Firing Teacher for Refusing Instructions Not to Call Police About Alleged Assault by Student May Violate State Law

From Friday's decision by Judge Ronnie Abrams in Samuels v. Urban Assembly Charter School for Computer Science (S.D.N.Y.), Samuels' allegations:

On June 9, 2022, one of Samuels' students "threw a hard ball that hit Samuels in the head, causing a concussion." Upon being struck, Samuels immediately reported the incident and her injuries to Defendants. Although Noah [the school's founding principal] "instructed Samuels to not give the police any information about the student who had assaulted her," she nonetheless began reporting the incident to the police. Samuels asserts that Noah then physically confronted her, "approach[ing] her within a few inches of her face … and angrily ask[ing] if she really wanted to get a kid involved in the criminal justice system." In response to Noah's alleged "attempt[ ] to prevent her from reporting the incident," Samuels "objected" and continued to report the incident to the police officers present. Soon after, Samuels left Urban Assembly in an ambulance and the school "disabled her school email and system access."

After being transported to the emergency room, Samuels was allegedly "diagnosed with a head injury, neck pain, and concussion." Her symptoms included blurred vision, which prevented her from "read[ing] from her phone or computer screen" and restricted her ability "to operate a car or navigate public transportation." For example, Samuels was "unable to drive herself to the hospital for a PET scan the day following her injuries." She also says that she experienced "severe, persistent head and neck pain," which "impacted her ability to bend her neck and rotate her head," including "even minor head and neck movements." Her head and neck pain also "impacted her ability to sleep, … read, concentrate, and think."

A day later, on June 10, 2022, Noah messaged Samuels: "I [h]ope your head is feeling better. I assume you're not coming in so you can recuperate." Samuels responded as follows: "After being as[s]aulted on campus I sought medical care, and was discharged this evening to recuperate. Please see the attached physician letter excusing me from work for ten days. This includes not being able to participate in tomorrow's Algebra 1 Regents Prep session." The email included an attached doctor's note from Malcolm Johnson MD, stating that "Melissa Samuels was seen and treated in our emergency department on 6/10/2022. Please excuse the absence. She may return to work on 6/21/2022. If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to call."

The next morning, on June 11, 2022, Noah sent Samuels a reply email:

You were not assaulted. [A student] accidently hit you with a nerf ball while he was throwing it at [another student] in a raucous classroom…. [I]t was an accident, it was a nerf ball, and he is a child in a school. It's one thing for him to face consequences or for you to ask to be moved out of the advisory. It's entirely another to make what I believe is a bad faith assault claim…. Your account was temporarily disabled because I was sincerely afraid that you were sharing a student's personal information without parental consent or cause[.] … I'm not sure why you are doing this, but if it's just to avoid coming to work, let's please talk…. I suggest a virtual meeting to come to a shared understanding about next steps[.] … In the unlikely event you are unable to meet until the 21st, please plan on meeting in my office at 8:15.

The next day, on June 12, 2022, Noah emailed Samuels again:

After further review of your doctor's note and consultation with our school's counsel, I will need further documentation to excuse your absence beyond Friday[.] … [B]eyond Friday, the note doesn't contain any indication of your condition and your request for an accommodation that involves not working at all for 10 days doesn't appear to be supported by the note (which, again, lacks a diagnosis or any details). I remain open to discussing the matter with you directly via phone or video chat so we can actually come to some shared understanding about what happened and what happens next. But, in the absence of such a conversation and further documentation, this week will have to be considered unpaid[.]

Four days later, on June 16, 2022, "while Noah knew Samuels remained on medical leave recuperating from injuries," Defendants terminated Samuels' employment….

Samuels sued, alleging that defendants discriminated against her based on disability (stemming from her alleged injury) and failed to accommodate her disability, and the court allowed the claim to go forward. But the court also allowed Samuels to go forward with her claim of retaliation for the call to the police:

Samuels was allowed to proceed with her disability discrimination (and failure to accommodate) claim, but also with her state "whistleblower claim, alleging that Defendants unlawfully retaliated against her because she filed a police report and objected to Noah's instructions to 'not give the police any information about the student who had assaulted her'":

The NYLL [New York Labor Law] forbids employers from "tak[ing] any retaliatory action against an employee … because such employee … discloses, or threatens to disclose to a supervisor or to a public body an activity, policy or practice of the employer that the employee reasonably believes is in violation of law, rule or regulation." The statute also proscribes retaliation because an employee "objects to, or refuses to participate in any such activity, policy or practice." …

