Using the word "should" in a policy memorandum's means it is not mandatory

Using the word "should" in a policy memorandum's means it is not mandatoryPort Wash. Teachers' Ass'n v. Board of Educ. of the Port Wash. Union Free Sch. Dist., No. 06-0708-CV 67, (USCA, 2d Cir.) The superintendent of the Port Washington Union Free School District, Dr. Geoffrey N. Gordon, issued a policy memorandum advising members of the school district's staff of the actions they should take in the event they learn that a student is pregnant. The teachers' union sued, but a federal district court judge, Judge Thomas C. Platt, dismissed the petition. Judge Platt held that the action could not be maintained because there was (1) "a lack of standing," (2) the claims were not ripe, and (3) the complaint failed to state a viable claim. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Platt's ruling. Dr. Gordon's "Policy Memorandum" setting out the District's policy stated that that a student's communications to one of them that a student is pregnant "is not a communication protected by a legal privilege, but rather may trigger legal reporting obligations." The policy indicated that a staff member who becomes aware of a student pregnancy should report it immediately to the school social worker. The policy also addressed the action that staff members should take in cases where statutory rape or incest was suspected. It also stated that the parents of the student should be advised of the pregnancy by school personnel if the student refused to do so. The court said that the union offer little more than conclusory statements to support its assertion that social workers risk civil liability and their professional license by complying with the Policy Memorandum or that staff members were in jeopardy of disciplinary action if they did not comply with the policy. In affirming the dismissal of the complaint by the district court judge, the Circuit Court said that "Because the plaintiffs have not established that civil liability or professional discipline is actual or imminent, the theoretical possibility that either might occur in the future does not amount to injury in fact." In addition, the court noted that the Policy "repeatedly uses the word 'should' in setting forth the notification procedures, thus easily supporting the understanding that adherence to them was not mandatory, by law or otherwise." The decision is posted on the Internet at:

Read more detail on Recent Administrative Law Posts –

Legal notice about the Using the word "should" in a policy memorandum's means it is not mandatory rubric : Hukuki Net Legal News is not responsible for the privacy statements or other content from Web sites outside of the site. Please refer the progenitor link to check the legal entity of this resource hereinabove.

Do you need High Quality Legal documents or forms related to Using the word "should" in a policy memorandum's means it is not mandatory?

This entry was posted in Administrative law and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply