Gabriela Botzman

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

Legal Brief #1

Citations:
Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved March 15, 2023, from
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1973/72-777

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1973/72-777

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourteenth_amendment_0

https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-124.136

Facts:
-Three teachers in separate instances filed grievances against the Cleveland Board of
Education in regards to their maternity leaves with the district.

-Cleveland Board of Education required pregnant teachers to take an unpaid maternity

leave as soon as they enter their fifth month because they were deemed unfit to work
throughout the rest of their pregnancy.

-Teachers were only allowed to come back to work once the end of the semester or
school year, and with a document from their doctor assuring they were in good health.

Issues:
-Did both school boards’ policies terminating teachers’ employment in their fourth or fifth
month of pregnancy violate the Fourteenth Amendment?

-Did the Cleveland School Board’s policy preventing LaFleur and Nelson from returning
to work until their children were three months old violate the Fourteenth Amendment?

-Did the Chesterfield School Board’s policy allowing Cohen to resume employment after
maternity leave only upon submission of a certificate of medical health by her physician
violate the Fourteenth Amendment?

Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 majority that in two of the issues, the school board did
violate the teachers’ fourteenth amendment rights. The court ruled that yes, both school
boards’ policies terminating teachers’ employment in their fourth or fifth month of
pregnancy violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights. They also ruled that yes, the
Cleveland School Board’s policy preventing LaFleur and Nelson from returning to work
until their children were three months old violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights.
The final ruling was no, that the Chesterfield School Board’s policy allowing Cohen to
resume employment after maternity leave only upon submission of a certificate of
medical health by her physician did not violate their Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Rationale:
The court made this decision on the grounds that there are protections in place for
individuals within the United States when it comes to the personal choice of marriage
and family planning. Justice Stewart emphasized that if pregnant teachers give advance
notice of their need to take maternity leave, that was valid enough to ensure that
continuity is possible in the classroom. This would avoid them being terminated, or not
being allowed to return until the next year because the district had time to prepare for
their absence. For the first issue, the court maintained that school districts cannot
outright say that all women in their fourth or fifth month of their pregnancies are unfit to
continue teaching. In regards to the second issue, the court ruled in this way because
the school board failed to provide any justification for why this policy was made. On the
third issue, the court ruled that it was not violating the Fourteenth Amendment by
requiring a doctor’s note to return to work because it was reasonable and protected the
district’s interest of having healthy teachers surrounding their maternity leave.

Conclusion:
This case is so important for education since the field is dominated by people that could
become pregnant, and teachers should know their rights when it comes to their
maternity leave. This case is older, from the early 1970s, but there are still a lot of
concerns over the policies surrounding districts’ maternity leave policy. This wouldn’t be
something that school level administrators would need to be so familiar with, since they
have district human resource departments that implement the policies surrounding
maternity leave, but it is still important to be aware of. Some follow up was needed after
analyzing this case, and I chose to look into what maternity leave policy is now in Ohio,
within the Ohio Revised Code.
 Gabriela Botzman
Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education
Legal Brief #2
Citations:
Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved April 19, 2023, from
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2004/02-1672

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2004/02-1672

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1672.ZO.html

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/tix_dis.html

Facts:
-Roderick Jackson was a highschool teacher and girls’ basketball coach in Birmingham,
Alabama who was fired. Jackson claims that he was fired due to his previous
complaints about his basketball team receiving unequal treatment by the school.

-Jackson sued the Birmingham Board of Education on the grounds that his firing
violated the Title IX policy.

-Jackson lost his case in two lower courts, which maintained that his firing did not
violate Title IX.

-Jakcson believes that he was discriminated against because he was criticizing the
school on behalf of the girls’ basketball team.

Issues:
-Does the Title IX amendment in Education allow for retaliation against a person who
complains of discrimination based on sex?

-Does Title IX allow individuals who have been retaliated against under the grounds of
Title IX to engage in a lawsuit against the organization they believe retaliated against
them?

Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 majority that Title IX allows lawsuits alleging
retaliation for reporting discrimination based on sex. So therefore, Jackson had every
right to pursue the lawsuit against the Birmingham Board of Education.

Rationale:
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor explained that precedent was set in a previous ruling in
the case Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, Inc. in 1969. In this case, the Supreme Court
maintained that legal action caused by retaliation for advocating against people of color
was acceptable. The justices reasoned that any retaliation for advocating for
marginalized groups, like Jackson being fired for complaining for unequal treatment of
his team, is intentional discrimination based on sex.

Conclusion:
I chose this case to analyze because I feel like it is very possible for a situation like this
to happen again, and I am not very familiar with the coaching or athletic side of being a
school leader. I also really wanted to analyze a more recent case for the second legal
brief, and unfortunately I do think that situations like this can easily continue to happen.
Additionally, I think many of us have a small idea of what Title IX is, but we are not clear
on specifics and that basic idea might even be misguided.

I am interested to know if there was any evidence provided by Jackson that confirmed
he was let go as a result of criticizing the unequal treatment. I think this case focused
more on the process, rather than the results. The case did not determine whether
Jackson could be reinstated, or that he was unjustly fired, but just that he was able to
sue the board of education over being fired under the grounds of Title IX. I looked up
the school, and it has been permanently closed, and I can’t find anything specifically
about Jackson to see where his career went after this case. Even though this case went
all the way to the Supreme Court, it only answered a small piece of the situation
surrounding Roderick Jackson.