In the case of Chisholm v. St. Marys City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., N.D. Ohio No. 3:16CV2849, a federal district court held that a football coach’s verbal insults toward student players did not constitute a violation of a student’s right to due process under the United States Constitution without accompanying physical action.
This case centered on a high school football coach who had a record of disciplinary reprimands from prior schools as well as a consent agreement with the Ohio Department of Education for using derogatory language towards students. Shortly after the coach’s employment at the present school district, the coach allegedly insulted several football players on a regular basis during football practice sessions using explicit language. A few students brought a complaint to the school board regarding the coach’s behavior. While an independent investigator for the school board determined that the coach used explicit language on a regular basis during football practice sessions, the independent investigator concluded that “there is no evidence that [such explicit language] it is out of line by most standards.”
One student filed suit in a federal district court alleging claims of constitutional violations against the school board and staff. The federal district court found that a high bar exists to show that harassment rises to the level of a constitutional violation. The federal district court further found that – although inappropriate for a high school mentor – the coach’s verbal insults were not egregious enough to establish constitutional violations. The federal district court specifically found that harassment requires physical injury of some kind to establish constitutional violations as verbal insults alone are not sufficient.
Although the student could not establish a constitutional violation, the school district was forced into lengthy litigation due to the actions of a football coach with prior disciplinary infractions. School districts may avoid facing similar litigation by staying proactive about negative staff-to-student interactions.
To read this case, 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 substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.