Samuels asserts that, after reporting her injury to Defendants, Noah "instructed [her] to not give the police any information about the student who had assaulted her." When she began reporting the alleged assault to the police, she says Noah "angrily asked if she really wanted to get a kid involved in the criminal justice system." Samuels maintains that she understood Noah's actions to be an "attempt[ ] to prevent her from reporting the incident to the police," and that she "objected" to this attempt by continuing to "report[ ] the incident to the police officers present," Samuels now argues that she has stated a NYLL retaliation claim because she "objected to … Defendants' attempts to prevent her from filing a police report … under the reasonable belief that Defendants' attempts to prevent her from filing a police report was in violation of [a] law, rule, or regulation." …

Samuels plausibly alleges that she participated in an activity protected under the statute. To be sure, Samuels does not assert that she "disclose[d] … to a public body an activity, policy or practice of the employer." As Defendants rightly note, Samuels reported a student's conduct to the police, and she does not aver that she reported any unlawful conduct by Urban Assembly or Noah.

Nevertheless, § 740 independently proscribes retaliation against an employee because that employee "objects to, or refuses to participate in any … activity, policy or practice" that "the employee reasonably believes is in violation of law, rule or regulation." Samuels identifies a specific activity, namely that Defendants "attempted to prevent" her from filing a police report about an Urban Assembly student and forbade her from "giv[ing] the police any information" about that student. Samuels, moreover, plausibly alleges that she "object[ed] to, or refuse[d] to participate in" Defendants' activity, because she reported the assault to the police even after Noah "instructed [her]" not to do so….

Comments

[CountmontyC]

So the hospital diagnosed her as having injuries and the school district said she wasn't injured? I think I am going to have to go with the trained medical professionals.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You haven't dealt with educational bureaucrats recently, have you?

What's not mentioned in any of this is that this is a worker's comp injury, and that if she files it as such, the school's insurance rate will go up.

While I favor charter schools in principle, it's stories like this that prevent me from ever consider working in one.

[Rossami]

No, the ED said they treated her and signed a note that she probably wrote. The employer was entirely within their rights to insist on proper documentation including a full diagnosis, itemization of restrictions and enough information to determine the necessary accommodations. No ED will ever do that much work. It's not their job and they don't have time for that level of detail regardless. The normal process is to get emergency treatment at the ED (not the word "emergency" in both) then have a follow-up appointement with your family doctor/GP who is experienced with (and has time for) the documentation needed by an employer.

If she refused to have that follow-up or to provide the necessary documentaiton, well, she might have enough to get past a motion to dismiss but she'll almost certainly lose when it gets to the merits.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Why would the employer need a diagnosis?

And the restrictions were that she couldn't work for 10 days.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Exactly -- and unless the employer had has a medical background, exactly what right does he have to second guess the ER MD? And once the employer has the diagnosis, HIPPA no longer applies.

A lot of authoritarian (busybody) supervisors love to practice medicine in this manner, deciding what medical treatment is best for the injured employee.

The same thing has largely nullified the ADA in Higher Ed -- most colleges have a Disability DisServices office whose primary purpose is to deny accommodations, often by misdefining physical disabilities as mental illnesses. I've even seen things like food allergies being redefined as unspecified mental illnesses.

[nonzenze]

On what planet can you get a GP visit scheduled with 10 days? Narnia?

I understand in the case of chronic conditions that this is a totally workable process, but this is an acute injury. It's just not possible or practical to move that fast.

[Brett Bellmore]

It really varies depending on your diagnosis, you know. And there are clinics that specialize in return to work exams.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Paid for BY WHOM?
And I mean up front, not with the bill subsequently (maybe) grudgingly reimbursed.

As I understand the law, the company doctor can examine the employee -- at company expense. Charter schools are low budget operations, I doubt they are going to pay for the MD -- and HIGHLY doubt that they can say that the existing MD's note isn't good enough.

[gormadoc]

Planet USA. For injuries like this I've never had to wait that long.

[jb]

I suspect this is the kind of thing that varies A LOT by where you live and how good your insurance is.

[John F. Carr]

If I have a serious problem I can get a sick visit the same day or go to an urgent care clinic. If I have a mild problem they will put me off a couple months. Once I was unable to schedule a routine physical because they had no slots open in the next year.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes, and I once got the immediate attention of a Level 1 Trauma Center.

