MORGAN HILL
– The Morgan Hill School District and attorneys for six former
Live Oak High School students who sued the district five years ago
for not protecting them from the slings and arrows of being
perceived
”
gay
”
are in settlement talks in an effort to avoid trial.
Mark Davis, an attorney representing the district, said Thursday
that Judge James Ware of the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
sent the case back to trial court with a January 2004 date but also
ordered the two sides to meet in settlement conferenc
MORGAN HILL – The Morgan Hill School District and attorneys for six former Live Oak High School students who sued the district five years ago for not protecting them from the slings and arrows of being perceived “gay” are in settlement talks in an effort to avoid trial.
Mark Davis, an attorney representing the district, said Thursday that Judge James Ware of the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sent the case back to trial court with a January 2004 date but also ordered the two sides to meet in settlement conferences.
Davis said the district and attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union, representing the students, had met in July and are scheduled to meet again in September.
“The court sent the parties out to confer,” Davis said, “supervised by a federal magistrate.” He said discussions will continue.
“In early October, we will meet with the judge for a pretrial conference and he will inquire about the status (of the case) then,” he said.
Attorney Diane Ritchie, who brought the students’ original lawsuit, made it clear in April that the suit has never been about money, even though $1 million is sought, but about protection and making the district change its ways.
“All of them wanted to file to get protection on campus; they wanted the policy to change,” Ritchie said then. She doesn’t think much has changed in the district, though. Ritchie said she still hears about the administration allowing harassment.
“The (district) hasn’t ever made a change in their practice – I continue to receive calls from parents and students – it’s still going on,” she said in April.
Davis has a different opinion.
“From the beginning, the district has been trying to see if there was any way of resolving the matter prior to trial,” Davis said. “Offers and demands have been made but money is one of the stumbling blocks.”
He said the students are asking for more than $1 million.
“One of the frustrating things since the case started five years ago is that they always say it’s not about the money,” he said. “When they say it’s not about the money, it’s about the money.”
Davis said he considers the monetary demands excessive under the circumstances.
“It has kept us from settling,” he said.
In April, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision, proclaimed as historic by the ACLU, insisting that Morgan Hill (and other) schools give equal protection to all students.
The decision allowed the Morgan Hill students’ case to go forward after years of appeals by the district.
ACLU attorney Matt Coles, who could not be reached for comment, had explained the decision’s application to the MHSD policy in April.
“In the past … schools had a responsibility to act once they know of violent harassment of an individual. The district here said some kids complained about some things and when they complained, we reacted. You can’t call us to account if we didn’t know. The court said, ‘no’ once you know about the problem you must act.”
The Equal Protection Clause is a part of the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution and was used in 1954 (the Brown v. the Board of Education decision) to declare racial segregation in the public schools violated the Constitution.
Now, Coles said, it will protect all students (in Morgan Hill), California and elsewhere in the Ninth District, and not just those in public schools.
Davis made it clear in April that there had been no actual ruling (or decision) on the merits of the case.
“The court ruled that there was enough evidence to proceed to trial,” he said. The case, from his point of view, hangs on three issues:
Were the students harassed, were their complaints handled properly and if they were not, then was that because of the nature of the claims (sexual orientation).
“Basically, it is up to the judge and/or jury to decide,” he said.
School Board President Tom Kinoshita said Thursday that any monetary judgment that might be attached to the district would be covered by insurance; it would not come out of the district’s already-stressed general fund budget.
The Flores v. MHSD was on the school board’s closed session agenda Monday night, but Kinoshita said it was not discussed.
