Has your child faced issues in the Lee's Summit School District? Have you been forced to homeschool your child or pay for private school? Has the district allowed your child to be bullied by peers or employees? Is your child receiving the Free and Appropriate Education that they are Federally entitled to? Are you willing to speak out? You can do so anonymously. I will be glad to forward your story to someone that is willing to investigate this and put a stop to this madness.
Did you know that the district is actively advocating taking away your rights? Did you know that they are using their power ad resources to make sure that you will no longer have the rights that you have right now? Are you willing to help me stop them?
I know that you are afraid of retaliation. I won't begin to tell you that it won't happen. I know of too many cases where it has. I know of many lives that have been ruined and futures that have been lost. I am standing up and saying that we won't take it any more. Will you please help me?
I have been called "that Tucker Nut" by district personnel. My son has been told that they are doing things to him because his mom won't back down. My son has been told that I am making his life harder by standing up for what is right. I told him that is a bully's way of quieting a person and I won't be bullied. I was forced to have him drop out so that they couldn't damage him any further. But, he wasn't receiving an education or the services that he was entitled to, so that was no great loss.
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE help me to help other families. Only when we stand together can we end this madness.
Lee's Summit R7 is using it's power, influence, and resources to promote the following bills. If they are successful you will have even less of a chance of making the district do what is ethical, legal, moral, and right. Do you really believe the district should be promoting this? I know someone that can help us end this madness.
Controversial legislation proposing changes to the Missouri Human Rights Act earned a veto from Gov. Jay Nixon during last year’s legislative session — and the fight is on this year with the introduction of a similar bill.
Last year’s Senate Bill 188 and this year’s legislation, SB 592, have few differences, said Rich Germinder, chief of staff for Sen. Brad Lager, R-Savannah, who proposed both bills.
“The same components are still there,” Germinder said. “The primary component being the changing of the causation standard from a contributing factor to a motivating factor standard.”
The MHRA states that a fired individual can file a lawsuit against the employer because he or she thinks any one part of the decision related to the firing involved rights protected by MHRA, such as race, age or gender, Germinder said. Shifting to a motivating factor, which is what the federal standards use, would mean the human rights violation would have to be the main reason, he said.
Supporters of the bill, which was approved Jan. 12 by the Senate Committee on Commerce, said it will bring Missouri’s law in line with federal human rights legislation. Those opposing the changes said it will weaken the rights of individuals in discrimination claims. SB 592 is expected to be among the first debated in the 2012 session.
Nixon has a policy of not commenting on proposed legislation because it changes during the process, spokesman Scott Holste said.
But it seems unlikely his opinions have shifted much since last year’s veto.
In a news release after the veto last year, Nixon said SB 188 would undermine the MHRA and make it harder to prove discrimination.
Public School Liable for Sex Harassment of Student by Another Student.
Doe ex rel. Subia v. Kansas City, Missouri Sch. Dist., (WD73800, 4/17/2012)
o Doe alleged that he was sexually harassed and sexually assaulted by another student on multiple occasions during school hours on school grounds. Doe asserted the District's acts and omissions violated the MHRA because the sexual harassment and sexual assaults occurred on the basis of his gender and constituted sex discrimination. He claimed that the school is a public place of accommodation, and that he was deprived of the full, free, and equal use and enjoyment of the school and its services by way of the District's actions and inactions.
o The public school district's liability for student-on-student sexual harassment under the MHRA is the same as that for an employer's liability for co-worker sexual harassment under the MHRA. The school district is liable if it knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt and effective remedial action.
No comments:
Post a Comment