The mistake you are both making is that a GP or Urgent Care Clinic is neither trained nor has the resources to deal with the followup on a head/neck injury.

She was hit in the head with either a hard ball or a Nerf ball (my guess is an inflatable medicine ball) -- even if it was a Nerf ball and she violently moved her head to get out of the way of it, there COULD BE serious injuries. And you don't know not until you KNOW not -- back in the '80s, Maine Med in Portland sent a guy home without checking for spinal injuries (he'd fallen off a heating oil delivery truck) and he wound up paralyzed and they wound up paying big bucks for that.

1: Any blow to the head can result in a concussion (and other stuff along these lines).

2: Any blow to the head can result in injuries to the cervical spine, including fractured disks which could then cut the nerve cable and result in either paralysis or (this far up likely) death.

3: She could have other injuries if she subsequently fell to the ground.

In addition to the "squeeze my fingers" test and looking for pupils to be reactive and responsive, an ER is going to at least do some X-rays. Likely a CAT scan, maybe a MRI, maybe some other stuff. They will have a neurologist at least on call, also an ENT person and an eye doctor.

The ER may not call all these people, but they will both be able to do so and know when they should from past experience and training. And (hopefully) they won't discharge her without having done a whole lot more than any "Doc in a Box" could do.

So I think "out of work for 10 days" is perfectly good and the bullying principal can pay for more if he wants to -- although, IMHO, she ought to have the right to demand that it be a MD who is board certified in the relevant specialty.

The "your paperwork isn't good enough" is a favorite trick of many to dodge the ADA.

[KenveeB]

I've never once in decades of working been asked to provide any kind of medical diagnosis to get a brief medical leave. Employees still have rights to privacy in their actual diagnoses and treatment. My employer has no right to my medical diagnosis. They have a right to medical doctors stating my legitimate medical condition prevents me from working until X date. Needing a week or two of recovery after a head injury isn't uncommon.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Large corporations used to send a visiting nurse to the home of sick employees -- I could see this being done, but that RN ought not be risking her nursing license playing neurologist.

IANAA but I think you are right about medical privacy.

[Joe_dallas]

Concur that needing a week or two to recuperate is common - obviously depending on the level of trauma to the head/brain.

Whether it is simply no exercise for a few days , no activities causing elevated HR, bed rest for 10-14 days or simply continued work as long as work is only a desk job. - recovery protocol will depend on the level trauma.

[John F. Carr]

There might be a standard note the doctor writes. If patient complains of these symptoms, not contradicted by an exam, she gets a 10 day vacation.

I remember a small child with hand, foot, and mouth disease. Day care wouldn't let her back without a doctor's note. I think the staff was hoping for a doctor to look at the girl the next week and say "she is all better and not infectious." That's not how it worked. She went to the doctor while still sick. Doctor took a quick look at the state of the blisters and wrote a note saying she could return to school in three days. In theory infected people can be infectious for weeks. Remember all the stories about detectable COVID-19 RNA months after symptoms. But SOP says HFM gets you a three day absence after peak blistering. It is not personalized care and it is not always right. Good enough for legal purposes and maybe a good compromise between quarantine and spreading infection.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If I were running that day care center, I'd call the (state's) Department of Public Health or whatever the state calls it. In Massachusetts, each town has a "town nurse" and with a communicable disease like this, I'd dump it on her.

I'd also look at what the contract says about medical clearance.

[John F. Carr]

Disease outbreaks in day care are too common to get lawyers and public health officials actively involved every time. The contract can be terminated by either party. It's not like public school where officials have to put up with difficult parents and parents have to put up with difficult administrators.

[Flight-ER-Doc]

As an emergency physician I hated having to write such notes. This one is about average.

But this principal better start looking for a new job.

[Joe_dallas]

Flight-ER-Doc 3 mins ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"But this principal better start looking for a new job."

I had similar thoughts - except page 2 of the opinion states that the principal was also a founder of the non-profit.

"Defendant Urban Assembly, a non-for-profit high school, and Defendant Noah, the school’s founding principal,"

[great Unknown]

after the likely outcome of the lawsuit, this charter school may no longer exist. hence, the job search.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Sadly, no. I know of a charter school (Chinese Immersion in Hadley, MA) that got nailed by DC&F (state child protective) for child abuse and it's still open.

