In the case of Place v. Warren Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., S.D.Ohio No. 2:21-cv-985 (July 26, 2023), a federal district court held that the school district and high school basketball coach did not retaliate against the student athlete when the student athlete was cut from the basketball team following several complaints against the basketball coach by the student athlete’s parents.
In this case, the student athlete argued that the school district and basketball coach (1) retaliated against the student athlete by cutting the student athlete from the basketball team following several complaints against the basketball coach by the student athlete’s parents; (2) that the school district and basketball coach violated the student athlete’s substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by harassing and bullying the student athlete; and (3) that the school board was liable for the basketball coach’s mistreatment of the student athlete under 42 U.S.C. 1983. In response, the school district and the basketball coach argued that the student athlete was cut from the team for several non-retaliatory reasons including, but not limited to, the student athlete’s skill level compared to other members of the basketball team and that the school district appropriately investigated and responded to all the student athlete’s parents’ complaints. The federal district court agreed with the school district and basketball coach.
In support of its decision in favor of the school district and basketball coach on the retaliation claim, the federal district court explained that the student athlete did not engage in constitutionally protected speech when complaining about the basketball coach.
In support of its decision in favor of the school district and basketball coach on the Fourteenth Amendment claim, the federal district court explained that neither the school district nor basketball coach’s behavior towards the student athlete was so egregious or outrageous that it may fairly be said to shock the contemporary conscience and therefore failed to rise to the level of a violation of the student’s substantive due process rights.
In support of its decision in favor of the school district and basketball coach on the 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim, the federal district court explained that, because no unconstitutional conduct occurred, this claim failed.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always-changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot