Ninth Circuit Shoots Down Challenge to Law Prohibiting Concealed-Carry Permit Holders from Possessing Firearms on School Property

September 2018
Number 46

In Gallinger v. Becerra, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a challenge to a 2015 change to California’s Gun-Free School Zone Act that removed an exemption allowing concealed-carry permit holders to carry firearms on school grounds, but maintained the same exemption for retired peace officers.

The Ninth Circuit held that lawmakers had a rational basis for approving this change, effected by Senate Bill (SB) 707, and also that the partial elimination of the exemption did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Background

A collection of public interest groups and individuals challenged SB 707 on two bases: that SB 707’s treatment of concealed-carry permit holders is analogous to a similar ban in the Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA) struck down in Silveira v. Lockyer, and that SB 707 violates the Equal Protection Clause because it favors a politically powerful group and disfavors a politically unpopular one. The Ninth Circuit found both arguments unpersuasive.

The plaintiffs, citing Silveira, argued that distinctions between concealed carry holders and retired peace officers do not serve a valid legislative purpose. However, the Ninth Circuit distinguished its holding in Silveira, in which the court determined that the AWCA’s retired-officer exemption was “wholly unconnected to any legitimate state interest.” The court reasoned that it did not serve a valid purpose to exempt retired officers from AWCA’s ban affecting one specific type of firearm-assault weapons-but found that SB 707’s ban on all guns on school grounds did serve a legitimate policy interest. The Ninth Circuit determined that SB 707’s retired-officer exemption serves a valid public purpose, deferring to the Legislature’s reasoning that allowing retired peace officers to carry weapons on school grounds both provided for the officer’s safety and also the public’s safety. The court additionally determined that the legislative history of SB 707, which detailed the Legislature’s concerns about gun-rights organizations advising gun owners to bring firearms onto school campuses in the wake of several school shootings, provided sufficient rationale for ending the concealed-carry exemption.

The Ninth Circuit was similarly unpersuaded by the plaintiffs’ argument that SB 707 violated the Equal Protection Clause by disfavoring a politically unpopular group, concealed-carry owners, and favoring a politically powerful group, retired peace officers. The court held that there was no evidence of explicit legislative intent to harm concealed-carry holders. Evidence demonstrating that retention of the retired-officer exemption was the product of political lobbying also did not show impermissible discrimination: Favoring retired officers did not show a parallel intent to harm concealed-carry holders.

Takeaways

The court’s application of current events to legal aspects surrounding gun control is notable. In the Gallinger decision, the Ninth Circuit cited numerous school shootings to support both the Legislature’s purpose in banning concealed-carry holders-to reduce the number of guns on campus-and also, the Legislature’s intent to provide for safety by allowing retired officers to carry firearms on school campuses or in school zones. Going forward, school administrators and personnel responsible for school safety can rely upon the Gun-Free School Zone Act to prohibit firearms on school grounds, regardless of whether someone possesses a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

More broadly, Gallinger shows a significant level of judicial deference to the Legislature’s findings of public purpose related to school safety. Such safety policies and gun control legislation often inspire tension with an individual’s rights under the Second Amendment and the public’s right to access to government facilities. Recognizing a newfound emphasis on school safety, the court in Gallinger showed deference to the rationale advanced for both ending the concealed-carry exemption and upholding the retired-officer exemption.

For more information about this decision and its impact on school districts, please contact the authors of this Client News Brief or an attorney at one of our eight offices located statewide. You can also visit our website, follow us on Facebook or Twitter or download our Client News Brief App.

Written by:

Thomas R. Manniello

Partner

Tilman A. Heyer

Associate

©2017 Lozano Smith

As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this News Brief does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

Advertisements

Lawmakers Declare April 10 Dolores Huerta Day

August 2018
Number 40

The Legislature has declared that April 10 is Dolores Huerta Day. Assembly Bill (AB) 2644, which dedicates the day to the activist and labor leader, becomes effective January 1, 2019.

The new law encourages public schools and other educational institutions to observe this day by conducting activities that commemorate the life and accomplishments of Dolores Huerta. However, the legislation does not create a new mandatory paid holiday.

