-supervisory employees are to receive the training within six months of hire and new supervisors are to receive the training within six months of the assumption of a supervisory position.[3]

Please contact our office with questions regarding this Legal Update or any other matter.

Legal Update written by Carl D. Corbin, General Counsel.

The information in this Legal Update is provided as a summary of law and is not intended as legal advice.  Application of the law may vary depending on the particular facts and circumstances at issue.  We, therefore, recommend that you consult legal counsel to advise you on how the law applies to your specific situation.

© 2019 School and College Legal Services of California

All rights reserved.  However, SCLS grants permission to any current SCLS client to use, reproduce, and distribute this Legal Update in its entirety for the client’s own non-commercial purposes.

[1] As “urgency legislation” SB 778 took immediate effect.

[2] Government Code § 1290.1(a).

[3] Id.

Legal Update Memo No. 23-2019 – New Laws Regarding Medical Immunization Waivers (K-12)

Download pdf: 23-2019 – New Laws Regarding Medical Immunization Waivers (JEN)

Two bills approved by the Governor and signed into law on September 9, 2019, will affect students with current or future medical immunization waivers.

A student who has not obtained the required immunizations as prescribed by the California Department of Public Heath (“CDPH”) is not permitted to attend school.  However, current law permits a student to obtain an exemption from immunization requirements by having on file a written statement by a licensed physician stating that the immunization is not considered safe for the student based on a medical condition or circumstances.

Senate Bill (“SB”) 276 requires CDPH to develop an electronic, standardized, statewide medical exemption request that would be transmitted using the California Immunization Registry (“CAIR”).[1]  The standardized form must be submitted to the school via CAIR or must be printed, signed, and submitted in paper form.[2]  After January 1, 2021, no school can accept any other form of medical waiver.[3]

SB 276 codifies the requirement that schools file a report on the immunization status of new entrants to the school on “at least” an annual basis.[4]  The law continues to provide that “[t]he local health department shall have access to the complete health information as it relates to immunization of each student in the schools or other institutions listed in Section 120335 in order to determine immunization deficiencies.”[5]

SB 276 requires the CDPH to review all medical exemptions for: (1) schools with an overall immunization rate of less than 95%; (2) physicians who submit more than five medical exemption forms in a calendar year; and (3) schools that do not report immunization rates to the CDPH.[6]  Under certain circumstances, state health officials could revoke inappropriate or otherwise invalid medical exemptions, subject to an optional appeal.[7]

The second bill, SB 714, makes three changes to SB 276.  First, SB 714 “grandfathers” in some medical exemptions.  If a parent has submitted a medical exemption prior to January 1, 2020, the student can continue enrollment in any public or private school until the child enrolls in the next grade span.[8]  Any students with medical exemptions on file prior to January 1, 2020, cannot rely on that medical exemption to satisfy immunization requirements to enroll in the next grade span.  Second, SB 714 removes a provision of SB 276 that would have made doctors subject to perjury prosecution based on medical exemptions.  Finally, SB 714 provides the CDPH can revoke any current medical exemption issued by a doctor who has been disciplined by the state medical board for any reason.

Please contact our office with questions regarding this Legal Update or any other legal matter.

Legal Update written by Jennifer E. Nix, Associate General Counsel.

The information in this Legal Update is provided as a summary of law and is not intended as legal advice.  Application of the law may vary depending on the particular facts and circumstances at issue.  We, therefore, recommend that you consult legal counsel to advise you on how the law applies to your specific situation.

© 2019 School and College Legal Services of California

All rights reserved.  However, SCLS grants permission to any current SCLS client to use, reproduce, and distribute this Legal Update in its entirety for the client’s own non-commercial purposes.

[1] Heathy & Safety Code § 120372.  The form must contain the doctor’s information, the child’s information, a statement that the physician conducted a medical examination and evaluation of the child, whether or not the physician is the child’s primary care physician, how long the physician has treated the child, a description of the medical basis for the exemption as to each exempted immunization, a statement as to whether the exemption is permanent or temporary, an authorization regarding privacy of the record, and a certification that the record is true, accurate, and complete.