The advantage of charter schools is that their management is largely independent of the state and local educational bureaucracy. The disadvantage of them is the same -- and why I'd never work in one.

I doubt that a lawsuit would shut them down because memory is that there is something about a $10K limit on suits against public charities (which they are), at least in MA, and he undoubtedly has a personal liability insurance policy, probably $2M or more.

[Frank Drackman]

Working ERs few years after med screw-el to earn a few extra Shekels, saw a Teacher who’d been sexually assaulted by 2 Miscreants(love that word, used it in my note) and I’d call having one 14 yr old put an adult female in a headlock while another 14 yr old slaps her with his Dick a “Sexual Assault” in 1992 you weren’t required to call the cops, and in East Dumfuck NC they were probably related to the miscreants, poor lady had several knocked out teeth, neck injury, and she was a substitute so wasn’t getting paid shit. Only happy ending is the Miscreants are probably dead or in prison now
And yes they looked like Travon ( and she looked like Mrs Travon)

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

In addition to cops, there is the mandated reporting law because they were minors "in need of services."

While they have been expanded on, I believe every state had a mandated reporter law by 1992, although it may only have been for teachers, not MDs.

[Joe_dallas]

Noah, the principal of the school and (founder?) stated the following in an email "You were not assaulted. [A student] accidently hit you with a nerf ball while he was throwing it at [another student] in a raucous classroom. . . ."

On first impression, the principal seems like an a--- to work for. Probably a lot of background history that is omitted from the story

[Soronel Haetir]

Certainly if the teacher was, in fact, concussed then it was definitely not a nerf-ball, not unless the kid launched it from a bazooka..

[Kazinski]

How about a nerf ball soaked in water and frozen?

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, it COULD have been a Nerf ball -- and she, only seeing an object coming at her via her peripheral vision and not knowing what it was -- jumped out of the way and hit her head on something else in the process.

Remember, we haven't seen her side of the story.

[John F. Carr]

All we have seen is her side of the story. The judge decided a motion to dismiss based on her complaint.

[Ghost]

I guess unlike everyone else here, I have a gut feeling that the teacher actually did exaggerate the incident and that's why the principal was so upset. The ER diagnosis was likely based solely on the teacher's report of what happened to her as well as her self-reported symptoms.

[SimonP]

That's my gut feeling, too. But Eugene's looking to rile up the rubes, so...

[Kazinski]

Based on what?

Unless of course your gut is an expert witness that’s been accepted to testify in NY courts.

I think it’s a slam dunk the judge will go with the ER doctor. Plus, I will point out that on any given Sunday it’s not hard to see an actual instance of NFL players trying to lie about whether or not they have a concussion, they are seldom successful.

Plus it’s hard to lie about dilated pupils, not tracking a light etc.

But your gut probably knows all that.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"Plus it’s hard to lie about dilated pupils, not tracking a light etc." None of which are symptoms mentioned in the note (as summarized in the OP). It just said concussion and blurry vision, which is completely a thing she could have told them.

But, yes, the judge will accept the note.

"on any given Sunday it’s not hard to see an actual instance of NFL players trying to lie about whether or not they have a concussion, they are seldom successful"

You have no data to make any of these assertions.

First, it's much easier to fake having a mild concussion than to fake not having a rather serious concussion.

Second, there are likely multiple mild concussions every NFL game. The ones you see usually involve particularly hard hits with obvious post-hit symptoms. (Tua hitting his head on the turf and then stumbling while walking.....and he might have gotten away with that one, I vaguely recall they initially, and unbelievably, attributed the stumble to a back injury even though it was pretty obvious to a non-physician watching via television that it was the head injury.)

https://www.newyorker.com/sports/sporting-scene/tua-tagovailoas-injury-wasnt-just-a-failure-of-protocol

I'm not sure mild concussions are easy to diagnose without relying on subject symptoms and description of the event.

In the context of the direct or indirect transmission of kinetic energy to the head, the diagnosis of concussion may be asserted if at least one of the following signs or symptoms, observed or reported, is present within the first 24hours and not explained by another cause: 1) loss of consciousness; 2) convulsions, tonic posturing; 3) ataxia; 4) visual trouble; 5) neurological deficit; 6) confusion; 7) disorientation; 8) unusual behaviour; 9) amnesia; 10) headaches; 11) dizziness; 12) fatigue, low energy; 13) feeling slowed down, drowsiness; 14) nausea; 15) sensitivity to light/noise; 16) not feeling right, in a fog; 17) difficulty concentrating.

