PHILADELPHIA – Litigation brought by a private school student from New Jersey – who claimed that he was unfairly expelled for his participation in an on-campus prank due to his disability – should be dismissed, say school authorities, for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
John Doe filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on March 29 versus The Hill School, of Pottstown.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Gerald A. McHugh outlined the case in an April 10 memorandum opinion, before explaining his rationale for denying Doe’s request for a TRO.
“This is an action brought on behalf of a high school student at a residential boarding school who was required to withdraw, as a result of his participation in an encounter with a fellow student that the school deemed to be an incident of bullying. Before that incident occurred, plaintiff had been identified as a student who had problems with substance abuse, as a result of which he was enrolled in a health and wellness program at the school. He contends that he was wrongly expelled, because his expulsion was influenced in part by conduct related to his substance abuse, for which he could not be sanctioned because of his participation in the program,” McHugh said.
“He further contends that his expulsion violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and seeks a temporary restraining order reinstating him to the school. This young man’s struggles are unfortunate, and I recognize that his expulsion is a meaningful setback for him, but he has not met the demanding standard for preliminary relief, and his motion must therefore be denied.”
In order to be granted a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order, a plaintiff must establish that they are likely to succeed on the merits, that they will likely suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in the plaintiff’s favor and that an injunction is in the public interest.
In referring to the plaintiff’s argument that he would not have been subject to expulsion were it not for his retroactive suspension in connection with a prior drug-related incident, McHugh said such an argument suffered from “fundamental flaws”, as it ran contrary to language contained in the student enrollment contract and school handbook.
“Doe contends that this broad language is limited by the promise of immunity made to students when they enroll in I-Care (a diversionary program for drug-related offenses), and that he relied upon such a promise when he admitted to certain drug-related conduct after his substance abuse was brought to the attention of school authorities. As an initial matter, given the breadth and clarity of this language, any limitations on the Headmaster’s discretion stemming from a student’s participation in I-Care should be strictly construed according to its terms. For present purposes, Doe can reasonably claim protection for discipline related to his own substance use. The scope of any further immunity rests within the discretion of school officials,” McHugh stated.
“Second, Doe’s argument depends upon an unsupportable premise. Five students were disciplined as a result of the bullying incident: Two were suspended and three were expelled. The other two students expelled, like Doe, had a prior disciplinary record. This leads Doe to conclude that in the absence of the prior suspension he would have been entitled to a lesser penalty. But such an assumption is unfounded, as there is no set formula that governs disciplinary decisions. As a student in a private school, Doe cannot invoke any rights of due process or equal protection unless they are rights conferred by contract. Here, under the terms of the enrollment contract and handbook alike, the Headmaster would have had absolute discretion to expel Doe even in the absence of any prior disciplinary record.”
The incident in question involved Doe dousing a sleeping classmate with water mixed with protein powder in the middle of the night, with two accomplices videotaping the incident and two watching from the doorway.
McHugh added that the School Headmaster attested that the determining factor in her decision to require the withdrawal of three of the five students involved was their active role in the bullying incident, as compared to the others present who watched from the doorway. And among those actively involved, Doe had volunteered to throw the water.
As it related to Doe’s prior drug-related offense (an attempt to help another student evade detection in a drug test) had nothing to do with his own substance abuse, and was not therefore covered by the I-Care promise of immunity.
McHugh further found that Doe “offered no argument advancing his Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 claim” and that he was “not prepared to hold that there are no circumstances where dismissal from a high school could represent irreparable harm.”
“Here, at a minimum, Doe has suffered significant harm because it appears that his enrollment in the I-Care program had made a meaningful difference with respect to his substance abuse, his overall mental health and his academic performance. And I accept his mother’s testimony at the emergency relief hearing that the isolation created by the pandemic had a significant negative impact given Doe’s particular needs, rendering his participation in the Hill School community particularly beneficial. But given his family’s support and resources and the School’s recognition that it continues to have an obligation to help with his transition, it is not clear that the harm cannot be ameliorated. And any harm suffered by Doe must be weighed against the harm identified by the School that would likely follow from his reinstatement,” McHugh concluded.