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Health & Safety Code § 120375.  Prior to this law, state regulation, 17 C.C.R. § 6075, required schools to report the immunization status of their students to the CDPH at least annually.  This change codifies this requirement, and, as discussed below, provides penalties for failure to comply with this requirement.

[5] Id.

[6] Health & Safety Code § 120372.

[7] Id.  Students are permitted to continue in their school of attendance pending any appeal.

[8] Health & Safety Code § 120370.  The grade spans are the same as with the phase-out of personal belief exemptions: Birth to preschool, inclusive; kindergarten, including transitional kindergarten, and grades 1 to 6, inclusive; and grades seven to twelve, inclusive. A parent can still submit a medical exemption using the previously permissive methods from January 1, 2020, through January 1, 2021; however, it will not be grandfathered in through the child’s grade span.

Legal Update Memo No. 22-2019 – AB 419 – Discipline for Student Disruption & Defiance Limited (K-12)

Download pdf: 22-2019 – AB 419 – Discipline for Student Disruption & Defiance Limited w attachment (CDC)

On September 9, 2019, the Governor approved Senate Bill (“SB”) 419, which further limits school administrators on the use of Education Code § 48900(k) for student disruption and defiance.[1]

The legislature previously limited § 48900(k) through Assembly Bill 420, effective January 1, 2015, by eliminating the ability of administrators to impose a suspension for students in kindergarten through third grade and removed the ability to expel any student if the sole basis for the expulsion was a § 48900(k) offense.

SB 419, effective July 1, 2020, will further limit § 48900(k) by eliminating the ability of administrators to impose a suspension for students in kindergarten through eighth grade.  SB 419 maintains the restriction on expelling any student if the sole basis for the expulsion was a § 48900(k) offense.  The restriction on imposing a suspension for students in sixth through eighth grades for a

  • 48900(k) offense will “sunset” (expire) on July 1, 2025, unless renewed by the Legislature. Please note that students of any grade can otherwise be suspended and expelled for other violations of §§ 48900 et seq. as applicable.

For your convenience, a copy of SB 419 showing the changes to § 48900 is included with this Legal Update.

Please contact our office with questions regarding this Legal Update or any other matter.

Legal Update written by Carl D. Corbin, General Counsel.

The information in this Legal Update is provided as a summary of law and is not intended as legal advice.  Application of the law may vary depending on the particular facts and circumstances at issue.  We, therefore, recommend that you consult legal counsel to advise you on how the law applies to your specific situation.

© 2019 School and College Legal Services of California

All rights reserved.  However, SCLS grants permission to any current SCLS client to use, reproduce, and distribute this Legal Update in its entirety for the client’s own non-commercial purposes.

[1] AB 419 also makes various non-substantive grammar corrections/updates to § 48900.

Legal Update Memo No. 21-2019 – AB 272 – Student Use of Smartphone (K-12)

Download pdf: 21-2019 – AB 272 – Student Use of Smartphone (CDC)

On July 1, 2019, the Governor approved Assembly Bill (“AB”) 272, which effective January 1, 2020, provides school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools with explicit authority to limit or prohibit the use of smartphones by students (with some exceptions) while the students are at a schoolsite or under the supervision and control of an employee.

AB 272 adds Education Code § 48901.7:

48901.7. (a)  The governing body of a school district, a county office of education, or a charter school may adopt a policy to limit or prohibit the use by its pupils of smartphones while the pupils are at a schoolsite or while the pupils are under the supervision and control of an employee or employees of that school district, county office of education, or charter school.

(b)   Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a pupil shall not be prohibited from possessing or using a smartphone under any of the following circumstances:[1]

(1)  In the case of an emergency, or in response to a perceived threat of danger.

(2)  When a teacher or administrator of the school district, county office of education, or charter school grants permission to a pupil to possess or use a smartphone, subject to any reasonable limitation imposed by that teacher or administrator.

(3)  When a licensed physician and surgeon determines that the possession or use of a smartphone is necessary for the health or well-being of the pupil.

(4)  When the possession or use of a smartphone is required in a pupil’s individualized education program.

(Emphasis added).

We encourage our clients to review and update their student discipline policies to explicitly address use of smartphones by students.[2]

Please contact our office with questions regarding this Legal Update or any other matter.

