Everett v. Marcase
426 F. Supp. 397 (1977)
Rule of Law:
An involuntary disciplinary transfer of a student to another non-disciplinary public school within the same district implicates a constitutionally protected property interest, which requires the school to provide procedural due process.
Facts:
- The School District of Philadelphia maintained a practice of involuntarily transferring students from one non-disciplinary public school to another for disciplinary reasons.
- These transfers, known as 'lateral transfers,' were for disciplinary issues not deemed serious enough to warrant placement in a special disciplinary facility.
- The School District historically conducted these transfers on an informal, ad hoc basis without precise internal guidelines.
- A substantial number of students were subjected to these lateral transfers each year.
- Evidence showed that a disciplinary transfer during the school year could have a serious adverse impact on a student's educational progress, bore the stigma of punishment, and could be a terrifying experience.
- Transferred students could face potential physical harm from having to travel through unfamiliar neighborhoods.
Procedural Posture:
- Two consolidated class actions were filed by students against the School District of Philadelphia in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
- Plaintiffs alleged that the School District's procedures for disciplinary 'lateral transfers' violated their Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process rights.
- The parties negotiated and agreed to a consent decree resolving most procedural issues.
- The parties were unable to agree on four issues: the right to counsel, the designation of the hearing officer, the right of appeal, and the right of the pupil to continue attending school pending a final decision.
- The U.S. District Court held hearings to adjudicate these four remaining procedural due process issues.
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 an involuntary disciplinary transfer of a public school student from one non-disciplinary school to another deprive the student of a constitutionally protected property interest, thereby requiring procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - VanArtsdalen, District Judge
Yes. An involuntary disciplinary transfer deprives a student of a constitutionally protected property interest and therefore requires procedural due process. The court reasoned that, similar to a suspension as analyzed in Goss v. Lopez, a disciplinary lateral transfer is a 'serious event in the life of the [transferred] child' that disrupts education and carries the stigma of punishment. The court found that many students would consider a short suspension less drastic than being involuntarily transferred to a new, unfamiliar school. Having established that due process applies, the court determined the minimum procedures required for the unresolved issues between the parties. It held that while a student has no constitutional right to be represented by legal counsel at the hearing, they may bring a representative of their choice, who can be an attorney. The hearing officer must be fair and impartial, but can be a superior of the principal, such as someone from the district superintendent's office. No further right of appeal beyond the formal hearing is constitutionally required. Finally, a student must be permitted to remain at their current school pending the final hearing decision, unless emergency circumstances warrant a separate suspension proceeding.
Analysis:
This case extends the Supreme Court's holding in Goss v. Lopez, which applied due process protections to school suspensions, to the context of disciplinary lateral transfers. It establishes that a student's property interest in public education is not just about attendance, but also about the stability of attending a particular school without arbitrary, punitive disruption. The court's decision carefully balances the student's due process rights against the school district's administrative burdens, declining to impose more formal, trial-like procedures such as a mandatory right to counsel. This ruling provides a constitutional floor for procedures that school districts must follow for disciplinary actions that fall short of suspension or expulsion but still significantly impact a student's educational experience.
