Laney v. Farley
2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 20553, 2007 WL 2416177, 501 F.3d 577 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A one-day, in-school suspension during which a student is required to complete academic work and is recorded as being in attendance is a de minimis deprivation that does not implicate the property or liberty interests protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
Facts:
- Victoria Laney was an eighth-grade student at West Wilson Middle School in Tennessee.
- The Wilson County Board of Education (WCBE) had a code of conduct that prohibited students from having personal communication devices on school property during school hours.
- On September 16, 2005, Victoria Laney's cellular telephone rang during a class session.
- Her teacher confiscated the phone and gave it to the school principal.
- The WCBE's policy for a first offense mandated confiscation of the device for 30 days and a one-day in-school suspension.
- On September 20, 2005, Victoria reported to school and served her one-day in-school suspension in the school office, where she was required to complete academic work.
- School officials did not provide Victoria with an opportunity to discuss the incident or the suspension before she served it.
- Victoria's parents did not receive notice of the suspension until after it had been served.
Procedural Posture:
- William Laney, on behalf of his daughter Victoria, sued the Wilson County Board of Education (WCBE) and several school officials in the U.S. District Court for alleged due process violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- The defendants filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.
- The district court referred the motion to a Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation advising that the entire complaint be dismissed.
- After a de novo review, the District Court adopted the recommendation in part, dismissing all claims except for the procedural due process claim against WCBE related to the in-school suspension.
- WCBE, the sole remaining defendant, filed a motion for certification for an interlocutory appeal on the surviving due process claim.
- The District Court certified the question for appeal, and WCBE (as appellant) petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which granted permission to hear the appeal.
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 one-day, in-school suspension, during which a student is required to complete academic assignments, implicate a student's property or liberty interests under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, thus requiring notice and an opportunity to be heard?
Opinions:
Majority - Heyburn, D.J.
No. A one-day, in-school suspension does not implicate a student's property or liberty interests under the Due Process Clause. The court reasoned that unlike the out-of-school suspensions in Goss v. Lopez, which constituted a 'total exclusion from the educational process,' Victoria Laney's in-school suspension did not deprive her of her property interest in education. Under Tennessee law, she remained in the school setting, was required to complete academic work, and was officially recorded as in attendance. Regarding her liberty interest, the court declined to extend the reputational harm concerns from Goss to an in-school suspension, noting that no court had previously done so and that any such harm would be minimal. Finally, the court held that even if a constitutional interest were implicated, a one-day in-school suspension is a de minimis deprivation, meaning it is too trivial to trigger the procedural due process requirement for a formal notice and hearing.
Concurring - Gibbons, J.
No. The judge agreed with the majority's conclusion but wrote separately to emphasize that the holding is fact-specific. The concurrence clarifies that an in-school suspension could violate due process under different circumstances, such as if the complaint alleged significant educational detriment or reputational harm. However, in this case, the complaint failed to allege any loss that could be categorized as more than de minimis, so dismissing the claim was the correct course of action.
Analysis:
This decision narrows the scope of due process protections for students established in Goss v. Lopez. By distinguishing between out-of-school and in-school suspensions, the court creates a precedent that minor disciplinary actions that do not fully exclude a student from the educational environment are not subject to constitutional due process requirements. This gives school districts greater latitude in imposing minor disciplinary sanctions without the procedural burden of formal hearings. Future plaintiffs challenging in-school suspensions will likely need to plead specific, significant facts demonstrating a non-trivial deprivation of educational opportunity or reputational harm to survive a motion to dismiss.
