Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
As a new school year begins, the use of social media is more prevalent in the classroom than ever. Many schools have adopted the use of the Internet for administrative tasks, such as registering for classes, assigning and completing homework assignments, and for communications between teachers and students. And while many school districts have adopted social media policies relating to the regulation of its students' actions, many have not implemented similar policies with respect to its employees, including teachers and other staff. Some recent case law regarding the termination of school employees involving their use of social media are instructive regarding the importance of implementing clearly defined policies for this issue. Indeed, the policies should apply to the administration, faculty and staff of the school districts, along with strict policies for students.
First Amendment Issues
Generally, school district employees are considered public employees and cite to the First Amendment to protect their right to join and post to social media websites. In this regard, in a case in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Munroe v. Central Bucks School District, Civil Action No. 12-03546 (E.D.Pa 2014), U.S. District Judge Cynthia M. Rufe noted that “a public employee's speech is protected when he or she 1) speaks as a private citizen upon 2) a matter of public concern and 3) the employee's interest in exercising his or her First Amendment rights are greater than the employer's interest in the efficient operation of the public agency.” Rufe explained that a school employee's interest in exercising his or her First Amendment rights must outweigh the school district's interest in effectively operating within the community. The courts are tasked with examining the content, form and context of the social media statement by the employee that leads to a fact-sensitive inquiry that requires careful consideration of the entire record, including both the issue of public concern and the employer's interest.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.