School Districts Have Flexibility in Making Layoffs in Order to Provide Equal Education to All, Ruling Says

Saying that the state’s education code allows school districts flexibility in laying off teachers in order to comply with constitutional requirements to provide equal education to all students, a Superior Court judge granted an injunction today that prevents the Los Angeles Unified School District from laying off teachers at Gompers, Liechty and Markham middle schools this year. The three schools, which primarily serve low-income students and students of color, saw their teaching corps disproportionately decimated by a round of budget-driven layoffs last year, causing their education efforts to fall below the state constitutional guarantee that all students will receive a basic education consistent with prevailing statewide standards.

“The Education Code expressly allows a school district to deviate from… seniority for… purposes of maintaining or achieving compliance with constitutional requirements related to equal protection of the laws,” said the ruling from Judge William F. Highberger.

“'Today's landmark decision carries on the ideals of Brown v. Board of Education that no child may be deprived of the right to learn,” said Mark Rosenbaum, chief counsel for the ACLU of Southern California. “The injunction granted by a conscientious and courageous judge establishes the principle that government may not deny children their right to equal educational opportunity by disproportionately laying off teachers in communities such as Watts and Pico-Union. The children of Linda Brown are smiling.”

“Today’s decision gives hope back to Watts and East Los Angeles that their kids count every bit as much as students everywhere else,” said Catherine Lhamon, director of impact litigation at Public Counsel Law Center. “We celebrate this historic victory for equal rights and look forward to beginning the work to ensure that no students will suffer in future.”

The lawsuit was filed by the ACLU of Southern California, Public Counsel Law Center and the law firm of Morrison & Foerster LLP, on behalf of students at the three schools.

LOS ANGELES, Calif. – A report released today by the American Civil Liberties Union shows that overcrowding and unsanitary conditions that have plagued the jail for more than 30 years still persist, along with an apparent culture of violence and fear, including prisoner-on-prisoner assaults and the use of excessive force by deputies.

The picture of the jail that emerges in stark and disturbing detail in the report suggests that mentally disabled prisoners suffer some of the worst treatment, and that retaliation and a lack of transparency in conducting investigations into prisoner complaints make it difficult to assess the true extent of violence that occurs there.

“Men’s Central Jail is a modern-day medieval dungeon, a dank, windowless place where prisoners live in fear of retaliation and abuse apparently goes unchecked. The jail is not an appropriate facility for housing prisoners with mental illness, many of whom do not receive proper treatment for their mental illness,” said Peter Eliasberg, ACLU/SC managing attorney. “At the root of the many problems plaguing this toxic facility is overcrowding and the only solutions are to either reduce the jail population dramatically or close it.”

With approximately 20,000 detainees, the Los Angeles County jail system is the largest and most expensive in the nation, costing nearly $1 billion a year to operate. Men’s Central Jail is nearly 50 years old and currently houses an average of 5,000 detainees. More than half are simply awaiting trial – in other words, they are presumed innocent and have yet to get their day in court.

The ACLU/SC and the ACLU National Prison Project are the court-appointed monitors of conditions within the jail.

The new report, based on the observations of ACLU jail monitors, numerous interviews with prisoners, and thousands of prisoner complaints gathered between 2008 and 2009, focuses on conditions inside Men’s Central Jail, the largest jail in the county’s system.

In one case detailed in the report, a prisoner said he was brutally beaten by deputies after complaining to an ACLU jail monitor that he and other prisoners on his jail row had not been allowed to shower for weeks. The deputies broke his leg, and hurt his knee so badly that he had to have surgery. The ferocious attack had a chilling effect, silencing many of the prisoners on that row. When a jail monitor visited a few days after the beating, many refused to talk, while those who did spoke in hushed tones, fearing they would also be targeted.

Another significant concern is that a high percentage of prisoners are mentally ill, many unable to control their disturbed behavior. A national expert found abuse of prisoners by deputies and other prisoners is disproportionately directed toward those with mental illness.

“The dangerously overcrowded conditions at Men’s Central Jail exacerbate the violence, filth and mental illness, creating a poisonous brew,” said Mary Tiedeman, ACLU/SC Jails Project coordinator and co-author of the report. “No human being should be forced to live in such egregious conditions. But what is so troubling is that most of these prisoners are awaiting trial, still presumed innocent.”

It is difficult for the ACLU to assess accurately the extent of violence inside the jails or confirm allegations. The Sheriff’s Department refuses to release basic information about how it conducts investigations of abuse and metes out punishment. This lack of transparency raises serious questions about the adequacy and independence of the department’s internal review process and could even encourage violence within the facility. The ACLU is further hampered by a widespread fear of retaliation among prisoners, portrayed in numerous prisoner complaints.

“It’s time for the county and the Sheriff’s Department to deal with the longstanding problems at the heart of this lawsuit, and spending more money on a newer and bigger jail is not the answer,” said Margaret Winter, associate director of the ACLU National Prison Project. “It’s time for them to lower the jail population by using proven diversion programs such as electronic monitoring and drug and mental health treatment. The conditions at Men’s Central Jail are simply among the most barbaric of any jail or prison in the nation.”

Top photo: ACLU/SC Managing Attorney Peter Eliasberg, and Jails Project Coordinator Mary Tiedeman.

Bottom photo: Inside the Men's Central Jail.

WASHINGTON – In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court today remanded a case concerning a Latin cross in the Mojave National Preserve back to the district court, saying that the lower court used the wrong legal standard in deciding to invalidate a transfer of the land on which the cross stands to private ownership. The American Civil Liberties Union will continue to argue that the transfer does not remedy the government’s unconstitutional endorsement of one particular religion.

The case, Salazar v. Buono, stems from a complaint raised by veteran and former National Park Service employee Frank Buono, who claimed that the presence of an overtly religious symbol on federal land represented unconstitutional favoritism toward a specific religion.

“Although we're disappointed that the Court did not simply affirm the district court’s ruling that the land transfer was impermissible, we're encouraged that the case is not over,” said Peter Eliasberg, managing attorney and Manheim Family Attorney for First Amendment Rights at the ACLU of Southern California, who argued the case. “The cross is unquestionably a sectarian symbol, and we respectfully but strongly disagree with the suggestion by some members of the court that it does not favor one religion.”

“The Latin cross is the preeminent symbol of Christianity, and there are more appropriate ways for the government to honor veterans of all faiths,” said Daniel Mach, Director of the ACLU Program for Freedom of Religion and Belief.

The case originated in 2001 as a challenge to the presence of a Latin cross on federally owned land in the Mojave National Preserve, about 125 miles northeast of Los Angeles, California. In 2002, while the federal district court case was pending, Congress designated the cross as a national memorial, one of only 49 such memorials around the country. Others include Mount Rushmore, the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial, although the Mojave cross would be the only one dedicated to soldiers who fought and died in World War I. In an apparent attempt to circumvent the Establishment Clause violation, Congress also transferred one acre of land on which the cross stands to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, with the provision that the VFW continue to maintain it as a war memorial.

The court did not take up the issue of whether Buono had “standing” to bring the case, and as a result, the decision does not bar private citizens from challenging the constitutionality of religious displays on government property in the future.

Photo: The Latin cross atop Sunrise Rock in the Mojave National Preserve on April, 2009. Peter J. Eliasberg