Huerta is known for working to improve social and economic conditions for farmworkers and for defending civil rights. She has received many honors for her civil rights work, including receiving the Eleanor Roosevelt Human Rights Award in 1998 and being inducted into the California Hall of Fame in 2013.

For more information about AB 2644 or about days of special significance in general, please contact the authors of this Client News Brief or an attorney at one of our eight offices located statewide. You can also visit our website, follow us on Facebook or Twitter or download our Client News Brief App.

Written by:

Sarah Levitan Kaatz

Partner

Carolyn L. Gemma

Associate

©2017 Lozano Smith

As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this News Brief does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

The FBI and Secret Service Issue New Guidance on Addressing School Violence and Active Shooters

August 2018
Number 38

The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and the United States Secret Service’s National Threat Assessment Center (NTAC) have released two important documents that offer insight into the pre-attack behavior of shooters and advice to help prevent targeted school violence through the use of threat assessments.

The FBI report

The FBI report, which was issued in June, is part of an FBI initiative to understand why shootings in confined and populated areas, like schools, occur and how they can be prevented. The report attempts to identify specific pre-attack behaviors in order to help law enforcement, school officials, and others better identify, assess and manage individuals who may be on a path to violence.

The report makes 10 key findings. Notable among them as they relate to schools:

  • The 63 active shooters examined did not appear to be uniform in any way such that they could be readily identified prior to attacking based on demographics alone.
  • Active shooters averaged four to five pre-attack observable, concerning behaviors (e.g., strange interpersonal interactions, recklessness, violent media usage, impulsivity, firearm behavior, and physical aggression).
  • Active shooters under age 18 were more likely to have these concerning behaviors observed by student peers and teachers than their own family members at home.
  • The most common response by an individual observing a concerning behavior was to either approach the eventual shooter directly or do nothing.

The FBI intends the report to serve as a resource for schools and others to develop better threat assessment and mitigation strategies, including early and prompt threat assessment of students.

The NTAC Guide

NTAC is a branch of the Secret Service that conducts research, training, and consultation on threat assessments to prevent non-random acts of targeted violence. The NTAC guide, released in July, is the first phase of a federal initiative to provide updated research and guidance regarding prevention of school-based violence. Its purpose is to provide a model threat assessment process for schools, where the goal of threat assessment is (1) to identify students of concern, (2) assess their risk for engaging in violence or other harmful activities, and (3) identify intervention strategies to manage that risk. The guide provides a multi-step process for creating a comprehensive, targeted violence prevention plan that achieves this goal. The steps include:

  • Forming a multidisciplinary threat assessment team;
  • Defining prohibited and concerning behaviors;
  • Establishing a central reporting mechanism;
  • Determining the threshold for law enforcement intervention;
  • Establishing assessment procedures;
  • Developing risk management options;
  • Creating and promoting a safe school climate; and
  • Providing training to all stakeholders.

The guide cautions that there is no specific profile of a student attacker. Rather than focusing solely on a student’s personality traits or school performance, the guide suggests that much more can be learned about a student’s risk for violence by working through this threat assessment process.

Takeaways

Both documents are important new resources in addressing the unfortunate reality of violence in schools. School officials should consider the documents’ recommendations in conjunction with the annual school safety plan process, which includes a threat assessment component. Officials, however, should keep in mind that many of the recommendations in the report and guide may be subject to federal or state legal requirements, such as state law limits on school monitoring of student social media activity.

Finally, Assembly Bill (AB) 1747, which is making its way through the state Legislature, would make related changes to the requirements for school safety plans. In its current form, the bill would require schools to perform annual active shooter drills and require the tactical response portion of safety plans to include specific procedures for gun incidents at schools and school-related activities. Additionally, AB 1747 would mandate charter schools to develop comprehensive school safety plans. Lozano Smith is actively monitoring this legislation and will be prepared to offer specific guidance if it becomes law.

