In the case Doe v. Wash. Cty. Dep’t of Educ., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83764, a U.S. District Court found that defendant Washington County Department of Education deprived Plaintiff of his right to due process by the manner in which the disciplinary proceedings as to Plaintiff’s suspension from school were conducted. Defendant never advised Plaintiff of the specific acts he was alleged to have committed. Those involved in the disciplinary process simply “rubber-stamped” the Principal’s recommendation as to Defendant’s punishment. However, the procedure by which Defendant suspended Plaintiff from the football team for one year did not violate Plaintiff’s due process rights because he was not entitled to due process in relation to that suspension. The Court also notes that because Plaintiff ultimately admitted to playing an active role in the hazing incident, although to a lesser degree than the others involved, Defendant’s policies provided Defendant with the authority to discipline Plaintiff by imposing a one-year suspension had Defendant simply provided Plaintiff with proper due process. The fact that Plaintiff was likely subjected to the same hazing the year before and perhaps even at the same camp where he hazed others, while concerning and perhaps worthy of some consideration as a mitigating factor, did not deprive Defendant of the right to impose the recommended punishment upon Plaintiff for his participation in the hazing of other students.
In this case, Plaintiff and several other students were disciplined by the Washington County Department of Education following a reported hazing incident at a Fellowship of Christian Athletes Football Camp which Plaintiff attended with the David Crockett High School football team. Shortly after the team returned from the camp, an anonymous email was sent to several of Defendant’s agents, including DCHS principal and Director of Schools, as well as to local media outlets alleging that underclassmen football players had been “hazed in a sexual manner” at the football camp. After receiving the email, school officials investigated the allegations by interviewing a number of students who attended the camp. After this investigation, Defendant dismissed Plaintiff and three other students from the football team and required them to attend alternative school for the entire upcoming academic year.
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.