In the case of K.W. (Junior) v. Canton City Sch. Dist. N.D.Ohio No. 5:21-CV-02423, (Aug. 25, 2022), a federal district court held that (1) if true, a school board may be liable for failing to train, supervise, and monitor its coaches when the coaches forced a student to pork product contrary to the student’s religious beliefs as a punishment and (2) the school board was statutorily immune from liability for the coaches’ action when the parents sued the school board in the board’s official capacity.
In this case, the student argued that (1) the school board failed to train and supervise the coaches to not punish students by forcing them to engage in activities that violate the students’ religious beliefs and (2) the school board was not immune from state law tort claims because the school employees acted with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner. In response, the school board argued that (1) the school board cannot be held liable because an employee was a tortfeasor and (2) the board did not meet an exception in the statutory immunity and would be immune from the tort claims. The federal district court agreed with the student on the failure-to-train claim and with the school board on immunity claims.
In support of its decision in favor of the student on the failure-to-train claim, the federal district court explained that, by alleging that the board had a policy, procedure, or custom allowing its employees to punish students by forcing them to eat religiously restricted foods, the student can survive a motion to dismiss.
In support of its decision in favor of the school board on the immunity claim, the federal district court explained that the student sued the board in its official capacity, so the exceptions to statutory immunity do not apply.
NOTE: This decision is based on the student athlete’s ability to continue the litigation process and the ultimate outcome may be different.
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 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.