Anti-bias policy proposals introduced Monday night by State College Superintendent Michael Hardy may fulfill some key equal-treatment demands in a recent federal complaint.

Hardy, the school district’s acting top administrator, said the district administration developed the proposals “in response to requests from students, faculty, staff and community members.”

The measures would ban discrimination on a wide variety of fronts — notably including sexual-orientation- and gender-identity-based discrimination in the schools’ employment and contract practices.

Asked if the proposals are a direct response to litigation initiated last month by district employee Kerry Wiessmann and her partner, Beth G. Resko, Hardy said they are not.

Rather, he said after a school-board meeting, they are more broadly an answer to calls from a number of local residents.

“The goal of these policies is to further protect students and employees in a safe, healthy and nurturing learning environment,” Hardy said earlier in a prepared statement.

Still, it appeared that the proposals could well satisfy the primary demands outlined in Wiessmann and Resko’s litigation. The women, supported by local attorney Andrew Shubin and the American Civil Liberties Union, have argued that the district’s current employee-benefits policy discriminates illegally.

Their federal case, filed in May, targets a specific rule that keeps school workers’ same-sex domestic partners from qualifying for the same benefits made available for opposite-sex domestic partners.

Wiessmann and Resko have sought a reversal of that rule.

Comment from Shubin was not immediately forthcoming late Monday night. Hardy limited his remarks largely to his prepared statement, read to the school board just before the nearly three-hour meeting adjourned.

“The proposed policies are consistent with federal law, state law and local ordinances, and are consistent with (Pennsylvania School Boards Association) policy,” Hardy said in the statement.

Specifically, he went on, the “new policies under consideration would expand the district’s current anti-discrimination practices to include race, color, age, creed, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, ancestry, national origin and handicap/disability.

“The policies will address conduct inside and outside the classroom, on district property, and encourage students and employees to report incidents of discrimination to the designated administrator,” Hardy said.

Hardy underscored that the policies — designated district Policies No. 103 and No. 104 — would be new. It was not immediately clear how much of their language may be carried over from existing district policies against discrimination.

Policy 103 would address establish nondiscrimination standards in school and classroom practices, according to district documents. Language in the proposal includes assurances that students will have equal access to course offerings, extracurricular activities and other services.

In addition, it encourages students to report discrimination. And it outlines procedures for how such reports should be handled.

The second new measure, Policy 104, would address nondiscrimination standards in employment and contract practices. Like the proposed Policy 103, it outlines procedures for how violations should be handled, as well.

Hardy said the proposed policies will be posted for public review on the district website.

Board members did not offer immediate comment on the proposals, but they’re expected to take up the issue for discussion at their next meeting, scheduled for 7:30 p.m. July 11.

At the last board meeting, on June 13, Harris Township residents Bonnie and Peter Marshall presented the board with a letter urging the district to incorporate “gender identity” and “sexual orientation” more fully and equitably into district policies. Bonnie Marshall said then that a growing number of residents believe the district isn’t doing enough to protect all its employees.

In other news at the Monday school-board meeting:

As expected, board members formally voted 6-3 to pass a $110.8 million budget for 2011-’12 school year. The spending plan includes a 2.65 percent tax increase, or an increase of $66 a year for the average homeowner.
Members who voted against the budget plan are Ann McGlaughlin, Richard Bartnik and Jim Pawelczyk. All have advocated for tighter cost controls as the district faces a rocky and uncertain financial outlook.

The budget includes a number of cost-control measures, including some job cuts, already approved by the board. (Earlier coverage is posted here.) Depending on how state-budget negotiations unfold in Harrisburg, the district may see an infusion of better-than-anticipated state support in the coming weeks. If that happens, administrators said, the board may reopen the budget to decide how to allocate those funds.

Curtis Johnson, a State High principal, provided an update on the Academic Support Center at the high school. Designed largely to help students reach their potential, the center has contributed to a decline in State High’s drop-out rate over the past several years, his report suggested. The rate fell from 1.1 percent in 2007-’08 to 0.95 percent in 2010-’11, according to the district. State High also has seen a decline in the number of students failing one or more major classes; that figure fell from 90 in 2007-’08 to 49 in 2010-’11.
Two other State High administrators, Craig Butler and Sharon Perry, reported on prospects for a ninth-grade academy within the high school. The concept, still in the works, could bring an academic-team-style approach to some elements of the freshman experience, making the high-school transition more effective, they said. Perry said school administrators would like to test some limited-scope academy ideas before attempting to deploy the concept on a wider-scale basis.

