Laney v. Farley, No. 06-6000 (6th Cir. Aug. 28, 2007)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (KY, MI, OH, TN) has ruled that school officials did not violate a student’s due process rights by giving her a one-day, in-school suspension, without notice and an opportunity to be heard, for violating the Tennessee school district’s policy banning cell phones in school. Under a Wilson County Board of Education (WCBOE) policy, Victoria Laney, a student at West Wilson Middle School in Mt. Juliet, had her cell phone confiscated when it began ringing in class and then received a one-day, in-school suspension. The due process provision of the policy requires that "before imposing consequences, the teacher or principal shall be guided by the principle of fundamental fairness and make at least rudimentary inquiry into the incident to assure that the offense is accurately identified, that the student understands the nature of the offense, and that the student is given an opportunity to present his/her views." In addition, before an out-of-school suspension is imposed, the student "shall be given a complete due process hearing by the principal of said school and/or the Wilson County Schools Discipline Hearing Authority." While Victoria’s parents were informed that the confiscated phone would not be returned until 30 days were up, they were not informed about her suspension until after she had served it. They sued WCBOE in federal district court, alleging violation of Victoria’s right to due process based on WCBOE’s failure to provide Victoria with notice and an opportunity to be heard before her suspension. The district court denied WCBOE’s motion to dismiss the case, ruling that a one-day, in-school suspension implicates the procedural protections of the Due Process Clause.
The Sixth Circuit reversed, disagreeing with the lower court’s conclusion that a one-day, in-school suspension implicates a student’s property interest in educational benefits or liberty interest in his or her reputation. Regarding the property interest, the appeals court found based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975), that Tennessee had created a property interest in educational benefits because of the state laws creating free education and compelling attendance. Under Goss, the court found, whether an in-school suspension deprives a student of a property interest depends on the extent to which the suspension excludes the student from the educational process. Although Goss viewed a ten-day, out-of-school suspension as a "total exclusion from the educational process," the same is not necessarily true of in-school suspension, which might not deprive a student of educational opportunities in the same way. Under Tennessee law, students serving in-school suspensions remain in the school setting and are required to complete academic requirements. The court also agreed with WCBOE that in-school suspension is analogous to a ten-day assignment to alternative school, which the Sixth Circuit has suggested does not give rise to procedural due process "absent some showing that the education received at the alternative school is significantly different from or inferior to that received at his regular public school." Turning to the liberty interest in reputation, the Sixth Circuit found "no court that has held an in-school suspension to trigger the protections of the Due Process Clause arising from a student’s liberty interest in their reputation." It agreed with several other courts that have found that brief temporary in-school suspensions constitute de minimis deprivations of property or liberty interests and, therefore, do not implicate due process.
Laney v. Farley, No. 06-6000 (6th Cir. Aug. 28, 2007)