|
Anti-bullying laws may now have a
significant impact on what is considered to be “emotional abuse” in
schools. Recently, the Connecticut Supreme Court concluded that a
teacher’s bullying behavior toward a student met the legal definition of
emotional abuse.Nicholas Frank v. Department of Children and
Families, SC 18980, July 8, 2014. In
this case, a sixth grade teacher, Nicholas Frank, had been placed on the
central registry of abuse and neglect after the Department of Children
and Families [“DCF”] found that he had emotionally abused one of his
students. The abuse came in the form of targeting an overweight boy
in his class by repeatedly calling him demeaning and embarrassing names —
such as “pregnant,” “birthing mother,” “cheeks,” “fish out of water,” —
painfully pinching the student’s cheeks, and effectively encouraging
other students in the class to join in. As a result, the student
began to suffer from anxiety, bedwetting, fear of school and reduced
academic performance. The teacher’s primary defense was that his comments
were jokes, said in an effort to keep a light atmosphere in the classroom
and could not be considered to be abuse as that term was too vague to
apply to his situation.
This case had started as an appeal
of a DCF hearing officer’s decision to keep the teacher’s name on the
registry of abuse and neglect. The Court concluded that the hearing
officer’s decision was based upon substantial evidence, and thus worthy
of deference by the Court, and that the abuse and neglect law as applied
to this teacher was not unconstitutionally
vague. In other words, the teacher had fair notice that his
behavior fell within the statutory definition of abuse. Such notice
came mostly from DCF policy, but also, quite notably, from the
anti-bullying and safe school climate law.
In Connecticut, bullying policies
and safe school climate plans do not apply to teacher conduct toward
students. Acknowledging this, the Court stated that “[a]lthough the
statute is expressly directed at student conduct intended to cause harm,
it directs teachers to take an active role in preventing and responding to
bullying.” The Court went on to note that teachers play a vital
role in minimizing, if not eliminating bullying among students.
Therefore, the anti-bullying law is further proof that this teacher
should have known that his behavior was abusive.
|