The State College Area School District is facing a federal civil action from a school worker and her partner, both alleging that the district discriminates in its employee-benefits policy.

Kerry Wiessmann, who is an elementary-school counselor, and her partner, Beth G. Resko, brought the complaint against the district on Tuesday. Their concern is a district rule that keeps school workers’ same-sex domestic partners from qualifying for the same benefits made available for opposite-sex domestic partners, according to the filing.

In fact, the district’s “refusal to provide Ms. Wiessmann and her partner … with the same family health benefits offered to other employees and their families violates their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, including the right to equal protection of the laws without regard to sexual orientation or sex, and the right to intimate association; as well as the Equal Rights Amendment of the Pennsylvania Constitution,” the lawsuit reads.

The school district, in discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, also is in violation of State College borough’s non-discrimination law, according to the litigation. State College attorney Andrew Shubin and several lawyers affiliated with the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Civil Liberties Foundation are representing Wiessmann and Resko in the matter.

Shubin declined to field media questions on Tuesday, but he did issue a news release.
“This is an important case for many reasons,” Shubin said in the release. “It’s about basic fairness, tolerance and equal treatment for hard-working families. It’s about our community and the kind of place it should be — a place where the Constitution and the law protect everyone.”

Local school officials had yet to see the lawsuit Tuesday afternoon, so the district declined to offer immediate comment on the case, a spokeswoman said. The litigation is filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, which is based in Scranton.

Wiessmann, who works at Ferguson Township Elementary School, joined the district’s workforce in 2003, according to the litigation. She and Resko, her partner of more than 25 years, share their lives, home, financial obligations and parental duties for their two children, it says.

It also quotes the district policy that’s accused of undermining their rights. That policy, which makes full-time employees’ documented domestic partners eligible for district health benefits, specifically excludes partners of the same gender.

As a result, according to the litigation, Resko has not been allowed the benefits that would have been allowed someone in an opposite-gender relationship. The couple has faced “significant cost” for Resko’s health coverage, the lawsuit notes.

Right now, Resko, who had been an independent contractor, is on a group health-insurance plan that costs the couple $6,600 a year for her coverage, the litigation indicates. In order to qualify for the group plan, Resko had to change her employment status and work longer hours “in an effort to maintain the same level of income she earned as an independent contractor,” according to the complaint.

Resko is of retirement age and would like to reduce her hours, but if she does so, she’ll lose her group health benefits, the complaint goes on. “Ms. Resko may not be able to obtain individual health insurance that provides the coverage she needs, or the couple may have to pay exorbitant rates for that insurance, because Ms. Resko has an existing medical condition that requires ongoing treatment.”

The suit also alleges that the SCASD benefits policy “demonstrates disrespect for Ms. Wiessmann as a person and reinforces stigma against her as a member of a minority group.”
“This policy has no purpose other than to treat same-sex couples like second-class citizens,” ACLU attorney Catherine Roper said in the news release.

Resko and Wiessmann are seeking a change in the benefits policy to grant equal treatment to same-sex domestic partners; preliminary and permanent relief that will allow Resko to receive benefits through Wiessmann’s health insurance; and unspecified compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees.

StateCollege.com is continuing to follow this story and will post more information as it becomes available.

JOHNSTOWN – A federal judge has refused to dismiss a civil rights lawsuit brought by the family of a 32-year-old Bellwood man who committed suicide in 2006 at the Blair County Prison.

The lawsuit was filed in 2007 by the wife of Jeremy S. Corbin, Kayci Lynn Tatsch-Corbin, on behalf of Corbin’s estate and his children. She sued Blair County; the company that provides medical care at the prison, Prime Care Medical Inc. of Harrisburg; and a forensic specialist at the prison.

The suit, filed by attorney Andrew Shubin of State College, charged that Corbin’s federal rights to due process were violated when he was an inmate at the prison in October 2006. It also claimed damages under Pennsylvania law, the Pennsylvania Survival Act and the Pennsylvania Wrongful Death Act.

U.S. District Judge Kim Gibson last week refused to dismiss the federal due-process claims against all three defendants but indicated that the county has immunity for a lawsuit on the state statutes. Gibson took more than a year to issue his ruling.

Blair County Commissioner Chairman Terry Tomassetti, who is also the chairman of the county prison board, declined comment Friday.

The judge’s ruling refusing to dismiss the charges clears the way for trial.

Gibson summed up the Corbin case by quoting from a U.S. Supreme Court decision that said when a state incarcerates a person depriving him of his liberty, “it is only just the state be required to care for him.”