The FBI report, titled A Study of Pre-Attack Behaviors of Active Shooters in the United States Between 2000 and 2013, and NTAC operational guide, titled Enhancing School Safety Using a Threat Assessment Model: An Operational Guide for Preventing Targeted School Violence, can be found on the Public Safety Practice Group page of our website.

For more information about these new resources, legal requirements for school safety plans, or other school safety issues, please contact the authors of this Client News Brief or an attorney at one of our eight offices located statewide. You can also visit our website, follow us on Facebook or Twitter or download our Client News Brief App.

Written by:

Trevin E. Sims

Partner

Joshua Whiteside

Associate

©2017 Lozano Smith

As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this News Brief does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

School Surveillance Video May be a Student Record, Triggering FERPA Obligations

August 2018
Number 37

School surveillance video can be considered a student record under certain circumstances, triggering a school district’s obligation under the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) to allow parents to view it.

In an informal guidance letter, the director of student privacy policy with the U.S. Department of Education’s Family Policy Compliance Office (FPCO) concluded that a school surveillance video depicting eight students who were involved in a hazing incident is a student record under FERPA. (U.S. Dept. of Ed., Letter to Wachter (Dec. 17, 2017).) The guidance states that FERPA does not generally require school districts to provide parents or eligible students requesting student records with copies of the records. However, it does not address any obligations a school district may have under state public records law.

Background

The Wattsburg Area School District in Erie County, Penn. requested the guidance after a parent of one of the students who was disciplined for their participation in a hazing incident requested a copy of the surveillance video depicting it under the Pennsylvania Right to Know Act.

The district asked FPCO whether the video is an education record of each of the students disciplined for their involvement in the incident, if it is an education record of all the students involved, and whether the district is permitted to release it to an individual parent of an involved student without first obtaining consent from the parents of each student involved in the incident.

The district additionally noted that it could not afford software that would blur the faces of the other students in the video.

FERPA protects the privacy of students’ education records and specifically, the personally identifiable information they contain. “Education records” are those records that are both directly related to a student and maintained by an educational agency or institution or a by party acting on behalf of an educational agency or institution.

FERPA provides parents and eligible students the right to access their educational records, and provides them some control over disclosure of the personally identifiable information in their records. Under FERPA, schools are prohibited from disclosing student records or the personally identifiable information they contain without prior, written consent from the parent or eligible student unless the disclosure meets an exception to the consent requirement.

FPCO agreed that the surveillance video was an educational record because it was (1) maintained by the school administration in the offending students’ disciplinary files and not the school or district’s law enforcement unit, (2) was directly related to the hazing incident and the group of students involved in it, and (3) was used to discipline the students who perpetrated the hazing.

The guidance also concludes that the parent of an individual student disciplined for the incident should be allowed to view the video despite the fact that other students were depicted in it because it did not appear that the video could be segregated or redacted without destroying its meaning. If it is possible to disclose only a portion of the video in a way that would fully depict the student of the requesting parent’s involvement in the hazing incident, however, the guidance letter says that such segregation of the information of other students would be required.

The guidance letter confirms that FERPA generally does not require schools to provide copies of educational records unless circumstances prevent a parent or eligible student from exercising their right to inspect and review the records-for example, if the student does not live within commuting distance of the school-and the school does not make other arrangements that would allow the parent to do so. In these situations, the guidance recommends that the district obtain the written consent of the parents of other students depicted in the video before disclosing a copy.

While different facts will result in different outcomes under the guidance, the FPCO’s position is generally consistent with FERPA, which provides:

If any material or document in the education record of a student includes information on more than one student, the parents of one such student shall have the right to inspect and review only such part of such material or document as relates to such student or to be informed of the specific information contained in such part of such material.


(20 U.S.C. § 1232g, subd. (a)(1)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 99.12, subd.(a).)

This said, the conclusion that relevant parents be allowed to inspect and review joint records (1) despite the fact that other students are depicted, and (2) where the video is incapable of segregation or redaction without destroying its meaning, appears to constitute a different approach than previously advised by the FPCO in 2003, where guidance at that time provided: “In cases where joint records cannot be easily redacted or the information segregated out, the school district may satisfy a request for access by informing the parent about the contents of the record[,]” presumably through an oral or written summary of the record’s contents. (See Letter to Attorney for School District (Oct. 31, 2003).)

