[April 28, 2015] Picture this: during an Upper School Assembly at Springtime Academy, a recent alumnus of the school gives a talk and video presentation about his recent adventure on Mount Kilimanjaro. He remains on campus for the day, attending classes and bonding with students. During a conversation after lunch, a couple of tenth graders reveal to the climber that some of their classmates recently engaged in sexual misconduct. The speaker tells the school administration about what he heard, but does not report the misconduct to the state child welfare authorities. Should he have?
Guess what the lawyers say? “It depends.” It depends on how your state law defines “mandated reporters,” or those who, by virtue of their profession, are considered to have a heightened responsibility to report good faith suspicion that a child has been abused, sexually abused or neglected. Typically, such reports must be made to state child welfare agencies within 24-48 hours of the individual learning of the suspected misconduct.
In most states, those employed by schools (administrators, coaches, teachers), doctors, social workers and other licensed counselors are considered to be mandated reporters; but by virtue of someone speaking at a school, the mantle of “mandated reporter” does not automatically apply. In other states, anyone—regardless of profession or school affiliation—is obligated to report suspected child abuse, sexual abuse and neglect. In those states, the speaker could have an obligation to report the misconduct—his telling school administrators what he heard may not be enough to satisfy that requirement. Some states require that school employees first report their good faith suspicions of child maltreatment directly to authorities before informing even their supervisor or head of school. Finally, most states penalize individuals who should have reported and do not, versus those who made a good faith report of child maltreatment, that later, turns out to be unsubstantiated.
The take away: the determination of who is legally obligated to report suspicions of child maltreatment is nuanced and highly dependent on knowing your school’s state law. Take the time to educate your entire employee population – boundary training and mandates reporter training will help the community be ready for whatever may arise on campus.
If you have any questions about legal compliance for reporting suspected child abuse, sexual abuse or neglect, please do not hesitate to contact a member of the Firm’s Education Practice Group.
[April 21, 2015] The nation’s attention will be turning to Kentucky, Maryland and New York for the triple crown horse races later this spring. While hoping that you may have the next National Velvet in the stables, we encourage independent schools to be aware of and effectively minimize their exposure to the potential risks that may arise from offering horseback riding programs.
Currently, all states, except California, Maryland, Nevada, and New York, have statutes that provide some level of protection from personal injury liability for an organization that offers equine activities. State laws vary quite a bit, however, in requiring specific wording for a release form, time periods for retaining such forms, and posting of warning signs in the stable and corral. For example, in Pennsylvania, signs indicating that riders assume the risks associated with the activity must be two feet by three feet in size. In Massachusetts, such signs must be in black letters, with each letter to be a minimum of one inch in height—we were not kidding when we said the laws are specific! Therefore, it is important that schools be aware of state laws and craft signage and permission and release forms to maximize their enforceability.
Furthermore, even a well-drafted release may not deter an injured student and the student’s family from filing suit against a school, so it is extremely important that schools take all appropriate measures to prevent injuries while students participate in high-risk activities, including horseback riding, through establishing and implementing appropriate risk management strategies. Has your school considered implementing baseline testing protocols to help prevent and manage concussions? Does your school have policies and procedures in place to make sure saddles and helmets are appropriately (and safely) fitted to horse and rider?
In an effort to minimize an independent school’s exposure to potential legal risks associated with riding programs, we recommend that schools take the following measures:
- Carefully evaluate applicable laws related to equine activities in the school’s home state;
- Implement appropriate athletic policies and risk management plans related to equine activities;
- Carefully draft signage, permission, medical treatment authorization and release forms;
- Ensure that all riding team trip forms are consistent with state-specific best practices; and
- Educate students, parents, athletic trainers, instructors and coaches regarding the school’s policies and procedures pertaining to equine activities.
Please do not hesitate to contact a member of the Firm’s Education Practice Group if you have any questions about this information or equine activity-related issues in general.
[April 7, 2015] Educational institutions, both secondary and higher ed, routinely survey peer institutions in order to ascertain the details of faculty and other employee compensation. In some cases, the data enables institutions to pay similar amounts as their peers; in others, the data enables institutions to pay more than market value. In both contexts, the purpose is to attract and retain excellent educators: a noble goal. However, before participating in (or relying upon data from) a compensation survey, educational institutions ought to consider the reality that some of these compensation survey methods may unwittingly violate antitrust laws.
Antitrust laws prohibit “anti-competitive” business practices – meaning joint conduct that unreasonably restrains competition. While not a per se violation, the exchange of information about compensation and benefits among employers is subject to antitrust scrutiny. Notably, compensation surveys that promote competition generally comply with antitrust laws.
At first blush, distinguishing the surveys that promote, rather than quash, competition may seem like a daunting task. The U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), the agencies tasked with enforcing federal antitrust laws, have identified three criteria that, if present, will generally protect employers under the umbrella of an antitrust “safety zone.” These are: “(1) the survey is managed by a third party; (2) the information provided by survey participants is based on data more than three months old; and (3) there are at least five providers reporting data upon which each disseminated statistic is based, no individual provider’s data represents more than 25% of a weighted basis of that statistic, and any information disseminated is sufficiently aggregated such that it would not allow recipients to identify the prices paid by any particular provider.”
Of course, this is not a fool-proof method; a survey that meets this test may still violate antitrust laws. However, the DOJ and FTC have represented that, absent extraordinary circumstances, they will not challenge an employer that participates in a survey satisfying the safety zone criteria. Thus, the safety zone provides a useful framework to help schools navigate this complex area.
If an educational institution decides to conduct or utilize a survey sharing compensation information, the following tips may help minimize the risk of violating antitrust laws:
- Survey participants should not be identifiable, whether directly or indirectly.
- Prospective wages and benefits information should not be collected.
- Avoid including advice on how to use or interpret data. The more raw the data, the less likely it will be to raise antitrust concerns.
- Prohibit or avoid improper discussions about the survey. For instance, consider including a written disclaimer or an agreement that prohibits discussions that violate antitrust laws.
- In setting future compensation or benefits, the survey should be used as only one factor of many. This decision-making process should be carefully documented.
- Avoid conducting surveys too often, as the frequent collection of data could support an improper motive.
If you have any questions about best practices and legal compliance for conducting or participating in a compensation survey, please do not hesitate to contact a member of the Firm’s Education Practice Group.