“Defendants assert they fulfilled this solemn duty. Plaintiffs’ account tells quite a different story,” Gibson’s ruling stated.

“A jury should decide the many issues of material fact remaining in this case, and determine which version to accept.”

Suicide attempts at the county prison are a problem, but what set the Corbin case apart was that he was identified as a potential suicide almost immediately after he arrived at the prison on Oct. 18, 2006, charged with violating a protection-from-abuse order, court documents state.

The prison’s intake officer reported Corbin was “thinking about killing himself.” He was initially placed in a suicide observation cell, but when his case was reviewed by Jennifer Feathers, a forensic specialist at the prison, she determined he was not a suicide risk, court documents state.

Corbin, who had no prior criminal record but had a history of mental health problems, was placed in the general prison population. When he appeared in court the next day, he told sheriff’s deputies he intended to kill himself, according to the judge’s opinion.

After yet another review by the forensic specialist, who Gibson pointed out was not a licensed therapist, Corbin was placed in a general population cell. Corbin hung himself on Oct. 20, 2006.

The mental health and medical care at the prison was provided by Prime Care under contract with the county. Feathers was serving as a mental health review officer under a contract between Prime Care and Altoona Regional Health System, Altoona Hospital Campus.

Feathers has denied doing anything wrong in her assessment of Corbin, but Gibson concluded “a reasonable jury could find that Feathers exhibited deliberate indifference to Corbin’s condition and therefore there are genuine issues of material fact present concerning the [civil rights] claim.”

The judge ruled also the fact that Feathers was given “unchecked authority” to make decisions concerning possible suicide threats “raise a host of significant issues of material fact dealing with municipal [the county] and corporate [Prime Care] liability to be decided by a jury.”

On June 28, 2007, eight months after Corbin’s suicide, another Blair County inmate, Nathan James Aughenbaugh, 27, of Morrisdale committed suicide.

Warden Michael M. Johnston, who was not in his position at the time of the two suicides, said that steps have been taken in the last couple of years to address the ongoing threat of suicide.

An inmate is evaluated according to a step system when he enters the county jail, Johnston said. If he is found to be suicidal, he is placed on suicide watch, and any decision to change the evaluation is made by a psychiatrist.

Johnston said that, at his request, a part-time mental health clinician position was changed to a full-time one.

It is not unusual to place an inmate on suicide watch.

Thirty-one inmates were placed on suicide watch in January 2010, Johnston said. There were 18 inmates on suicide watch in December. The monthly average in 2010 was 25 inmates on suicide watch.

Mirror Staff Writer Phil Ray is at 946-7468.\

BELLEFONTE — District Attorney Stacy Parks Miller will not pursue a criminal case against a student photographer charged with ignoring police orders to leave the 2008 State College riot that he was covering for the Daily Collegian newspaper.

In a prepared statement Thursday, Parks Miller said it’s in “the interest of justice” that she not continue the appeal started by her predecessor Michael Madeira.

Madeira had approved charges of inciting the crowd of thousands that gathered in Beaver Canyon after Penn State’s football team beat Ohio State that year. Police also charged photographer Michael Felletter with not leaving when police ordered.

Felletter was on assignment for the Penn State student newspaper. Police said that by taking pictures with large equipment, he was encouraging the crowd to act more rowdy.

The charges were thrown out by a judge, but Madeira appealed the case to the state Superior Court in August. Thursday, Parks Miller sent a letter to the Superior Court saying she will not continue the appeal.

“I’m really proud of him for fighting this fight and for not backing down and for understanding,” said Felletter’s attorney Andrew Shubin. “It shows a level of sophistication for a college student to understand the level of importance for fighting this fight and not giving in. I really do think that Michael understood he was fighting this not just for his own career but for the principles.”
Advertisement

Shubin, who represented Felletter for free through the ACLU, has been fighting these charges since Felletter’s arrest, saying the arrest and charge are violations of Felletter’s First Amendment rights.

He said he appreciates the “careful and considerate review of the constitutional principles” by Parks Miller, who, in her campaign against Madeira last year, cited this case as one with which Madeira was wasting resources and exercising poor judgment.

The end of this case, Shubin says, “validates the long-standing First Amendment protections afforded by the courts to the media and their vital role in collecting and disseminating news.”

Parks Miller said in her press release that “while the police always have the ability to tell people to disperse in dangerous crowd situations and people should comply with those directives for safety reasons, based upon the specific facts of record in this particular case, we have chosen to discontinue this appeal.”