Legal Update written by Carl D. Corbin, General Counsel.

The information in this Legal Update is provided as a summary of law and is not intended as legal advice.  Application of the law may vary depending on the particular facts and circumstances at issue.  We, therefore, recommend that you consult legal counsel to advise you on how the law applies to your specific situation.

© 2019 School and College Legal Services of California

All rights reserved.  However, SCLS grants permission to any current SCLS client to use, reproduce, and distribute this Legal Update in its entirety for the client’s own non-commercial purposes.

[1] This means LEAs should review their “zero-tolerance” smartphone policies to ensure compliance with the law.

[2] The California School Boards Association (“CSBA”) has a model policy regarding student conduct in Board Policy (“BP”) 5131, which is an ideal policy to update to address use of smartphones by students.  Please note that as of the writing of this Legal Update CSBA had not yet updated model BP 5131 to incorporate AB 272.

Legal Update Memo No. 20-2019 – Know Your Rights Notification Regarding Immigrant Pupils (K-12)

Download pdf: 20-2019 – Know Your Rights Notification Re Immigrant Pupils w attachment (SHS)

In April 2018, our office notified clients of a new law designed to enhance protections for immigrant students and students with immigrant family members served by local educational agencies (“LEAs”), which went into effect beginning in the 2018-2019 school year.[1] In addition to revising several Education Code laws to include protections for these students, the law also requires that schools provide “know your rights” information to parents/guardians related to education rights for immigrant students and students with immigrant family members. The law specifies that LEAs must:

Provide information to parents and guardians, as appropriate, regarding their children’s right to a free public education, regardless of immigration status or religious beliefs. This information shall include information relating to “know your rights” immigration enforcement established by the Attorney General and may be provided in the annual notification to parents and guardians pursuant to Section 48980 or any other cost-effective means determined by the local educational agency.[2]

Our 2019-2020 Annual Notice to Parents, Legal Update Memo No. 10-2019, incorporated the main points of the “know your rights” immigration enforcement document established by the Attorney General in 2018, in compliance with this law. However, we did not attach the entire “know your rights” document, which the law indicates must be distributed by LEAs to parents and guardians.

To rectify this, we have provided the entire “know your rights” document established by the Attorney General in both English and Spanish, attached to this Legal Update. If your LEA has not already sent out its Annual Notice to Parents, the LEA should consider including this document when you send out the Notice. If your LEA has already sent out your Annual Notice to Parents, we recommend making this document available to parents and guardians by any other cost-effective means. For example, LEAs may wish to send the document out with other back to school materials sent home with students, or attach the material to a newsletter or email that goes out to all parents and guardians.

Please contact our office with questions regarding this Legal Update or any other matter.

Legal Update written by Sarah Hirschfeld-Sussman, Schools Legal Counsel.

The information in this Legal Update is provided as a summary of law and is not intended as legal advice.  Application of the law may vary depending on the particular facts and circumstances at issue.  We, therefore, recommend that you consult legal counsel to advise you on how the law applies to your specific situation.

© 2019 School and College Legal Services of California

All rights reserved.  However, SCLS grants permission to any current SCLS client to use, reproduce, and distribute this Legal Update in its entirety for the client’s own non-commercial purposes.

[1] See School and College Legal Services Legal Update Memo No. 09-2018: AB 699 – Required Policies Protecting Immigrant Students.

[2] Education Code § 234.7, subd. (d)(1) [emphasis added].

Legal Update Memo No. 19-2019 – Special Education Update (K-12)

Download pdf: 19-2019 – Special Education Update (KS)

Welcome to the 2019-2020 school year. As part of School & College Legal Services’ commitment to providing ongoing timely resources to our clients, this legal update provides a summary of three special education cases that came out last year.

