Goodwin v. Lee Public Schools
56 N.E.3d 777, 475 Mass. 280 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A student who has been unlawfully excluded from school may bring a tort action for monetary damages under G. L. c. 76, § 16 without first exhausting the administrative remedies for readmission provided in a separate disciplinary statute, as the two statutes provide separate and distinct forms of relief.
Facts:
- Katelynn Goodwin was a senior at Lee Middle and High School.
- On December 20, 2011, the school principal suspended Goodwin based on the mistaken belief that she had been charged with a felony related to a weapons theft.
- At the time of the suspension, no criminal charges of any kind had been filed against Goodwin.
- Goodwin's mother informed the superintendent the next day that no charges had been filed, but the superintendent refused to lift the suspension.
- In January 2012, the principal extended the suspension for the duration of any criminal proceedings, citing the felony suspension statute.
- In April 2012, a criminal complaint was finally issued against Goodwin, but it charged her only with a misdemeanor (receipt of stolen property under $250), not a felony.
- The suspension, which lasted for her entire final semester, was lifted in May 2012 after her attorney intervened, but Goodwin was barred from attending graduation with her class.
- Goodwin ultimately completed her studies through alternative means and received her diploma in the summer of 2013.
Procedural Posture:
- Katelynn Goodwin filed a complaint in the Superior Court against the Lee public schools, the superintendent, and the town.
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing Goodwin had not exhausted the administrative remedies under G. L. c. 71, § 37H1/2.
- The Superior Court judge granted the defendants' motion to dismiss.
- Goodwin filed a motion for reconsideration, which the judge denied.
- Goodwin (appellant) appealed the dismissal, and the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts granted her application for direct appellate review.
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 student's failure to exhaust the administrative remedies for suspension under G. L. c. 71, § 37H1/2 preclude them from bringing a tort claim for monetary damages for unlawful exclusion under G. L. c. 76, § 16?
Opinions:
Majority - Duffly, J.
No. A student is not required to exhaust the administrative remedies under the suspension statute, G. L. c. 71, § 37H1/2, before pursuing a separate tort claim for damages under G. L. c. 76, § 16. The court reasoned that the two statutes provide distinct remedies: § 37H1/2 offers an expedited administrative process for a student to seek readmission to school, while § 16 provides a judicial remedy for monetary damages resulting from an unlawful exclusion. Furthermore, the suspension itself was facially unlawful because the condition precedent for § 37H1/2—the issuance of a criminal complaint charging a student with a felony—was never met. The court interpreted the phrase 'notwithstanding' in § 37H1/2 not as eliminating other remedies, but as establishing an additional, immediate review process for students facing suspension for felony charges, without affecting their separate right to sue for damages.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that administrative remedies for school discipline and judicial remedies for tort damages are parallel, not sequential. It prevents schools from using the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine as a shield against liability when their disciplinary action was unlawful from its inception. The ruling ensures that students who are wrongfully deprived of their education have a direct path to seek monetary compensation for their injuries, such as the stigmatization and loss of educational opportunities, separate from the process of seeking reinstatement. This strengthens student rights by affirming that procedural shortcuts for readmission do not eliminate the substantive right to sue for damages caused by an illegal exclusion.