Read more:

Penn State student and Daily Collegian photographer Michael Felletter finally got the news he has been waiting a year and a half to hear — charges filed against him stemming from the 2008 riot were dismissed.

In a March 11 press release, Centre County District Attorney Stacy Parks Miller announced she filed a motion to drop an appeal for the case, ending a protracted legal battle against Felletter.

“For almost two years now, I’ve been put through this judicial system, and now it is finally done,” Felletter (senior-visual journalism) wrote in an e-mail. “I feel closure.”

Felletter’s sense of closure comes after he was charged with five counts of misdemeanor failure to disperse and one count of misdemeanor disorderly conduct after taking pictures of a riot that overtook downtown State College after Penn State’s football victory against Ohio State University on Oct. 25, 2008.

Felletter’s case was dropped in January 2009 and re-filed in March with one count of failure to disperse bound over for trial. Centre County Judge David E. Grine dismissed the remaining charge in July 2009, citing unclear evidence. Former Centre County District Attorney Michael Madeira then filed an appeal to the State Superior Court following the dismissal, where the case has remained — until now.

Felletter’s attorney Andrew Shubin said he appreciates Parks Miller’s “careful and considerate review” of the case’s record and the constitutional principles involved.

Parks Miller stated in the press release that after reviewing the facts of the case and the issues surrounding it, she found reason to discontinue the appeal. In January, Parks Miller submitted a letter to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania stating that she did not intend to file a reply brief in Felletter’s case.

The letter was filed as a response to Shubin’s contesting the appeal of the case filed by the district attorney, though it did not necessarily mean she was dropping the charges. During her campaign last year, however, Parks Miller called the case a “waste of resources,” Felletter believed it was only a matter of time before the charges were dismissed.

“I kind of knew it was bound to happen, but it was just always there, hanging over my head,” he wrote. “Now it’s finally over and I feel relieved.”

BELLEFONTE — District Attorney Stacy Parks Miller will not pursue a criminal case against a student photographer charged with ignoring police orders to leave the 2008 State College riot that he was covering for the Daily Collegian newspaper.

In a prepared statement Thursday, Parks Miller said it’s in “the interest of justice” that she not continue the appeal started by her predecessor Michael Madeira.

Madeira had approved charges of inciting the crowd of thousands that gathered in Beaver Canyon after Penn State’s football team beat Ohio State that year. Police also charged photographer Michael Felletter with not leaving when police ordered.

Felletter was on assignment for the Penn State student newspaper. Police said that by taking pictures with large equipment, he was encouraging the crowd to act more rowdy.

The charges were thrown out by a judge, but Madeira appealed the case to the state Superior Court in August. Thursday, Parks Miller sent a letter to the Superior Court saying she will not continue the appeal.

“I’m really proud of him for fighting this fight and for not backing down and for understanding,” said Felletter’s attorney Andrew Shubin. “It shows a level of sophistication for a college student to understand the level of importance for fighting this fight and not giving in. I really do think that Michael understood he was fighting this not just for his own career but for the principles.”

Shubin, who represented Felletter for free through the ACLU, has been fighting these charges since Felletter’s arrest, saying the arrest and charge are violations of Felletter’s First Amendment rights.

He said he appreciates the “careful and considerate review of the constitutional principles” by Parks Miller, who, in her campaign against Madeira last year, cited this case as one with which Madeira was wasting resources and exercising poor judgment.

The end of this case, Shubin says, “validates the long-standing First Amendment protections afforded by the courts to the media and their vital role in collecting and disseminating news.”

Parks Miller said in her press release that “while the police always have the ability to tell people to disperse in dangerous crowd situations and people should comply with those directives for safety reasons, based upon the specific facts of record in this particular case, we have chosen to discontinue this appeal.”

Read more: http://www.centredaily.com/2010/03/12/1849263/parks-miller-dropping-case-of.html#ixzz0hyOeCXMF

We didn’t know it, but the First Amendment was on the line.

Students started out cheering and hoisting friends into the air and eventually began tearing down light posts and pulling out shrubs. If you weren’t blinded by pepper spray in the eyes, it was easy to see cameras flashing everywhere.

Many of those people were rioters themselves, clicking digital camera buttons to show their friends or snapping pictures on their phones to upload to Facebook.

Yet others of those people with cameras were professional members of the media. One of those media members was Michael Felletter, a photographer for The Daily Collegian who was doing his job as a photojournalist to capture what was happening that night.

Felletter — and every media photographer — had the right to photograph the riot. That night was one of the most newsworthy events at Penn State last year.

