Transcript Suspension, Expulsion, and Disciplinary Transfer

Suspension, Expulsion, and
Disciplinary Transfer
Summarized by
Tiffany Waller
MED 6490
February 2, 2010
Definitions
Suspension– an exclusion from school for
failure to conform to legitimate rules for 10
days or less
Expulsion– an exclusion from school for the
remainder of a quarter, semester, academic
year , or permanently due to repeated or
major infractions of school rules or criminal
conviction
Goss V. Lopez
Supreme Court of the United States, 1975
419 U.S. 565
Facts

During February and March, 1971, six of
nine plaintiffs who attended the Columbus,
Ohio, Public School System (CPSS) alleged
that they were suspended out of school for
10 days for being disruptive or disobedient in
the presence of the school administrator
who ordered the suspension.
FACTS



Tyrone Washington (student) was one of many
who were demonstrating in the auditorium which
disrupted a class that was using the same
space.
Tyrone was ordered by the principal to leave,
refused to do so, the police were contacted and
he was consequently suspended.
Rudolph Sutton (student) physically attacked the
police officer who was attempting to remove
Tyrone from the auditorium. He, too, was
immediately suspended.
FACTS


Four other students were suspended for
similar conduct.
Neither student was given a hearing to
determine the facts underlying the
suspension; however, they (and their
parents) were given the opportunity to attend
a conference (after the effective date of the
suspension) to discuss the student’s future.
FACTS



Dwight Lopez & 75 others were suspended
from Central High School for a disturbance in
the cafeteria that involved some physical
damage to school property.
Lopez claimed that he was not a participant
in the disturbance but was an innocent
bystander.
He never had a hearing.
FACTS



Betty Crome participated in a demonstration
that led to her arrest at a high school other
than the one she was attending.
She was taken to the police station and
released without being formally charged.
Before going to school the next day, she was
notified that she had been suspended for 10
days.
FACTS

A hearing was never held & the record does
not disclose the basis in which the McGuffey
Junior High School principal decided to
suspended Betty Crome.
THE ISSUE

Because students have a valuable property
interest in attending school, they must be
provided due process prior to their being
excluded from school.
HOLDING


The court decided that the plaintiffs were
denied due process of law because they
were “suspended without a hearing prior to
the suspension or within a reasonable time
thereafter.”
All references to plaintiffs’ suspensions be
removed from school files
HOLDING
The court also mandated that the Ohio school
administrators adopt regulations that provide for
fair suspension procedures that would:
1. Permit immediate removal of a student whose
behavior endangers others or damages property
2. Require notice of suspension proceedings to be
sent to the student’s parents within 24 hours of
the decision to conduct them
3. Require a hearing to beheld, with the student
present, within 72 hours of his removal.
LEGAL DOCTRINE
The Due Process Clause protects a student’s
entitlement to a public education. Their
rights cannot be taken away fro misconduct
without adherence to the minimum
procedures required by the Clause.
RELEVANT CASES
Craig v. Selma City School Board, 801 F. Supp
585 (Ala. 1992)
 Students ere suspended 5 days for fighting
at a football game and in the principal’s
office. No notice of hearing was given.
 The court determined that the expulsion
hearing as fair & that the case fit within an
exception to the pre-deprivation & notice of
hearing requirement.
Dickens v. Johnson County Board of Education, 661 F.
Supp. 155 (Tenn. 1987)
 disputed the use of a “time-out box” in which a
student was put in time-out for approximately 4.5
hours on 6 consecutive days, saying that his due
process rights had been violated.
 The court decided that the behavior modification
technique was not unduly harsh or grossly
disproportionate (time-out should be favored over
suspensions/expulsions).
PUBLIC SCHOOL EXPULSION
Gonzales v. McEuen
United States District Court, Central District of
California, 1977 435 F. Supp. 460
FACTS


11 high school students were charged with initiating a riot at
Oxnard High School which resulted in their suspension and
expulsion.
Students contend the following:
a). They were denied their right to an
impartial hearing before an
independent fact-finder.
b). There was an over-familiarity of the
board.
c). The district superintendent, Mr. McEuen,
was involved with the board of trustees during
the hearings.
FACTS


The Board had information about the
plaintiff’s academic and disciplinary records
(contained in the “Red Book”) and that they
had access to this material 20-30 days
before the expulsion hearings.
Members of the board met with school
officials prior to the hearings.
FACTS

Plaintiffs claimed that:
-the attorneys acted in dual roles at the
expulsion hearing (as prosecutors for the
Administration & also as legal advisors
for the Board).
ISSUE

Can students who are recommended for
suspension/expulsion have a fair hearing if
the decision-makers are involved with the
Board proceedings or take on dual roles?
HOLDING

The court decided the following:
1. The confidential relationship between
the attorneys & the board members
created an unacceptable risk of bias.
2. The involvement of Mr. McEuen with
the Board violated the student’s due
process rights (Board was fundamentally unfair).
LEGAL DOCTRINE

The 11 students filed suit under the Civil
Rights Act and the Due Process Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution.
RELEVANT INFORMATION

A notice of expulsion hearing must communicate the
nature of the proceedings to the recipient in addition
to:
-a statement of the specific charges
-basic rights available to the student
-right to be represented by counsel
-right to present evidence
-right to confront & cross examine
adverse witnesses

A school superintendent should not
participate in expulsion hearings in order to
avoid a conflict of interest. Instead, the
school board should delegate expulsion
decisions to an impartial hearing officer.
Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994


emerged as a result of the increase in school
violence
facilitated growth in the “zero-tolerance”
policies which were originally designed as a
type of “one-strike-you’re-out” solution for
serious offenses such as drug trafficking or
possession of dangerous weapons

less serious issues such as bringing a nail
file to school, writing a story about a
murderous rampage, and using a thumb &
index finger to simulate a gun have made
these policies extremely controversial
--South Gibson School Board v. Sollman
--Lyons v. Penn Hills School Distrct