Gonzales ex rel. A.G. v. Burley High Sch.
| Decision Date | 26 July 2019 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4:18-cv-00092-DCN |
| Citation | 404 F.Supp.3d 1269 |
| Parties | Jorge GONZALES ON BEHALF OF his minor child A.G.; Todd Merrell on behalf of his minor child A.M.; Manuel Morales and Veronica Morales on behalf of their minor child Z.M.; Henry Munoz and Misty Munoz on behalf of their minor child I.M.; Erasmo Salazar and Ellen Salazar on behalf of their minor children C.S. and S.S.; Robert Sanchez and Tiffiny Sanchez on behalf of their minor child I.S.; Silvia Ochoa on behalf of her minor child D.O.; Sonia Ramirez on behalf of her minor child V.R., Plaintiffs, v. BURLEY HIGH SCHOOL; Cassia Joint School District 151; Gaylen Smyer in his official and individual capacity; Sandra Miller in her official and individual capacity; Levi Power in his official and individual capacity; and Does I-X, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Idaho |
Jeremiah Matthew Hudson, Vaughn Fisher, Fisher & Hudson, Angela Dawn Perkins, Perkins Law, Christopher F. Brown, Moore & Elia, LLP, Boise, ID, for Plaintiffs.
Brian K. Julian, Anderson Julian & Hull, Boise, ID, for Defendants.
This case involves First Amendment retaliation claims for disciplinary actions taken against plaintiff members of the Burley High School ("BHS") cheer team ("Plaintiffs"). Plaintiffs engaged in a peaceful "sit-in" during an early morning cheer practice to protest bullying and favoritism by their cheer coach. Plaintiffs were ultimately suspended from the cheer team for three weeks as a punishment and had to sign a list of stipulations agreeing to additional punishment to be let back on the squad. Although Plaintiffs signed the stipulations, they each also reserved their right to engage in the school district's grievance process. In response, the BHS administration dismissed Plaintiffs from the cheerleading team for the rest of the school year.
Plaintiffs thereafter filed the instant suit, alleging two claims of retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. Plaintiffs' first claim for relief is for the retaliation they experienced for initiating the sit-in, while Plaintiffs' second claim for relief is for the retaliation they purportedly suffered as a result of reserving their rights to engage in the school district's grievance process. Defendants BHS, Cassia Joint School District 151, Superintendent Gaylen Smyer, Assistant Superintendent Sandra Miller, and Principal Levi Power (collectively referred to hereinafter as "Defendants") seek summary dismissal of both of Plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment, seeking summary adjudication of their claim of retaliation for reserving their rights to grieve the school district's decision. On June 5, 2019, the Court held oral argument on both motions. For the reasons stated herein, the Court DENIES Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
The BHS cheer team won the state championships during the 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 school years under head coach Heidi Smith. Eight of the nine plaintiff cheerleaders were on at least one of the state championship teams. In the spring of 2017, the BHS administration hired a new coach, Laine Mansfield, as the head coach of the cheer team. Mansfield had previously served for a portion of a year as an assistant junior high cheer coach.
In April 2017, Mansfield conducted tryouts for the 2017-2018 BHS cheer team. Mansfield's temperament and fairness immediately concerned Plaintiffs. For instance, Victoria Aragon, an incoming senior who had been a member of both state championship cheer teams, did not make the squad for her senior year. Due to a personal dispute with Aragon, Mansfield prohibited Plaintiffs from communicating with, associating with, or otherwise talking about Aragon while at cheerleading practice or in the presence of Mansfield. Mansfield verbally reprimanded Plaintiffs if she observed them communicating or associating with Aragon.