“In that regard, I credit the testimony of Dean of Students Ariel Baum at the emergency relief hearing, whom I deemed to be sincere and convincing in explaining how seriously the School views both Doe’s involvement in the attempt to frustrate the school’s drug screening program and his participation in the bullying incident that led to Doe’s dismissal. The school had particular concerns about the victim of the incident, who had been previously targeted, and students were explicitly warned to desist from the very conduct in which Doe engaged. They were also given the opportunity to admit their involvement, with the knowledge that failure to do so would likely result in expulsion. School officials are clearly in the best position to set and enforce disciplinary rules, particularly in a residential setting, and except in the clearest of cases judges are ill equipped to substitute their views from afar. In this case, where Doe was one of three students expelled following the unanimous recommendation of a six-member Disciplinary Committee that was adopted by the Headmaster, a court order reinstating a student would be particularly disruptive and ill-advised.”
UPDATE
After an amended complaint was filed on May 20 which added Baum as a defendant, the defense then brought forward a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, on June 20.
“Doe, a student at Hill for less than six months, committed multiple violations of the School’s disciplinary code’s most serious (“Level 3”) offenses: (1) Substance use; (2) Alcohol and drug possession and distribution; (3) Interference with a School investigation; (4) Bullying; and (5) Disrespectful behavior. The Head of School, Dr. Sylvia Rodriguez Vargas, required Doe to withdraw from Hill after a Discipline Committee recommended expulsion for Doe’s serious act of bullying and disrespectful behavior. For each of Doe’s five Level 3 offenses, Dr. Vargas had the discretion, under the plain language of Hill’s Student Handbook and the Enrollment Agreement, to require Doe’s immediate withdrawal. In response to Doe’s conduct violations, the School acted within its discretion and exercised great leniency,” according to the dismissal motion, in part.
“As the amended complaint alleges, Doe and his parents were aware of his precarious disciplinary status. First, they knew that Doe would have been expelled in December or January strictly for his drug use, possession, and distribution, unless Doe fully participated in the ‘I-Care’ Program. This program is a health- and wellness-based alternative to traditional discipline for a student’s own drug use in certain circumstances. Second, as the amended complaint concedes, Doe (who turned 18 in December 2022) and his parents were told in early January 2023 that Doe was being retroactively suspended and placed on Conduct Warning (probation) for attempting to interfere with the drug investigation of another student. Doe could have been required to withdraw for this misconduct alone, and the School told Doe then that he needed to faithfully abide by Hill’s conduct policy if he wished to remain a member of the Hill community.”
The defendants argued that, in the wake of the bullying incident where the plaintiff poured a mixture of water and protein powder on the head of a sleeping student, the plaintiff is not entitled to further leniency.
“Selectively choosing facts from the preliminary injunction hearing and the discovery provided by Hill, Doe amends his complaint, attempting to hold Hill responsible for his own wrongdoing. But courts have repeatedly declined to review the internal disciplinary processes of private schools other than with respect to basic contract principles. Doe has alleged no provision of the Handbook, Enrollment Agreement, I-Care Contract or other relevant policy that limited Hill’s discretion to (1) Issue a Conduct Warning for Doe’s interference with a School investigation, or (2) Require withdrawal for bullying and disrespectful behavior. At all times, Doe was subject to the expectations outlined in the Enrollment Agreement, Handbook and other Hill policies,” the dismissal motion continued.
“In the absence of any allegation in the amended complaint to suggest that Hill did not substantially comply with its disciplinary processes and procedures, all of Doe’s tort, statutory, and equitable claims amount to nothing more than asking this Court to overrule the School’s decision on an internal disciplinary matter. This Court should dismiss all of Doe’s claims, as they fail to state a viable claim for relief.”
For counts of violation of Title III the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, breach of contract, negligent infliction of emotional distress and intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff is now seeking the following reliefs:
• The issuance of injunctive relief prohibiting The Hill School from retaliating against Doe by refusing to offer him re-enrollment for the 2023-2024 academic year;
• Compensatory damages in an amount exceeding $75,000, to be determined at trial;
• Costs and expenses of suit;
• Attorneys’ fees and;
• Such other and further relief as the Court deems just, equitable, and proper.
The plaintiff is represented by Andrew S. Gallinaro and Patricia M. Hamill of Clark Hill, plus Joseph G. Poluka of Blank Rome, all in Philadelphia.
The defendant is represented by Cara E. Murphy, John A. Duberstein and Phillipa Gage Lilienthal of Schwartz Hannum in Andover, Mass., plus Marc H. Perry of Post & Schell, in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:23-cv-01210
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com