Takeaways

School districts should be reminded that the FPCO guidance is only informal. If a school district receives a request to provide access to any video surveillance, legal counsel should be contacted for further guidance.

Client News Brief App For more information regarding Letter to Wachter or FERPA in general, please contact the authors of this Client News Brief or an attorney at one of our eight offices located statewide. You can also visit our website, follow us on Facebook or Twitter or download our .

Written by:

Sloan R. Simmons

Partner

Aimee Perry

Senior Counsel

Kristy J. Boyes

Associate

©2017 Lozano Smith

As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this News Brief does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

Ninth Circuit Affirms Legislative Prayer Exception Does Not Apply to School Board Meetings

August 2018
Number 34

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a federal district court ruling that school-sponsored prayer, Bible readings and proselytizing at school board meetings are unconstitutional. In Freedom from Religion Foundation v. Chino Valley Unified School District Board of Education, the Ninth Circuit upheld an injunction against a school board’s policy and practice of allowing school-sponsored religious exercise during board meetings.

This decision distinguishes prayer during public school board meetings from the legislative prayer exception for local government legislative bodies. The decision does not impact municipal legislative bodies, like cities and counties.

Background

The First Amendment to the Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” However, inMarsh v. Chambers and Town of Greece v. Galloway, the U.S. Supreme Court carved out an exception for the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer, finding that prayer at the start of state legislative sessions and town board meetings fits within longstanding tradition and does not violate the Constitution’s Establishment Clause.

In September 2013, the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) sent the Chino Valley Unified School District Board of Education a letter requesting that it “refrain from scheduling prayers as part of future school board meetings.” One month later, the board adopted a policy regarding invocations at board meetings. During board meetings from 2013 to 2015, board members regularly endorsed prayer, read Bible verses, and reaffirmed their Christian beliefs. The record contained at least 14 instances in which a board member read Bible verses during the period set aside for board member comment.

In 2016, a federal district court concluded that the board’s actions were an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. (See 2016 Client News Brief No. 20.) The plaintiffs equated the board’s action with prayer in schools, which has been limited by the courts.

In finding that the board policy was not within the scope of the legislative prayer exception, the Ninth Circuit emphasized the presence of children at school board meetings. Students play a significant role in board meetings as this is where student accomplishments are recognized, decisions regarding student discipline are rendered and other administrative matters are settled.

The Ninth Circuit explained that unlike a session of Congress or a state legislature or a meeting of a town board, school board meetings function as extensions of the educational experience. The prayers took place before groups of students whose attendance was not truly voluntary. This is unlike the facts in Greece, where the solemnizing and unifying prayer was directed at lawmakers themselves and conducted before an audience of adults free from pressure to participate. Unlike legislative entities, school districts and school boards exercise control and authority over students.

The Ninth Circuit also found the board policy violated the test articulated in the Supreme Court decision Lemon v. Kurtzman. Under this three-pronged test, a government practice: (1) must have a secular legislative purpose; (2) its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; and (3) it must not foster an “excessive entanglement with religion.” The court determined that the board’s policy failed the first prong of the test because the policy lacked a secular purpose. Although solemnization was the stated motivation for the policy, shortly after the policy’s adoption, a board member publicly described the board’s goal as the furtherance of Christianity.

Takeaways

The Ninth Circuit ruling is binding law in California, so school boards should be cautious about holding religious invocations during school board meetings. This decision does not change the legislative prayer exception for municipal legislative bodies.

In 2017, a federal appellate court in Texas upheld a school board’s practice of permitting students to deliver a religious invocation at the beginning of board meetings. (
See 2017 Client News Brief No. 29.
) However, that court also acknowledged two pre-Greece cases where school district board meeting invocations were determined to be unconstitutional school prayer. In those cases, students were in attendance at board meetings in a formal role as student representatives, which was not true in the Texas case.