 

Unilateral Parent Placement:

The Case: The first case[1] addressed a parent unilaterally placing a student in a private residential placement, primarily due to concerns in the home setting, which resulted in a challenge over fiscal and programmatic responsibility. There, the Court found that the school district had no obligation to monitor the student’s progress while in the parental private placement, and could not be required to hold interim Individual Education Plan (“IEP”) meetings to suggest modifications to programs over which the school had no control.[2]

Agency Placement:

The Case: The second case[3] addressed the fiscal responsibility for a student that was placed in a residential treatment center (“RTC”). The parents received financial assistance from the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (“DCFS”) for the cost of the program as the student had been adopted; however, assistance was contingent on the program meeting stringent criteria established by DCFS. At the student’s IEP meeting the home district recommended residential placement at the parent-requested RTC, based upon parent’s representation that they had secured funding from DCFS. The Court held: (1) because the IEP team recommended a residential placement for an educational purpose, the RTC placement was made by the school district where the student’s parents resided; (2) it was irrelevant that the parents had identified the RTC prior to the IEP meeting and that they had secured funding for the RTC prior to the IEP meeting; likewise, testimony from the IEP team that it would not have recommended the RTC without the DCFS funding was irrelevant; and (3) DCFS is not a “public agency” able to make placements at an RTC pursuant to Education Code § 56155.5,[4] as it does not provide special education services.

Attorneys’ Fees:

The Case: Most recently, a court considered a student’s application for attorneys’ fees following a due process hearing.[5] In that case, the student partially prevailed on five issues, and the District partially prevailed on five issues, and fully prevailed on three issues. As remedies, the Student was awarded tuition of their unilateral placement, at a cost of $42,990, and there was no appeal of the ALJ’s decision. The Student filed suit for $218,745 in legal fees related to the due process hearing, and $167,360 in legal fees related to the fees motion. The Court found that the appropriate rate for attorneys in the Los Angeles region, with similar skills as the Student’s attorneys, is between $600 and $650 per hour. The Court also found that it was not inappropriate for the Student to have two experienced litigators attend the due process hearing, despite that the second attorney did not call or examine any witnesses.

These cases remind clients of the ongoing and rising costs of special education litigation. As always, our office is available to assist with preventive solutions to assist in avoiding litigation, including training, IEP audits, attendance and participation at IEP meetings, and other targeted interventions.

Please contact our office with questions regarding this Legal Update or any other matter.

Legal Update written by Kaitlyn Schwendeman, Schools Legal Counsel.

The information in this Legal Update is provided as a summary of law and is not intended as legal advice.  Application of the law may vary depending on the particular facts and circumstances at issue.  We, therefore, recommend that you consult legal counsel to advise you on how the law applies to your specific situation.

© 2019 School and College Legal Services of California

All rights reserved.  However, SCLS grants permission to any current SCLS client to use, reproduce, and distribute this Legal Update in its entirety for the client’s own non-commercial purposes.

[1] N.G. v. Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School District, Case No. SACV 17-02121 AG, 2018 WL 6137196 (C.D. Cal., October 5, 2018). The ultimate decision and finding in this case is non-precedential, meaning no other court, including the court that issued the decision, is required to follow this ruling. Nevertheless, the decision is helpful in ascertaining the potential direction of other courts and ALJs, as it will be looked to as persuasive authority.

[2] The Court also held that the ALJ’s reimbursement finding was appropriate. The ALJ established that the school district had made an insufficient offer of FAPE for a period of approximately two months, where the offered program did not have space for the student; once the school district found a program with space, it revised the offer. Reimbursement was limited to those two months where the offer of FAPE was for the program without space.

[3] B.H. v. Manhattan Beach Unified Sch. Dist., Case No. B281864, — Cal Rptr.3d –, 2019 WL 2171129 (2nd Appellate District Cal., May 20, 2019). Decision may be accessed online: https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B281864.PDF

[4] Education Code §§ 56155-56166.5 apportions fiscal and programmatic responsibility for students placed at a residential treatment center.

[5] Gordon v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist., Case No. 2:18-CV-00919-CAS-JCx, 2019 WL 2511936 (C.D. Cal., Slip Copy, June 17, 2019)

Legal Update Memo No. 18-2019 – AB 743 Amends the Requirements for Self-Administration of Asthma Medications (K-12)

Download pdf: 18-2019 – AB 743 Amends the Requirements for Self-Administration of Asthma Medications w attachment (KS)

Assembly Bill (“AB”) 743 (2019), attached, amends section 49423.1 of the Education Code to allow school districts to accept a written statement from a physician or surgeon contracted with a prepaid health plan lawfully operating under the laws of Mexico. Such a written statement must be (1) written in both Spanish and English and (2) include the name and contact information for the prescribing physician or surgeon.

