A Mock Trial Too Close to Home
During a business law unit on employment law, Mr. Okafor plans a mock trial based on a recent local dispute: a restaurant owner fired a server who refused to work on a religious holiday. The case was reported in the newspaper, and the names are known in town. A student's parent is an assistant manager at the restaurant and complains that the mock trial will put the business on trial and bias students. Another parent asks whether the class will discuss the owner's religion. The principal supports academic freedom but asks for a plan that avoids community controversy. Meanwhile, a student asks to livestream the mock trial on TikTok, and two students want to play themselves as witnesses because they work at the restaurant. The class has 26 students, including one student with an IEP for anxiety who finds role-play difficult. The unit standards require analyzing employment discrimination, accommodation, and termination.
1. Redesign the case so it preserves the legal analysis while reducing harm to real parties.
Read the worked answer
Keep the legal issue but remove the real identities and local details. Create a fictional workplace, change the industry, and combine facts from more than one hypothetical so no reader can map the case onto the restaurant. The mock trial should focus on the legal questions: what constitutes a reasonable accommodation, whether the employee's request created undue hardship, and what process the employer owed before termination. Give students a fact pattern with disputed facts rather than a predetermined villain.
Assign roles so no student plays a real person or a coworker from the restaurant. The two students who work there should not testify as themselves; that would blur the school exercise with a real dispute. Provide a written analysis alternative for the student with anxiety, such as preparing the legal brief or cross-examination questions instead of performing. Include a short disclaimer that the exercise is fictional and does not represent the actual business. This preserves rigor without turning a community business into a spectacle.
2. How should Mr. Okafor respond to the parent and principal about bias and religion?
Read the worked answer
Acknowledge the parent's concern directly and explain the instructional purpose: students are learning to analyze employment law, not to judge the restaurant or the owner's faith. Share the fictionalized fact pattern, the standards, and the assessment rubric in advance. Invite the parent to review materials, but do not let one stakeholder dictate the curriculum.
With the principal, be specific about safeguards: no real names, no field trip to the restaurant, no student testimony about actual coworkers, and a structured format that requires students to argue both sides. Religion should be discussed only as a legal element of the accommodation claim, not as a subject for student confession or ridicule. Tell students that they may not disclose personal religious beliefs as part of the exercise. If community criticism continues, offer a public-facing summary of the lesson rather than canceling it. Academic freedom does not require insensitivity; it requires a defensible educational purpose and fair procedures.
3. Decide whether to allow the livestream and how to handle recording in a class with a student who has anxiety.
Read the worked answer
Deny the livestream. A live public broadcast creates unmanageable privacy and reputational risks, may capture students without media consent, and can turn a classroom exercise into community entertainment. It also raises the stakes for the student with anxiety and could expose the class to unwanted comments or harassment.
Allow only a teacher-controlled recording for instructional feedback if the district permits it and all students or guardians consent. Even then, keep the recording private, store it securely, and delete it when the unit ends. The student with anxiety should not be recorded without specific consent; use the written alternative instead. If students want an audience, invite a small, approved panel such as a business law teacher or a local attorney, not the public internet. Explain the decision as protection of student privacy and the integrity of the exercise, not as distrust of the students.