California Supreme Court Rules That School Employees Can Administer Insulin Shots

Today the California Supreme Court ruled that school employees can administer insulin shots to diabetic students when a nurse is not available.  This decision arises in the context of a continuing shortage of school nurses available to administer the shots and a federal class action lawsuit alleging that California schools have failed to provide adequate health services to students as required by law.  In 2007 the California Department of Education ("CDE") advised school districts that a trained school employee may administer insulin when a school nurse is not available.  The case at issue in today's decision was filed by the American Nurses Association and challenged CDE's advice as "condoning the unauthorized practice of nursing."

The California Supreme Court concluded that "California law expressly permits trained, unlicensed school personnel to administer prescription medications such as insulin in accordance with the written statements of a student's treating physician and parents...and expressly exempts persons who thus carry out physicians' medical orders from laws prohibiting the unauthorized practice of nursing."  Therefore, it is up to each student's treating physician and parent to determine whether insulin may be administered by an unlicensed school employee.  Today's ruling is in line with the "practical reality that most insulin administered outside of hospitals and other clinical settings is in fact administered by laypersons."

Today's ruling reverses the lower court opinion, which held that only licensed professionals were permitted to administer insulin shots.

Additional information is available in our Legal Alert.

The full opinion of American Nurses Association v. Torlakson is available here.

For more information, please contact Meghan Covert Russell or the KMTG attorney you normally consult.

Court of Appeal Reverses Award of Attorneys' Fees to School District Where Publisher's PRA Request Was Meritless But Not Frivolous

School districts and other public agencies are frequently the recipients of Public Records Act requests.  These requests are time consuming and subject to litigation if not properly complied with.   Cases brought to seek compliance with the PRA are frequently litigated and continue to refine the contours of the PRA statues.  A recent case discusses the award of costs and fees when a case that is brought does not compel the public agency to disclose any additional documents.

Recently, a superior court ordered a newspaper publisher to pay the attorney fees of a school district because it determined the publisher’s Public Records Act petition was frivolous.  However, on appeal, the court of appeal held that although the publisher’s petition lacked merit, it was not frivolous and therefore the publisher was not required to pay attorney fees.  (Crews v. Willows Unified School District (--- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 217 Cal.App.4th 1368, Cal.App. 3 Dist., July 17, 2013).  Although the District complied with the PRA request, it was still subject to a lawsuit and even when the publisher did not prevail, was unable to recoup its costs of litigating the matter. 

Districts should carefully comply with PRA requests for the dual purposes of (1) providing access to public records as required by statute and in the public interest of furthering open access to government and (2) avoiding potentially costly litigation.

For more information, please see our Legal Alert and contact Meghan Covert Russell or the KMTG attorney you normally consult with.

Update -- State Supreme Court Denies Review of Bond Expenditure Case

We  reported back in April that the Court of Appeals restricted the use of bond expenditures in the case Taxpayers for Accountable School Bond Spending v. San Diego Unified School Dist. (---Cal.Rptr.3d---, Cal.App. 4 Dist., April 25, 2013).  The California Supreme Court has denied the petition for review and the case remains "good" law.  However, a request for depublication of the lower court ruling is still pending. 

Meghan Covert Russell

World Breastfeeding Week -- Make Sure You Comply With Legal Requirements For Providing Employees With Reasonable Accommodations

August 1-7 marks World Breastfeeding Week.  It is well established that breastfeeding is beneficial for both mom and baby.  As an employer, ensure you are providing breastfeeding mothers with appropriate resources.

Both state and federal law provide protection to pregnant and nursing mothers.  Specifically, California Labor Code 1030 requires employers, including the state and political subdivisions of the state, to provide a reasonable amount of break time to accommodate breastfeeding mothers (this can run concurrently with other break time and additional break time can be unpaid).  However, employers are not required to provide breaks if it would "seriously disrupt" the operations of employers.

Additionally, Labor Code 1031 requires employers to make a reasonable effort to provide breastfeeding mothers with the use of a room/location to express milk in private, except a bathroom stall, in close proximity to the employee's work area.

Employers should encourage their employees to notify them in advance in order to address scheduling and make arrangements for the accommodations. 

It is important for employers to understand their legal requirements to provide accommodation for breastfeeding employees.  Employers who fail to provide reasonable accommodations may be subject to investigation and prosecution of complaints by the Department of Fair Employment and Housing for gender discrimination, a citation from the Labor Commissioner for violation of the Labor Code, and/or civil penalty. 

The California Department of Public Health's website also has more information on breastfeeding for both employers and employees. 

Meghan Covert Russell

Court Prohibits Bond Expenditure on Stadium Lighting Because Lighting Was Not Specifically Listed as Contemplated Project

The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, recently held that school district bond revenues could not be spent on stadium lighting where the bond proposition did not specifically list field lighting as part of the contemplated projects, in accordance with the requirements of Proposition 39. (Taxpayers for Accountable School Bond Spending v. San Diego Unified School Dist. (---Cal.Rptr.3d---, Cal.App. 4 Dist., April 25, 2013).

Read the Legal Alert for the details and what it means for your district.

Meghan Covert Russell

Gov. Brown Proposes Boost To Education Funding

Governor Brown's proposed budget, released today, includes a much needed boost to spending on public education. 

The Governor's plan provides $1,046 more per K-12 student in 2013-14 than was provided in 2011-12.  The plan also proposes to invest $1 billion in one-time revenues to fund professional development, instructional materials and enhancements to technology to support the implementation of the Common Core Standards.

For more details, access the press release from Governor Brown's office here and the revised budget here.

Meghan Covert Russell

State Board of Education Issues Proposed Regulations on Student Fees and Bullying

The State Board of Education recently announced it was beginning the process to adopt regulations to implement AB 1575 (2012) and AB 9 (2011) regarding bullying.  AB 1575 prohibits school districts from charging students fees for participating in any educational activity, including extracurricular activities. Districts were required to have policies in place to implement AB 1575 by March 1, 2013. The bill allows complaints regarding fees to be filed with the school principal. Anonymous complaints are permitted, and if the complainant is not satisfied with the decision at the school level, an appeal to the California Department of Education may go forward. The department is authorized to direct reimbursement of all improperly collected fees if it finds an appeal has merit. AB 9 required districts to adopt policies prohibiting bullying based on specific characteristics, including disability, gender, gender identity and expression, nationality, race or ethnicity. AB 9 also required districts to have procedures for receiving and investigating complaints of such bullying. The  proposed regulations published by the State Board of Education amend the existing Uniform Complaint Procedures to include complaints about student fees and complaints of bullying. Comments on the proposed regulations may be submitted by e-mail or in writing until May 15, 2013. The regulations are posted at www.cde.ca.gov/re/lr/rr. 

Marsha Bedwell