The revised law also includes protections for school districts, school nurses and other school personnel to ensure that such persons will not be subject to liability, including civil liability, for “acts or omissions related to pupil self-administering inhaled asthma medication” pursuant to a valid written statement from a physician or surgeon. School nurses and personnel are also protected from criminal prosecution related to self-administration of asthma medication pursuant to a valid written statement under the revised law.

Please contact our office with questions regarding this Legal Update or any other matter.

Legal Update written by Kaitlyn Schwendeman, Schools Legal Counsel.

 

The information in this Legal Update is provided as a summary of law and is not intended as legal advice.  Application of the law may vary depending on the particular facts and circumstances at issue.  We, therefore, recommend that you consult legal counsel to advise you on how the law applies to your specific situation.

 © 2019 School and College Legal Services of California

 All rights reserved.  However, SCLS grants permission to any current SCLS client to use, reproduce, and distribute this Legal Update in its entirety for the client’s own non-commercial purposes.

Legal Update Memo No. 11-2019 – New Restraining Order Case and Managing Disruptive Persons (CCD)

Download pdf: 11-2019(CC) – New Restraining Order Case & Managing Disruptive Persons on Campus w attachment (KS)

In June, the California Court of Appeal issued a decision interpreting Code of Civil Procedure § 527.8, which allows employers to seek a workplace violence restraining order against an individual on behalf of an employee.

The case, Los Angeles Unified School District v. Andy Obinna, Case No. B290225, 2019 WL 298399 (Cal. App. June 17, 2019) (“Obinna”), attached to this Legal Update, reviewed the conduct of a parent with “bad behavior,” and the reasonableness of the grant of a three-year restraining order. Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 527.8, employers seeking a restraining order must show that the employee has suffered “unlawful violence or a credible threat of violence from an individual in the workplace.” The Court upheld the restraining order in Obinna based on the “escalating nature of Obinna’s actions, his inability to change his behavior after receiving two reprimands, the frequency and severity of his threats and angry outbursts at the school, and the violent nature of the videos he sent the school by Facebook Messenger,” which included images of a person holding a gun and a knife.

In the event there is a need to remove a disruptive person from campus, clients have many legal options that may be utilized in addition, or prior to, seeking a restraining order under Code of Civil Procedure § 526.8. Below is a brief review of some of the options available under the various laws; however, we recommend consulting with legal counsel regarding each specific event.

Acts Likely to Interfere with Peaceful Conduct[1] – Community colleges may ask non-students and non-employees to leave the premises when it reasonably appears that the person is committing any act likely to interfere with the peaceful conduct of the campus; however, such requests cannot be motivated by a desire to restrict free speech.

Withdrawal of Consent to Remain on Campus[2] – Community colleges may remove any person “whenever there is reasonable cause to believe that such person has willfully disrupted the orderly operation” of the campus/facility, as long as notice is given and an opportunity for a hearing is provided. Courts have interpreted § 626.4 to be limited to removals only if “conduct or words are such as to constitute, or incite to, a substantial and material physical disruption incompatible with the peaceful functioning of the academic institution and those upon its campus,” and “only when the person excluded has committed acts proscribed by other statutes.”

Willful Disruption of Orderly Campus Operation[3] – Anyone (student, faculty, staff, or administration) on a community college campus that is found after a hearing to have willfully disrupted the student body may be subject to a suspension.

Please contact our office with questions regarding this Legal Update or any other matter.

Legal Update written by Kaitlyn Schwendeman, Schools Legal Counsel.

The information in this Legal Update is provided as a summary of law and is not intended as legal advice.  Application of the law may vary depending on the particular facts and circumstances at issue.  We, therefore, recommend that you consult legal counsel to advise you on how the law applies to your specific situation.

 

© 2019 School and College Legal Services of California

 

All rights reserved.  However, SCLS grants permission to any current SCLS client to use, reproduce, and distribute this Legal Update in its entirety for the client’s own non-commercial purposes.

 

 

[1] Penal Code § 626.6.

[2] Penal Code § 626.4.

