Employment, Sexual Orientation and Religious Beliefs: Do Religious Educational Institutions have a Protected Right to Discriminate in the Selection and Discharge of Employees?

The life blood of religious educational institutions is their doctrinal statements and codes of conduct that set standards for employee and student life. The purpose of this paper is to examine the freedom of religious educational institutions to make employment decisions related to three homosexuality related areas: sexual orientation, same-sex sexual activity outside marriage, and same-sex marriage. At the core of the discussion is the basic question whether religious educational institutions have a protected right to enforce doctrinal statements or codes of conduct addressing one or more of these areas. This paper will examine legal issues related to the ability of religious educational institutions to declare and enforce their religious beliefs regarding same-sex relationships. This discussion involves a balancing of important interests. On one side is the interest of government in prohibiting discrimination, retaliation, and harassment against persons engaged in protected activity. On the other side are the free exercise, free speech and expressive association rights of religious educational institutions to express and enforce their religious beliefs

Standard of Care for Students with Disabilities: The Intersection of Liability Under the IDEA and Tort Theories

This article explores issues of legal liability for school personnel where students with disabilities are injured in school settings or cause injuries to employees and other students in schools. While questions related to legal liability are varied, they tend to fall within two broad areas: standard of care relating to injuries to or by students; and, standard of care for employees working with students with or training others to work with students with disabilities. In both areas, the legal issue revolves around the concept of heightened standard of care, especially where framed by the language of students\u27 IEPs (Individualized Education Programs). To what extent should injuries to, or caused by, students with disabilities be considered within the context of a heightened standard of care where an IEP reveals a student\u27s propensity to cause injuries or to be vulnerable to injuries? Where services provided to students with severe disabilities as part of their IEPs have life-saving components to them (such as suctioning tracheotomy tubes or ambubag venting ), should the responsibility for providing those services or for training or supervising others to provide the services be assessed by a heightened standard of care