Note that she claimed blurry vision which, likely, the ER doc relied on her subjective report (I don't know there is an actual test to verify such reports), the listed symptoms also include nausea which was also almost certainly based on her subjective report. Either with her report of a hit to the head would have been sufficient for the diagnosis. I'm not a doctor, but it's also painfully obvious that you aren't either a doctor or a lawyer (you'd have been more circumspect to rely unquestionably on the ER note as documenting facts). Again, the court will rely on the ER note in any motion to dismiss and maybe beyond, depending on how well the school's attorneys prepare the defense. That doesn't mean it's accurate, it just means it's the best evidence without obtaining testimony or proof that it just reflects her subjective reports rather than objective observation/testing.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I've been given eye tests as test for concussion -- the rational being that my vision was a known known and if it is worse now, the head hit is the likely cause.

BTW: Dialed pupils *cause* blurry vision.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Of course, but eye tests rely on your report of what you can see. You can’t fake good vision very easily, but you can say you can’t read past the first line or second, or one less than you usually do. Faking blurry vision is much easier and nearly impossible to debunk.

I’m sure you see my point that the information we have doesn’t indicate the ER doc had anything other than the teacher’s subjective reports of symptoms.

Dilated, not dialed, pupils can cause blurry vision, but there’s no indication she had dilated pupils. We just know she reported blurry vision, we don’t know if any objective testing/examination revealed anything to confirm her subjective reports which are sufficient for the diagnosis. (The ER doctor could have performed all the appropriate tests, they didn't indicate objective symptoms, but he would still diagnose concussion based on her subjective reports unless he had an objective reason to disbelieve her (you can falsely report headaches, neck pain, blurry vision, etc., and it's hard if not impossible to disprove even if you are trying to disprove those symptoms, though an ER physician rarely would be motivated to try to disprove them).

I don’t have any strong opinion one way or the other regarding what she says happened. That probably heavily depends on whether it was actually a soft Nerf ball or a hard ball of significant weight/speed that hit her in the head and, of course, the specifics of any medical exam. My point is just those going around with a definite opinion in the vein of “concussions can’t be faked” are not being remotely objective or logical in assessing the matter.

[Joe_dallas]

Ghost 10 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"I guess unlike everyone else here, I have a gut feeling that the teacher actually did exaggerate the incident and that’s why the principal was so upset. "

Possible slight exaggeration, though likely only a very slight exaggeration. Fwis, the police usually dont take kindly to false or exaggerated complaints. I was at an event where a lady accused someone of physically assaulting her, she called the police, she proceeded to file / report the complaint and the police then hauled her off. The police didnt even bother to question the alleged assaulter who remained on the premises.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hopefully the ER diagnosis is also based on the MD's professional examination of her.

As to the principal, it is also possible that the students are Black and he can't suspend them because of Obama's quota (or believes the "pipeline to prison" garbage, as his language suggests).

If it's an assault, then he HAS TO do something -- saying it wasn't avoids that.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Sadly, a-holes like this principal are common in schools.

And the reason he doesn't want her reporting it as an assault is because *he* then has to report it as an assault to the state in his annual statistics.

[Frank Drackman]

Our Pubic Ed-Jew-ma-cation System at its best, (and you H8ers, that’s where I learned (or didn’t) my Grammar) and they wonder why Quintavious can’t count to 21 with his pants on

Frank

[tuphat]

"After ... consultation with our school's counsel ..." This school needs a better lawyer.

[Dr. Ed 2]

How many lawsuits weren't filed, and how many teachers were successfully bullied into not reporting crimes?

They may have a very good lawyer, if not a particularly ethical one.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

How much you wanna bet this was a black kid, and the Principal was concerned about "equity" or "social justice"?

This is typical Democrat behavior.

[ReaderY]

As I read the decision, making a police complaint does not actually have to be a protected activity, and neither the plaintiff nor the court ever provided any evidence that it actually is. Rather, plaintiff need merely “reasonably believe” that it is.

This would seem to give employees extraordinary leverage in the employmnet relationship. Even if it’s well established that an employee has no right to do something and the employer is fully entitled to enforce a rule against it, if a employee can make a case that she “reasonably” believed that that she OUGHT to be entitled to do it, the employer is liable to the employee for damages. This would seem in turn to suggest that employees enforce work rules in New York at great legal risk. All an employee has to do is convince a judge or a jury that she was reasonable in believing the rule wrong, and the employer is liable.