Charging Felletter in connection with the riot and saying his photography caused the crowd to become “more exuberant, excited and destructive” was an unreasonable shot at the First Amendment.

Though Centre County Judge David E. Grine dismissed the remaining charge against Felletter because of “unclear” evidence and did not cite First Amendment issues as a reason for dismissal, the ruling is still appropriate.

It’s still a ruling that cries victory for the First Amendment.

Felletter’s attorney Andrew Shubin, who acted on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union, deserves commendation for his work in the case. Shubin called arresting a member of the press “un-American.”

We fear that Shubin’s clear understanding of the importance of the First Amendment is far different than District Attorney Michael Madeira’s, who is working to determine whether to appeal or re-file charges against Felletter.

Re-filing charges would be an egregious disregard for freedom of the press.

It’s time for the county to let this case go and to realize there never should have been charges pressed in the first place.

From the Daily Collegian, 7/28/09

PENNSYLVANIA — A photographer at Pennsylvania State University’s Daily Collegian was cleared of his remaining failure to disperse charge July 22 in a pre-trial motion after he was arrested last fall while covering a post-football-game riot.

“The Court does not believe that Defendant refused to or knowingly failed to obey dispersal orders,” stated President Judge David E. Grine in his order to grant Michael Felletter’s dismissal. “The Court believes that the arrest of Defendant was made in good faith by an officer who believed that he was doing what was necessary to keep the peace.”

In October 2008, Felletter was charged with several misdemeanors after he covered a riot on campus, during which police accused him of inciting the crowd by taking pictures of the participants. On March 4, a judge threw out Felletter’s disorderly conduct charge and four of his five failure to disperse charges.

“The testimony by Officer Argiro and Officer Pieniezek made it clear that rioters were becoming more disorderly around Defendant’s camera,” Grine stated. “That, however, is not Defendant’s fault, and is the responsibility of those who were at the riot and actually acting disorderly.”

During the riot, police asked Felletter to leave, at which point he identified himself as a journalist. Police still asked him to leave several times throughout the evening, threatened him with pepper spray, and eventually took his license and informed him he was under arrest.

Felletter’s attorney, Andrew Shubin, said he is extremely pleased with the results of the case but that because the charge was dismissed without a jury, Felletter could be re-arrested or the case could be appealed — both of which he says Centre County District Attorney Michael T. Madeira has threatened to do in the press.

By Catherine MacDonald, SPLC staff writer

© 2009 Student Press Law Center

Michael Felletter had fought the two misdemeanor charges — filed by police who said his pictures were making the crowd act more rowdy and that he did not leave the scene when police ordered — on First Amendment grounds.

“In the U.S., we don’t arrest the press for covering major events and protests,” said Felletter’s attorney, Andy Shubin, who called the case “doomed from the beginning.”

The riot happened Oct. 25 after the football team defeated Ohio State. Thousands of people converged on the 300 block of East Beaver Avenue, an area known as Beaver Canyon, and damaged light poles, road signs, shrubbery and other items. Hundreds of people were pepper-sprayed after ignoring orders to leave.

President Judge David E. Grine dismissed both misdemeanors Wednesday.

“He’s very happy,” Shubin said of Felletter. “He felt very strongly on the issues. The commonwealth should never have brought this case in the first place. It makes no sense to me.”

Shubin said Grine indicated Felletter shouldn’t be held responsible for the actions of others in the crowd.

“He acted responsibly,” Shubin said, noting that police later used photos Felletter had taken in their investigation of the riot. “It’s a good day for the photographer and for the press.”

District Attorney Michael Madeira said he is reviewing Grine’s decision and will decide if it’s appropriate to appeal it or refile charges.

He has argued from the beginning that Felletter had no more of a right to be there than any other of the revelers.

Shubin said Madeira needs to “reread his copy of the Constitution.”

Read more: http://www.centredaily.com/tilc/story/1413284.html#ixzz0M6zwyEFq

BELLEFONTE, Pa. – A judge dismissed the remaining misdemeanor charge against a photographer for the independent campus newspaper at Penn State in connection with an unruly fan celebration in State College.

Prosecutors had dropped five of six misdemeanors against photographer Michael Felletter earlier this year following the Oct. 25 disturbance after the Nittany Lions’ football win at Ohio State.

A sixth count, for failing to disperse, was dismissed Wednesday by a Centre County judge.

Felletter’s lawyer (Andrew Shubin, from State College, PA) said the student was just doing his job as a member of the press.

Authorities had initially charged about 20 people in connection with the disturbance, and several were charged with felony riot.