[3] Education Code § 66017.

Legal Update Memo No. 17-2019 – New Restraining Order Case and Managing Disruptive Persons on Campus (K-12)

Download pdf: 17-2019 – New Restraining Order Case & Managing Disruptive Persons on Campus w attachment (KS)

In June, the California Court of Appeal issued a decision interpreting Code of Civil Procedure § 527.8, which allows employers to seek a workplace violence restraining order against an individual on behalf of an employee.

The case, Los Angeles Unified School District v. Andy Obinna, Case No. B290225, 2019 WL 298399 (Cal. App. June 17, 2019) (“Obinna”), attached to this Legal Update, reviewed the conduct of a parent with “bad behavior,” and the reasonableness of the grant of a three-year restraining order. Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 527.8, employers seeking a restraining order must show that the employee has suffered “unlawful violence or a credible threat of violence from an individual in the workplace.” The Court upheld the restraining order in Obinna based on the “escalating nature of Obinna’s actions, his inability to change his behavior after receiving two reprimands, the frequency and severity of his threats and angry outbursts at the school, and the violent nature of the videos he sent the school by Facebook Messenger,” which included images of a person holding a gun and a knife.

In the event there is a need to remove a disruptive person from campus, clients have many legal options that may be utilized in addition, or prior to, seeking a restraining order under Code of Civil Procedure § 526.8. Below is a brief review of some of the options available under the various laws; however, we recommend consulting with legal counsel regarding each specific event.

Disruption of Schools[1] – School districts may ask any person who enters any school district building or grounds (or adjoining area) to leave if they are present without lawful business if their presence or acts interfere with the peaceful conduct of the school or disrupts the school or its pupils.

Acts Likely to Interfere with Peaceful Conduct[2] – School districts may ask non-students and non-employees to leave the premises/grounds when it reasonably appears that the person is committing any act likely to interfere with the peaceful conduct of the campus; however, such requests cannot be motivated by a desire to restrict free speech.

Withdrawal of Consent to Remain on Campus[3] – School districts may remove any person “whenever there is reasonable cause to believe that such person has willfully disrupted the orderly operation” of the school, as long as notice is given and an opportunity for a hearing is provided. Courts have interpreted § 626.4 to be limited to removals only if “conduct or words are such as to constitute, or incite to, a substantial and material physical disruption incompatible with the peaceful functioning of the academic institution and those upon its campus,” and “only when the person excluded has committed acts proscribed by other statutes.”

Registered Sex Offenders and Specified Drug Offenders[4] – Registered sex offenders and those convicted of the sale and/or possession of a controlled substance, or use, possession or being under the influence of a controlled substance on school property cannot enter any school district building or grounds without lawful business and written permission from the school principal. When the sex/drug offender is a parent/guardian, both requirements must still be met; however, schools are also required to permit such persons to be involved in the education of their child, pursuant to Education Code §§ 49091.10 and 51101. We encourage clients to contact legal counsel with specific questions regarding this topic.

Willful Disturbance of Public School or Meeting[5] – Willfully disturbing any public school or public school meeting is a misdemeanor.

Disruption of Classwork or Extracurricular Activities[6] – Parents/guardians or other persons whose conduct materially disrupts school activities or is involved in substantial disorder in a place where a school employee is required to be working is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Please contact our office with questions regarding this Legal Update or any other matter.

Legal Update written by Kaitlyn Schwendeman, Schools Legal Counsel.

The information in this Legal Update is provided as a summary of law and is not intended as legal advice.  Application of the law may vary depending on the particular facts and circumstances at issue.  We, therefore, recommend that you consult legal counsel to advise you on how the law applies to your specific situation.

© 2019 School and College Legal Services of California

All rights reserved.  However, SCLS grants permission to any current SCLS client to use, reproduce, and distribute this Legal Update in its entirety for the client’s own non-commercial purposes.

[1] Penal Code § 626.8.

[2] Penal Code § 626.7.

[3] Penal Code § 626.4.

[4] Penal Code §626.81 and Penal Code § 626.85. “Specified drug offenders” is a defined term under the Penal Code, which has the meaning summarized above.

[5] Education Code § 32210.

[6] Education Code § 44811.