Brown v. Plainfield Cmty. Consol. Dist. 202, 2007 WL 4180358 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 27, 2007)
A U.S. district court in Illinois has ruled that school district officials did not violate a student’s due process rights when they denied him the opportunity to cross-examine student witnesses during his expulsion hearing. The court also rejected the student’s substantive due process claim. Devonta Davis, a student at Plainfield High School, faced disciplinary charges for inappropriately touching a female teacher. During his hearing, the teacher testified and was cross-examined by his attorney. Three unnamed students also submitted statements that Devonta had made sexual remarks about the teacher. Devonta’s attorney was not permitted to cross-examine the students. When the school board expelled Devonta, his mother sued Plainfield Community Consolidated District 202 (PCCD), alleging in part that the district had violated his procedural and substantive due process rights. PCCD moved to dismiss these claims.
The court first addressed Devonta’s procedural due process claim that he did not receive a fair hearing because he was not permitted to cross-examine the students. To determine if procedural due process required permitting cross-examination of witnesses the court applied the three-part test set out by the U.S. Supreme Court in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976). The test considers: (1) the interest affected by the state action; (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation of this interest and the value, if any, of additional procedural safeguards; and (3) the state's interest, including the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional procedure would entail. The court found that the first factor weighed in the student’s favor because of his important interest in attending school and the “long term negative consequences [the expulsion] with respect to later opportunities for higher education or jobs.” However, the second and third factors weighed in the district’s favor, the court found: (1) cross-examination of student witnesses would duplicate the disciplinary investigation by school officials and, thus, would be of minimal value in safeguarding the right to a fair hearing: (2) protecting the anonymity of student witnesses who report misconduct is vital to maintain order in school; and (3) the administrative burden and cost of tasking school administrators with overseeing the process of cross-examination would divert time and resources from the school’s educational mission. The court also rejected the student’s claims that the PCCD failed to adhere to various procedural rules in the student handbook and the state school code. These claims failed as a matter of law because “a violation of state law ... is not a denial of due process, even if the state law confers a procedural right.” As for the substantive due process claim, the student’s argument that “the school board so far departed from its own rules that its actions were arbitrary” failed “to raise a plausible claim that the board’s actions constituted an extraordinary departure from established norms.”
Brown v. Plainfield Cmty. Consol. Dist. 202, 2007 WL 4180358 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 27, 2007)