Better not have any rules that somebody’s lawyer might be able to come up with a reasonable-sounding objection to if you want to run a business in New York. Since lawyers can be counted on to ckme up with reasonable-sounding arguments by the hundred-weight – it’s their primary professional skill – that probably means best not have or enforce any rules at all.

It would be understandable if New York actually had a law or rule that actually said employees are entitled to make complaints to the police and cannot be retaliated against for doing so. Such a rule might be sensible and might well provide a just outcome in this case. But for a plaintiff to win, in the complete absense of any such actual rule, merely because she “reasonably believed” that there might or ought to be such a law?

Finally, a nerf ball that results in a concussion? That’s some nerf ball.

[ReaderY]

That said. While if the plaintiff’s view if the facts is correct this would be something of an extreme case, its always possible that the defendant’s view is correct and the plaintiff is grossly exaggerating both the severity of the student’s conduct and the extent of her injuries. We don’t know the real facts.

And the administrator has a point in general. There is a tendency to overpolice and overcriminalize children’s behavior, and not everything a child does that could be said to violate some law should result in the student having a criminal record. For this reason, I’m not sure it makes sense for employment law to completely override and negate the state’s ability to consider what’s in the best interest of the child.

If we adults commit three felonies a day on average, I suspect for children it may be closer to three felonies an hour.

It would be one thing for the state legislature or common law or an administrative body to have actually made a conscious decision about whose interests should prevail in a case like this. But to let school employees as employees always have their way over students as long as their lawyers can come up with some sort of reasonable-sounding post-hoc justification for it? It’s a recipe for riding roughshod over student rights and interests.

[branford]

Whether you or anyone else believe we "overpolice and overcriminalize children’s behavior" is totally immaterial.

As to whether "plaintiff is grossly exaggerating both the severity of the student’s conduct and the extent of her injuries", that should easily be able to be determined by the police after an investigation.

It also seemed far more likely based on the alleged facts that the principal didn't want the child charged for an assault, no less the bad press for the school, and was coming up with some story to counter the police complaint, quite possibly in coordination with the attacking student. This wouldn't be remotely surprising for a charter or private school in New York.

In any event, any rule that an actual victim of a crime at their location of employment cannot press charges or seek redress with the police under threat of negative employment action should be per se unreasonable and prohibited as a matter of public policy.

[ReaderY]

Well, one of the hallmarks of the American system is that defendants can only be held liable for violating the law as it is, not the law as the plaintiff thinks it ought to be, reasonably or not. I see a rule that lets plaintiffs hold defendants liable if the plaintiffs merely subjectively believe the defendants did something wrong as having a major Due Process problem.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Isn't there a common law right to call the cops?

[ReaderY]

If the judge had cited any actual right from any source of law, rather than plaintiff’s reasonable subjective belief that such a right existed, I wouldn’t have complained.

[Brett Bellmore]

"and not everything a child does that could be said to violate some law should result in the student having a criminal record."

Isn't this why "juvenile records" exist? You have to keep records to begin with to determine if a particular incident is a one-off, or part of a perhaps escalating pattern.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Brett, you have to understand (a) the "pipeline to prison" mentality *and* that this is not the first thing that these little darlings have done.

The goal here is to blame the teacher for poor classroom management (of juvenile delinquents) and hence it wasn't an assault. Where the hell was the Principal if it was a rowdy classroom?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Finally, a nerf ball that results in a concussion? That’s some nerf ball."

Seems like the principle gives the game away. It his initial email, he says, "I assume you’re not coming in so you can recuperate."

But in the following email, he says, "You were not assaulted. [A student] accidently hit you with a nerf ball..."

Why would he assume she wouldn't be coming in the following day if he believed she had been hit by a nerf ball?

[gormadoc]

I took it that she either hadn't come in that day before he sent that. Otherwise, I would have expected him to have sent the first email "the following morning," and she responded to the email in the evening.

[neurodoc]

A PET scan?! I can’t believe she undrwent such a study, which would have been a completely inappropriate diagnostic modality for the evaluation of closed head trauma. This smells on neurologic grounds and the medical details warrant scrutiny.

Was she hit with a baseball (hardball as in MLB) or a nerf ball, two very different objects? Can a nerf ball, except perhaps to the eye, inflict much of an injury?

