Frustrating article to follow wrote on Jul 19, 2008 12:23 AM:Most certainly an important case to follow because the issues raised are of federal question jurisdiction. I am just wondering why the students did not file the claim in federal court?

As to:
"What is it about money damages alone that fulfills the intent of the Legislature, which is to create an environment free from harassment?" Justice Patricia Benke asked."

What? what?

HUH wrote on Jul 19, 2008 8:30 AM:The headline reads $300,00. HUH?

gimmeabreak wrote on Jul 19, 2008 8:53 AM:Aw, C'mon Justice Benke! Lame question. Every first year law student knows the answer. Money damages are a poor substitute for fixing problems like this or any civil wrong. But sometimes the shot in the pocketbook is the only way to get the wrong-doer to put his/her/its house in order.

More questions for a follow-up article wrote on Jul 19, 2008 9:07 AM:Forget the $300 grand, my question is how much has this school district already spent in attorney's (theirs) fees as well as staff time fighting this?

How much more are they willing to spend?

Don't they know that money's tight right now? Oh that's right, it's not their money, it's our money!

You screwed up, own up & stop wasting more time & money. Train your people properly so that it doesn't happen again.

We know that there's no such thing as a harassment free environment but we do expect school officials to do something when complaints are made. Sorry, but it's NOT enough to have your students & parents sign a form that indicates they know what the rules are. You have to follow the law.

Regarding the Judges quote: Money talks & bull(you-know) walks. These cases end up in court because the school districts disregard the law & those agencies (County, State & Feds) that are supposed to be monitoring them do NOT.

Bo wrote on Jul 19, 2008 10:33 AM:The school district should not be held responsible for the community intolerance and / or out of control bullies. Gay kids are going to be harassed in school because bullies target anyone that is "different" from the majority; be that fat, skinny, weak, shy, acne scarred, white, black, hispanic, asian, gay, etc., and because the gay lifestyle in general is looked down upon by the majority of kids in Jr. High and High School. Anything that is seen as negative is often referred to as being gay....how many times have you heard a High School kid say "That's so gay"? Regardless of the community attitude the majority of kids do not harass gay or otherwise "different" students, the harassment comes from a core group of bullies. These victims know who harassed them, the lawsuit should of been against the bullies and thier families.

Laura wrote on Jul 19, 2008 11:35 AM:Boo huh, Bo!! What a lame excuse, so just because bullies bully defenseless children should we as adults tolerate such conduct? What about the harm to the minds and bodies of innocent children?

School officials have a fiduciary and legal obligation to protect the rights of identifiable victims and when they fail as in this case, "when the school officials are DELIBERATELY INDIFFERENT," the school officials should PAY for their DELIBERATE INDIFFERENT conduct.

It is not what I say that counts; the United States Supreme Court has affirmed the right of students to be free from harassment while they are in a school campus way back in "TINKER."

WOW Bo wrote on Jul 19, 2008 11:43 AM:your hatred of gays is so obvious, it must be driving you crazy to see prop 8 failing in the polls (polls which are generally very accurate)

Joseph Ramelli and Megan Donovan (and any others harrassed in high school) can be assured that colleges are filled with more educated and enlightened people.

Amy wrote on Jul 19, 2008 4:31 PM:WOW Bo- POSD is supposed to be an "educated community."
Here in PUSD we find the case of Harper v. PUSD. Now interesting the reporter does not state that PUSD defended a formed school policy to protect gay students (the T-shirt case.)

The same attorneys representing PUSD and defending the anti-gay T-shirt policy, are the same attorneys against the gay students in this case (Joseph "Joey" Ramelli and Megan Donovan.)

So here PUSD looses credibility do they or do they not protect victims of hate crimes?

. is chicken feed wrote on Jul 19, 2008 4:37 PM:It appears that the insurance company (Keenan) is fighting this case on appeal why?

Could it be that at this stage in the game the billable hours have gone to over 1M?

so whose fault is this?

Should they have settled before it went to trial? The kids only got $ 300,000. that is chicken feed when you compare to the Richart settlement.

gimmeabreak wrote on Jul 20, 2008 7:32 PM:Reminiscent of that game the sociology teachers talk about - auctioning the dollar. The bidding gets so spirited among the crowd that before long the interest in winning (and the bidding activity it spawns) gets people to bid well over the value of the dollar just to win. Or not, perhaps the District is playing on the insurance carrier's money at this point - in which case, the carrier may be calling this shot. It begs the question: why? If the District had adopted a formal policy (as one poster already suggested), then allowed staff to ignore/disregard it, they stepped in it. Game over. Pay the money, clean up yer act and move on.