Doninger Ex Rel. Doninger v. Niehoff
527 F.3d 41, 35 A.L.R. 6th 703, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 11418 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public school may discipline a student for off-campus, online speech when it is reasonably foreseeable that the speech will reach the school community and create a risk of a substantial and material disruption to the school's work and discipline.
Facts:
- Avery Doninger, a student at Lewis Mills High School (LMHS), was a member of the Student Council involved in planning an event called 'Jamfest.'
- A dispute arose with the school administration over the scheduling of Jamfest, leading Avery and other students to send a mass email encouraging community members to contact Superintendent Paula Schwartz.
- Principal Karissa Niehoff met with Avery, expressing disappointment in the mass email and counseling her on the proper, cooperative ways for a class officer to resolve disputes with the administration.
- That same evening, from her home computer, Avery wrote a post on her publicly accessible blog calling school administrators 'douchebags' and falsely stating that Jamfest had been cancelled.
- Avery's blog post also encouraged readers to contact Superintendent Schwartz 'to piss her off more.'
- Several days later, after the Jamfest scheduling issue had been resolved, Principal Niehoff learned of the blog post.
- As a result of the post, Niehoff prohibited Avery from running for Senior Class Secretary, citing the vulgar and inaccurate content and her disregard for the counsel she had received.
Procedural Posture:
- Lauren Doninger filed a complaint on behalf of her daughter, Avery, in Connecticut Superior Court against Principal Niehoff and Superintendent Schwartz.
- The defendants removed the action to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.
- Doninger filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking to void the class secretary election and either hold a new election or install Avery in the position.
- The District Court held an evidentiary hearing and denied Doninger's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding she was unlikely to succeed on the merits.
- Doninger, as Plaintiff-Appellant, appealed the District Court's denial of the preliminary injunction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a public school violate a student's First Amendment rights by disqualifying her from running for student office as discipline for off-campus, online speech that used vulgar language, contained misleading information about a school controversy, and encouraged others to complain to school officials?
Opinions:
Majority - Livingston, Circuit Judge
No. The school did not violate the student's First Amendment rights because her off-campus speech created a foreseeable risk of substantial disruption to the school environment. The Supreme Court's standard in Tinker v. Des Moines allows schools to regulate student expression that will 'materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school.' Citing its own precedent in Wisniewski, the court held this standard applies to off-campus speech when it is foreseeable that the speech will reach the school and create such a risk. Here, it was foreseeable Avery's blog post would reach the LMHS community, as it concerned a school-related controversy and was intended to be read by fellow students. The court found the post created a foreseeable risk of substantial disruption for three main reasons: 1) the vulgar and incendiary language was 'hardly conducive to cooperative conflict resolution' and could provoke similar responses; 2) the post contained misleading information that Jamfest was cancelled, which could fuel an ongoing controversy and divert administrators' time to correct it; and 3) the discipline related to Avery's extracurricular role as a student leader, and her conduct undermined the pedagogical values of civility and cooperation that student government is designed to teach.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for extending the Tinker 'substantial disruption' test to off-campus, online speech, thereby blurring the traditional line between a school's authority on and off school grounds. It affirms that in the internet age, a student's digital footprint can have real-world consequences within the educational setting. The ruling provides school administrators with a legal framework to discipline students for online behavior that is directed at the school community and poses a legitimate threat to the educational environment. It also reinforces the idea that students in leadership roles, who participate in extracurricular activities, may be held to a higher standard of conduct consistent with the pedagogical goals of those activities.
