Requa v. Kent School District No. 415
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40920, 2007 WL 1531670, 492 F.Supp.2d 1272 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A school may discipline a student for lewd, offensive, and disruptive on-campus conduct, such as secretly filming a teacher in a sexually harassing manner, even if that conduct is part of creating speech that is ultimately published off-campus.
Facts:
- Gregory Requa was a senior at Kentridge High School.
- During his junior year, a teacher, Ms. M., was surreptitiously filmed in her classroom on at least two occasions.
- The footage included a student making pelvic thrusts behind the teacher and close-up shots of her buttocks, accompanied by the song 'Ms. New Booty' and a graphic reading 'Caution Booty Ahead.'
- This footage was edited into a video with graphics and a musical soundtrack, which was then posted on YouTube.com.
- In June 2006, Requa posted a link to the YouTube video on his personal MySpace.com webpage.
- In February 2007, a local news channel discovered the video and contacted the school administration, leading to an investigation.
- During the investigation, another student involved, S.W., gave a written statement identifying Requa as having participated in filming, editing, and posting the video.
- Requa denied any involvement in filming, editing, or posting the video itself, admitting only to posting a link to it on his MySpace page.
Procedural Posture:
- The Kentridge High School principal investigated student involvement in the creation of the video.
- The school district imposed a 40-day suspension on Gregory Requa for his alleged involvement.
- Requa, through his family, requested an administrative hearing before a school district hearing officer.
- The hearing officer conducted a hearing and upheld the suspension.
- Requa appealed the hearing officer’s decision to the Kent School District's Board of Directors.
- The Board of Directors held an appellate proceeding and issued written findings upholding the suspension.
- After exhausting his administrative remedies, Requa filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court against the Kent School District, alleging First Amendment violations.
- Contemporaneously with the lawsuit, Requa filed a motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to enjoin the school district from enforcing the suspension.
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 school district's suspension of a student for his alleged in-class conduct of secretly filming a teacher in a lewd and offensive manner violate the student's First Amendment free speech rights, even though the resulting video was edited and published off-campus?
Opinions:
Majority - Pechman, District Judge
No. A school's suspension of a student for in-class conduct does not violate the First Amendment when that conduct is lewd, offensive, and disruptive to the educational environment, even if the resulting speech is published off-campus. The court determined that the school district punished the student's on-campus conduct of filming, not his off-campus speech of posting a link. Applying Bethel School District v. Fraser, the court found the video's content—specifically the pelvic thrusts and focus on the teacher's buttocks—to be lewd, offensive, and devoid of any political or critical value, which schools are permitted to prohibit. Under Tinker v. Des Moines, the act of secretly filming a teacher in a demeaning and sexually suggestive manner constitutes a 'material and substantial disruption' to the school's mission of maintaining a civil and respectful learning atmosphere. Therefore, the conduct itself was not protected speech, and the plaintiff was unlikely to succeed on the merits of his First Amendment claim.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of First Amendment student speech doctrines to the digital age, particularly where on-campus misconduct leads to off-campus online publication. It establishes that schools can circumvent complex legal questions about regulating off-campus internet speech by focusing discipline on the underlying, sanctionable on-campus conduct. The case provides a critical framework for school administrators, allowing them to punish students for creating harassing or lewd digital content by tying the discipline to the in-school actions of recording or harassment. This strengthens a school's authority to maintain order and protect faculty from harassment that originates within the classroom, even if its final form is online.