For more information about this decision or about the exercise of religion at public meetings in general, please contact the authors of this Client News Brief or an attorney at one of our eight offices located statewide. You can also visit our website, follow us on Facebook or Twitter or download our Client News Brief App.

Written by:

William P. Curley III

Partner

©2017 Lozano Smith

As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this News Brief does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

FDA Approves Marijuana-Based Drug for Pediatric Epilepsy

July 2018
Number 32

Schools may soon be fielding requests to administer Epidiolex, a drug containing cannabidiol (CBD), a chemical component of marijuana that does not create a “high,” to students.

On June 25, 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Epidiolex to treat two types of pediatric epilepsy. The approval of Epidiolex will pave the way for school districts, for the first time, to administer a medicine derived from marijuana, provided that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) reclassifies it, which is expected to occur by the end of September 2018, and other Education Code requirements are met.

What is Epidiolex?

Epidiolex is a drug manufactured by GW Pharmaceuticals, a British company, which contains CBD, but not tetrahydrocannabidiol, or THC. CBD is one of several naturally-occurring compounds in the marijuana plant called cannabinoids. CBD does not cause hallucinogenic or psychoactive effects when ingested. Put simply, CBD cannot get a person high. THC, on the other hand, is a different cannabinoid in marijuana that does cause euphoric or hallucinogenic effects, making a person high.

The FDA approved Epidiolex specifically to treat Dravet Syndrome and Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome, two types of epilepsy that begin during early childhood. In published scientific studies, Epidiolex reduced the frequency of seizures in individuals with one of the two types of epilepsy as compared to a placebo. Epidiolex is the first drug ever approved to treat Dravet Syndrome.

The FDA’s approval of Epidiolex is complicated by the fact that CBD, as a component of marijuana, remains a Schedule I substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA). (21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.) Because of this, Epidiolex, while approved by the FDA, cannot yet be “prescribed” by a physician. In its press release regarding the approval of Epidiolex, the FDA indicated that it “provides recommendations to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) regarding controls under the CSA, [but] [t]he DEA is required to make a scheduling determination.” The CSA defines Schedule I substances as those with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse, and only allows doctors to prescribe Schedule II through Schedule V drugs. Barbara Carreno, a public affairs representative for the DEA, recently confirmed that the DEA will act on re-classifying Epidiolex and/or CBD within 90 days.

What does the FDA approval of Epidiolex mean for school districts?

The FDA’s approval of Epidiolex reflects a shift toward public acceptance of marijuana-based medications for children with certain conditions. Once the DEA reclassifies Epidiolex (or CBD) which is expected to occur by the end of September 2018, school districts may be able to have school nurses and/or staff administer it to students at school, provided that the school district’s applicable board policies regulations and Education Code section 49423-the provision that allows for medication to be administered at school-are met.

Senate Bill 1127

Separately, and currently pending before the California Legislature is Senate Bill (SB) 1127, which would permit California school boards to adopt a policy allowing a parent/guardian of a child with a valid medical marijuana “recommendation” from a doctor to administer medical marijuana to the child at school. While medical marijuana cannot be “prescribed” due to its Schedule I status, under California’s Compassionate Use Act doctors can recommend it. Notably, SB 1127 allows for the administration of medical marijuana, which may contain THC (as opposed to just CBD) depending on the form administered. Additionally, as drafted, SB 1127 does not account for the need to harmonize the permitted use of medical marijuana by students at school and those provisions of Education Code section 48900 et seq., which permit districts to discipline students for use, possession, or being under the influence of controlled substances or other intoxicants at school.

A vote on whether SB 1127 will be passed by the legislature and sent to the governor for approval is expected by the end of August 2018.

What about student discipline?

Education Code sections 48900 and 48915 are clear that a student may be subject to student discipline for possession, use, or being the under influence of a controlled substance or other intoxicant at school or at school-related activities. With potential changes afoot following the approval of Epidiolex by the FDA, and with SB 1127 pending, further legislative action may be necessary to provide clarity for districts on the interaction between long-standing student discipline laws and lawful medical use of marijuana-derived medications by students.