[santamonica811]

(I think that all of us who have played with Nerf balls of various types immediately asked themselves that same question. Hard to imagine a Nerf ball causing anything close to the claimed injuries, regardless of the speed the young lad flung it. A regular baseball (softball, football, et al?) Absolutely could cause a concussion.

On the other other hand; we who went to law school all remember the "eggshell plaintiff rule." Intentional tort, so if the teacher had some preexisting condition that made the skull, um, especially weak, then maybe a Nerf as well could cause it.

I smell Law School Torts final exam question here!!!

[Dr. Ed 2]

If you don't know what it is and instinctively jump out of the way, and fall, and hit your head, you absolutely can be injured by a Nerf ball.

Likewise if you are startled by it and fall. And if you are in heels, it ain't hard to fall, and most people don't know how to fall to minimize injuries.

[Brett Bellmore]

A quick google shows that, yes, PET scans ARE used to diagnose closed head trauma. Apparently they're particularly good at detecting concussions, and tracking recovery from them, because they can detect changes in metabolism, that track pretty well with concussion symptoms and recovery.

The June 11th email seems to be a deliberate effort to plant a cover story, and solicit cooperation with it. I really doubt an ER physician is going to be that easily tricked into diagnosing a closed head injury. The reference to a nerf ball needs to be viewed in that light.

[Dr. Ed 2]

See above, Brett -- say she is hit in the back of the head by the Nerf ball -- that wouldn't cause a concussion but hitting her head on the side of a desk on the way down WOULD...

I've seen too many college kids get injured doing stupid stuff that was never intended to hurt anyone.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I don't know what happened in this particular case, the jury is almost literally still out.

But there have been cases of *other* schools not wanting emergency calls even in emergencies. I read about a school which wanted to keep its statistics looking good by deterring 911 calls for student injuries.

[Joe_dallas]

Margrave - somewhat similar is where renowned cancer hospitals or renowned heart hospitals will not accept / admit some high risk patients (terminal ) to keep their stats looking good.

[Magister]

Or denying entry to the Grand Princess cruise ship to keep coronavirus numbers down.

[John F. Carr]

Once in a while I read about the federal government going after colleges that underreport campus crime. Federal law requires colleges to say, for example, how many rapes there were on campus last year. Obviously they would rather not say.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Cleary Act -- named after a female student who was raped (and I believe murdered).

The rape statistics can swing both ways. Some schools accept anonymous reports from the feminist advocacy and mental health departments without cross tabulating them against those reported to the campus police so you can get data duplication. And then there are the rape fabrications which is why the "reported rape" figure is sometimes larger than the "rape" figure -- they have to count the report as a report but not a rape.

Conversely, what is a "rape"? Legally it is penetration and other stuff isn't and hence the statistic can be reduced that way. At one point, off campus -- which may be 6 inches from the dorm's front door in an urban campus -- is a gray area. Usually not reported.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The other thing with CLEARY is when it is a city police department with primary law enforcement authority -- e.g. Amherst College.

Rapes can be reported directly to the city (or county) police, without the school ever knowing about them.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I had a student (who was employed as a SPED aide while getting her certification) tell me that she had to call the superintendent to get permission to report that a SPED student had kicked her because if he did it more than three times in (a month -- I forget) the city would have to put him in an uber-expensive out of district placement.

And this was a PUBLIC school, not a charter...

[John F. Carr]

I gather she is seeking monetary damages from the principal personally. I wonder if the school's insurance will protect him.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well, I'd sue him for this:

"Your account was temporarily disabled because I was sincerely afraid that you were sharing a student's personal information without parental consent or cause[.]"

That's a serious accusation -- a FERPA violation. ALTHOUGH there are exceptions involving violence when she would have a right to do that.

[jimc5499]

If this is considered an "on the job" injury, the employer has the right to make her see their Doctor. The workplace injury information sheets that are required by Federal Law to be posted should have the name of the Company's doctor for on the job injuries. She should have been seen by this Doctor as soon as possible after her discharge from the ER. Been there done that. I injured my back on the job. I saw my Employer's Doctor. He agreed with the amount of time off for my injury. After that my Employer offered me light duty assembling circuit boards. Thirty days later I was laid off, even though I still couldn't do my regular job. Nothing I could do about it. It ended up being good for me. The State Employment office enrolled me in a program that allowed me to go to college.

[dwshelf]

Seems relevant: the principle refers to a "raucous classroom" as if that was a normal state.