FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

August 22, 2016

Contact: Melody Meyer, melody@edjustice.org or 646.770.7061

FAMILIES IN NEW YORK AND MINNESOTA CONTINUE LAWSUITS CHALLENGING HARMFUL TEACHER EMPLOYMENT STATUTES 

California court split decision in Vergara has no impact on cases in New York and Minnesota

New York, NY – Parents and students in New York and Minnesota who have challenged their states’ teacher employment laws in court resolved today that their lawsuits are more important than ever. This comes after the California Supreme Court, in a 4-3 split decision, declined to review the appeal of families challenging similar laws there, leaving in tact a misguided opinion by the state’s intermediate court.

As a legal matter, this latest development in Vergara has no effect on Wright v. New York or Forslund v. Minnesota because these lawsuits are challenging state laws in state courts under different state constitutions. Consequently, the Vergara decision has no bearing on cases in other states, and the New York and Minnesota courts are not bound by the decision of the intermediate California judiciary. Further and most importantly, the plaintiffs in New York and Minnesota each raise legal claims that are entirely distinct from the legal claim dismissed by the California Court of Appeal (see below for more detail on the legal claims in each case). Both Wright v. New York and Forslund v. Minnesota are supported by Partnership for Educational Justice, a national education nonprofit that has no formal affiliation with Vergara v. California.

“Disrupting long-held special interests is not easy, which is why civil rights struggles are rarely won in the first battle,” said Ralia Polechronis, Partnership for Educational Justice Executive Director. “Despite acknowledgement by California’s lower courts that the current system has a ‘deleterious impact’ on students and despite scathing dissents by two California Supreme Court justices, the majority of California’s Supreme Court today weakened children’s constitutional right to a quality education by declining to hear the students’ case and permitting the intermediate court’s misguided reasoning to stand. This failure by the state’s highest court to take on this fight only strengthens our commitment to support families in New York, Minnesota, and elsewhere in the country where unjust education laws result in broken school systems that fail to educate far too many students. Of course, the Vergara plaintiff families continue to have our unwavering support until the changes they demand are a reality in their schools.”

“I joined this fight more than two years ago because I saw firsthand how these laws leave some students in schools with no real educational opportunity,” said Keoni Wright, father of four and lead plaintiff in Wright v. New York. “I am proud to stand bravely with other parents in this national movement and demand a better, equal public education system.”

“I know all too well, just as families across the country do, that every child needs effective teachers,” said Tiffini Flynn Forslund, mother of three and lead plaintiff in Forslund v. Minnesota. “Our frustrations and our momentum are too strong for this parent movement to stop here. We will continue fighting for educational justice and won’t be silenced until every students’ right to a quality education is upheld.”

“New York State’s constitution guarantees all children in the state a sound basic education, and the current teacher employment statutes are simply failing in this regard by keeping ineffective teachers in our public schools,” said Jay Lefkowitz, a litigation partner at Kirkland & Ellis LLP representing the plaintiffs in Wright v. New York. “We look forward to the day when we can put on our evidence at trial and vindicate the rights of parents and children across the state.”

“Students in Minnesota have a constitutionally-protected right to an education, which the Minnesota courts have previously reinforced,” said Jesse Stewart, attorney at Fishman Haygood, the lead firm representing the plaintiffs in Forslund v. Minnesota. “The challenged statutes allow persistently ineffective teachers to remain in classrooms despite research that teacher quality is the key determinant of educational success. We are unequivocally committed to support these families in the fight to protect the rights of all Minnesota students.”

While Vergara v. California, Wright v. New York, and Forslund v. Minnesota all raise constitutional challenges to laws governing teacher tenure, dismissal, and layoffs, each case presents a nuanced legal argument based on different state constitutions, case law, and statutes, as well as evidence about schools and plaintiffs specific to each case. The plaintiffs in New York and Minnesota each raise legal claims that are entirely distinct from the legal claim dismissed by the California Court of Appeal. More detail and an overview of how the legal claims in New York and Minnesota differ are offered below.

 

Legal claims in Vergara v. California dismissed by the California judiciary:

• There are two key elements to the legal claims raised by the Vergara plaintiffs and ultimately dismissed by the California Court of Appeal.
• Specifically, the Vergara plaintiffs made a “facial” challenge to the state’s teacher employment statutes under the equal protection clause of the California State Constitution.
  • A facial challenge alleges that a law is unconstitutional by its very nature, and the law always results in a violation of a constitutional right. This is contrasted with an “as applied” challenge, which asserts that a particular application of a statute is unconstitutional.
  • By raising an equal protection challenge, the Vergara plaintiffs asserted that the state’s teacher tenure, dismissal, and seniority-based layoff laws result in unequal delivery of public education as guaranteed by the California State Constitution.

Legal claims in Wright v. New York

• The Wright plaintiffs’ legal claims allege that the state’s teacher tenure, dismissal, and seniority-based layoff statutes violate the right to an education guaranteed to all children by the New York State Constitution.
  • Specifically, the Wright plaintiffs assert that the challenged statutes result in some or all students receiving less than the “sound, basic education” guaranteed by the New York State Constitution and as previously defined through case law by the New York judiciary.
• The New York lawsuit does not leverage the equal protection clause of the New York State Constitution, which means the legal claim that will be evaluated by the New York courts is entirely different from that considered by the California judiciary.

Legal claims in Forslund v. Minnesota

• The Forslund plaintiffs raised three types of challenges to their state’s teacher tenure, dismissal, and seniority-based layoff laws, specifically:
  • The Minnesota plaintiffs assert that the challenged statutes violate the right to an education guaranteed to all children by the Minnesota State Constitution.
    • This claim means that the plaintiffs allege that the state’s teacher tenure, dismissal, and seniority-based layoff laws result in some or all students receiving less than the “uniform” and “thorough” education guaranteed by the Minnesota State Constitution and as previously defined through case law by the Minnesota judiciary.
  • They also raise an “as applied” challenge under the equal protection clause of the Minnesota State Constitution.
    • Essentially, this claim asserts that the way that some school districts in Minnesota apply the teacher tenure, dismissal, and seniority-based layoff laws results in a violation of some students’ right to an education, as guaranteed by the state constitution and as previously defined through case law by the Minnesota judiciary.
  • Finally, they allege a due process violation.
    • The right to due process, which is guaranteed by the Minnesota State Constitution, provides the right to be notified and an opportunity to be heard before a student’s constitutionally-protected right to an education is taken away.
    • Specifically, the Forslund plaintiffs assert that some students’ rights to due process are violated because they do not receive any notice if they are, will be, or have been taught by ineffective teachers, and they do not have an opportunity to challenge this loss of their constitutionally-protected right to a “uniform” and “thorough” education.
• The Minnesota lawsuit does not raise a facial equal protection challenge, the legal claim that was dismissed by the California Court of Appeal. The Minnesota courts will evaluate the Forslund plaintiffs’ arguments using entirely different legal theories than those considered by the California judiciary.

 

About Partnership for Educational Justice (PEJ)

Founded by award-winning journalist Campbell Brown, Partnership for Educational Justice is a nonprofit organization pursuing impact litigation that empowers families and communities to advocate for great public schools through the courts. PEJ is currently working with parents and students in New York and Minnesota in support of legal challenges to unjust teacher employment statutes in those states.

 

###