Given the constant changes in this area of the law and the complicated nuances of existing law, Lozano Smith recommends any school district assessing a request by a parent to provide his or her child with medical marijuana, or Epidiolex should it be made publically available, to consult legal counsel.

Lozano Smith will keep clients updated regarding the status of SB 1127 and the commercial availability of Epidiolex. We encourage you to listen to the webinar Getting Blunt: An Update on Marijuana in Schools, presented by Aimee Perry and Alyssa Bivins, which discusses the issues raised in this article in greater detail. Look out for the next Getting Blunt webinar in late August or early September to remain up to date in this rapidly evolving area of the law.

If you have any questions regarding Epidiolex, SB 1127, or medication administration in general, please contact the authors of this Client News Brief or an attorney at one of our eight offices located statewide. You can also visit our website, follow us on Facebook or Twitter or download our Client News Brief App.

Written by:

Sloan R. Simmons

Partner

Aimee Perry

Senior Counsel

Alyssa R. Bivins

Associate

©2017 Lozano Smith

As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this News Brief does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

Lawmakers Extend Limits on Disruption and Defiance Discipline, Expand Use of Uniform Complaint Procedures

July 2018
Number 31

State lawmakers have indefinitely extended previously approved limits on disciplining students for defiance and disruption and have expanded the list of issues that may be addressed through the Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP).

The changes were included in a budget trailer bill, Assembly Bill (AB) 1808, and became effective when Governor Jerry Brown signed the bill on June 27.

Extension of Limits on Student Discipline for Disruption and Willful Defiance

AB 1808 eliminated the July 1, 2018 sunset date on limitations for disciplining students under Education Code section 48900, subdivision (k), for disruption and willful defiance. AB 420, which lawmakers approved in 2014, eliminated school districts’ ability to suspend students in kindergarten through grade 3 for disruption and willful defiance. (See 2014 Client News Brief No. 72 .) AB 420 also prohibited school districts from recommending expulsion based upon disruption or willful defiance for any student, regardless of grade level. These limits were set to sunset, or automatically be repealed, on July 1, 2018. AB 1808, however, has indefinitely extended the limitations on discipline under Education Code section 48900, subdivision (k).

Accordingly, districts should continue to implement existing law and procedures regarding the restrictions on student discipline for disruption and willful defiance.

New Issues Covered by Uniform Complaint Procedures

AB 1808 also added Education Code sections 8235.5 and 33315, subdivision (a)(1)(O), which now require districts that operate California state preschool programs to process complaints regarding preschool health and safety under those districts’ UCPs. Specifically, complaints regarding deficiencies related to preschool health and safety issues for state preschool programs are now subject to the UCP. Education Code section 8235.5 requires a notice to be posted in each California state preschool program classroom notifying parents, guardians, pupils, and teachers of the following in order to identify appropriate subjects of a complaint:

  • The health and safety requirements required by title 5 of the California Code of Regulations which apply to California state preschool programs, such as “sanitary, neat, and clean condition of the school premises and freedom of the premises from conditions that would create a fire or life hazard” (Cal. Code Regs., Tit. 5, § 630) ;and
  • The location where someone can obtain a form to file a complaint. Providing a downloadable form on the district website is sufficient to meet this requirement.

Additionally, as with other grounds for filing a complaint under the UCP, Education Code section 33315, subdivision (a)(1)(O) requires districts to include information in their annual notice to parents regarding their right to file a complaint under the UCP for deficiencies in preschool health and safety requirements.

Given that the provisions of AB 1808 are already effective, districts that operate state preschool programs must take steps to update their board policies and administrative regulations regarding the UCP. If feasible, districts should also seek to ensure their annual notice to parents is amended to include these additional grounds for filing complaints under the UCP.

If you have any questions regarding AB 1808 or any other matters related to student discipline or the UCP, please contact the authors of this Client News Brief or an attorney at one of our eight offices located statewide. You can also visit our website, follow us on Facebook or Twitter or download our Client News Brief App.

Written by:

Sloan R. Simmons

Partner

Aimee Perry

Senior Counsel

Michelle N. Sinks

Associate

©2017 Lozano Smith

As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this News Brief does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.