Mansfield also demonstrably favored the younger members of the cheer team she had coached as an assistant coach of the junior high team, including her own daughter. For Plaintiffs, Mansfield enforced mandatory attendance for practices and events, and made no exceptions for conflicting school-related activities, family functions, or any other non-emergency scheduling conflict. If Plaintiffs missed a single practice, they were excluded from practices and important games and events during the week the practice was missed. Mansfield also punished one Plaintiff, A.G., by excluding her from participating in a cheer parade when she missed practice to attend a previously scheduled school yearbook camp. This punishment was given even though—several months prior—Mansfield had excused A.G. from attending practice that day so she could attend the yearbook camp. However, Mansfield rescheduled the entire team's practice when her own daughter or other junior members of the team had a conflict.
Mansfield also routinely bullied Plaintiffs by degrading their cheerleading abilities and appearance. Mansfield told Plaintiffs they "sucked and that she had no idea how [they] ever won a state title," claimed they looked "trashy and gross," criticized Plaintiffs during practice by stating they "looked really dumb, ugly or sloppy," and talked negatively about certain Plaintiffs to other members of the team, including describing one Plaintiff as "the most loud, obnoxious person she'd ever met" and complaining how "lazy" another Plaintiff was. Dkt. 29-3, Ex. 2, at 15, 24, 33, 34.
Finally, Mansfield demonstrated a lack of basic knowledge of, or concern for, the safety requirements cheer coaches are required to observe. For example, flyers—cheerleaders who are lifted or thrown into the air—were repeatedly dropped on the floor during practice. Although such falls can cause paralysis or even death, Mansfield would tell the flyers to "brush it off, suck it up, and do it right next time" when they were dropped. Id. at 28. Yet Mansfield would not teach the girls the appropriate way to do the stunt or ensure they had the basics down before they again attempted dangerous acrobatics. Id. Mansfield also put inexperienced cheerleaders together in groups, gave the squad no direction on how to safely stunt, paired stunt groups incorrectly based on their size, risking serious injury, and tried to make the cheerleaders attempt illegal stunts. Id.
Plaintiffs and their parents voiced numerous complaints to the BHS administration about Mansfield's behavior and attended meetings with BHS and Cassia Joint School District administrators. In response to such complaints, the BHS administration put Mansfield on a Performance Improvement Plan, requiring her to, among other things, "keep her communication positive" with members of the cheer team, refrain from texting cheerleaders one on one, refrain from discussing sensitive issues about the cheerleaders with others, and to be "consistent and fair with all girls in the cheer program[.]"2 Dkt. 26-10, Ex. 5, at 18:1-25:5. When Mansfield's behavior did not improve, Plaintiffs organized a sit-in during their early morning practice on September 29, 2017, to protest Mansfield's "bullying, favoritism, and incompetence." Dkt. 26-1, at 2.
At approximately 8:10 a.m. on the day of the protest, fourteen BHS cheerleaders (nine of whom are plaintiffs in this suit), entered the BHS gym at the end of one of their before-school practices. The protesting cheerleaders wore their regular school clothes (rather than their designated practice uniforms) and sat on the bleachers for approximately two minutes until they were asked to leave by BHS Athletic Director Gordon Kerbs. When asked to leave the gym, one of the Plaintiffs argued with Kerbs and Assistant Principal Andrew Wray, stating the cheerleaders had a right to peacefully protest. However, all of the girls ultimately left the gym and went to the library with Kerbs and Wray.
At the end of the day on September 29, 2017, Plaintiffs were informed that they were suspended from the cheerleading team for the next week. On October 5, 2017, the BHS Principals' Office gave each Plaintiff a list of additional punishments to which Plaintiffs and their parents were required to agree in order for Plaintiffs to be allowed back on the cheerleading team. The October 5, 2017, letter provided:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ellen G. v. Saul
... ... show that Plaintiff's migraines caused a high level of pain. See AR 416 ("every [headache] very ... ...
-
Running the Full-court Press: How College Athletic Departments Unlawfully Restrict Athletes' Rights to Speak to the News Media
...apologize for reporting several teammates for beating him up in the locker room); see also Gonzalez ex rel. A.G. v. Burley High Sch., 404 F. Supp. 3d 1269 (D. Idaho 2019) (finding that sit-in by cheerleaders protesting coach's bullying and disregard for safety was protected speech and that ......