- Who We Are
- What We Do
- News & Events
- Support Us
By Adele Kimmel, Managing Attorney
Far too often, schools are not doing what the law and their own anti-bullying policies require to protect our children from bullying. In fact, eight out of every ten times that a child gets bullied at school, no adult intervenes. Why?
Is it because teachers and administrators are cold-hearted and uncaring? Of course not.
So why do so many teachers and school administrators fail to intervene when they witness or otherwise learn that students are being bullied? At least part of the explanation is that they do not know what to do. The fact is that half of our country's school teachers and administrators have not received training on how to respond to bullying.
Another part of the explanation is that they often are not held accountable for failing to respond appropriately to bullying.
As a result, many school officials act as passive bystanders in response to known bullying. They are not, however, innocent bystanders. By doing little or nothing, they are exacerbating the problem. Their silent acceptance is precisely what allows -- and often encourages -- the bullying to continue.
But school officials, unlike students, have legal responsibilities to try to stop bullying that they know about. Though they certainly have broad discretion to decide how to respond to bullying, their discretion is not unlimited.
For example, in Vance v. Spencer County Public School District, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a $220,000 jury verdict for a bullied girl, finding that there was sufficient evidence that the school board was deliberately indifferent to known sexual harassment by her peers, where officials took only minimal action in response to the bullying. Although school officials had talked with the offending students, they never disciplined the students or informed law enforcement about an assault that the students committed in a classroom. In the Sixth Circuit's view, the school district had to take further action to avoid liability in these circumstances.
More recently, in Zeno v. Pine Plains Central School District, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a $1 million jury verdict against a school district on behalf of a high school student who was subjected to severe racial harassment by his peers for several years. Although school officials had suspended nearly every student identified as harassing the plaintiff and eventually implemented a day of anti-bullying training, the Second Circuit found there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the school district's remedial response was inadequate. The school district knew that disciplining the harassers did not deter others from engaging in serious racial harassment and that the harassment grew increasingly severe.
Both of these cases show that courts should not -- and will not -- defer to administrators' inadequate responses to egregious harassment.
Though we cannot eliminate all bullying among school children, we can make school districts and officials respond appropriately to it -- and help stop and deter a great deal of it -- through effective litigation under federal and state laws. Litigation can help to change the culture of schools and school districts, so they address bullying appropriately. It can motivate school officials to insist that bullying is confronted, put teeth into school policies, require anti-bullying training, and teach tolerance to students. It can also compensate bullying victims for the injuries they have suffered.
The stakes are simply too high to allow school officials to act as passive bystanders to bullying.
For more information, visit our Anti-Bullying Campaign page and read our recently published primer, "Litigating Bullying Cases: Holding School Districts and Officials Accountable."
By Jim Hecker, Environmental Enforcement Project Director
It is not often that the trajectory of a single case provides a barometer for regulatory change, but Public Justice's 15-year battle to stop a huge mountaintop removal mine in West Virginia does. When we first sued the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to block the Spruce mine in 1998, mountaintop removal mining in Appalachia was increasing, and the Spruce mine was the largest such mine ever proposed, potentially leveling five square miles of Appalachian forest and filling over ten miles of headwater streams with mining waste. Government regulation of such mines was outrageously weak. The Corps used a streamlined general permit that assumed that the stream-filling had minimal effects, and the Environmental Protection Agency did not object.
On behalf of West Virginia citizens, and with our co-counsel Joe Lovett, Pat McGinley and Suzanne Weise, we won a preliminary injunction in 1999 that stopped the mine. The Corps later conceded that it would not win at trial and withdrew the permit. The mining company then revised its mine plan and applied for an individual permit. The shift from weak general permits to stronger individual permits started with the Spruce mine. We intensified the pressure by filing two long-running lawsuits against the general permit in 2003 and 2005, and succeeded in voiding it in West Virginia in 2009 and Kentucky this year (see the 6th Circuit's recent decision, which I wrote about in my last blog post). Now almost all of these mines have to seek more stringent individual permits.
Until the Spruce mine, the Corps had never prepared an environmental impact statement (EIS) on any coal mine. As a result of our case, the Corps prepared two EISs -- one on the Spruce mine and one on coal mining in Appalachia generally -- which were completed in 2005-06. Those reports jump-started scientific work on the serious adverse effects the mines were having, including increased discharges of toxic selenium and dissolved salts, and a strong association between valley fills and biological impairment of downstream aquatic life.
When the Corps reissued the Spruce permit in 2007, we sued again, citing this harm, which led EPA to reverse course and veto the permit in 2011 -- the first time EPA has ever vetoed a mining project. EPA's 99-page veto decision summarized the compelling scientific evidence of harm that the Corps had been ignoring for years. In response, the mining industry and Appalachian states sued EPA, claiming it had no authority to veto a permit after it was issued, and a district judge agreed. But last month, a federal court of appeals reversed that decision and confirmed EPA's post-permit "backstop authority" to protect the environment.
In these many ways, the Spruce mine case has been unusually productive in reforming government regulation of coal mining and identifying its adverse environmental effects.