JS v. Bethlehem Area School Dist.
| Decision Date | 14 July 2000 |
| Parties | J.S., a Minor By and Through his Parents and Natural Guardians, H.S. and I.S., Appellants, v. BETHLEHEM AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
Robert E. Sletvold, Easton, for appellants.
Jeffrey T. Tucker, New Britain, for appellee.
Before FRIEDMAN, J., FLAHERTY, J. and JIULIANTE, Senior Judge JIULIANTE, Senior Judge.
J.S. (Student), a minor by and through his parents and natural guardians, H.S. and I.S. (Parents) (collectively, Appellants), appeal from the July 23, 1999 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County (trial court) that affirmed the decision of the Bethlehem Area School District (School District) to permanently expel J.S. from its schools. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
In May of 1998, Student was in the eighth grade at Nitschmann Middle School, which is located within the School District. Sometime prior to May, Student created a web-site on his home computer and on his own time. The web-site, titled "Teacher Sux," consisted of several web pages that made derogatory comments about Student's algebra teacher, Mrs. Fulmer, and Nitschmann Principal, Mr. Kartsotis.1
Prior to accessing the web-site, a visitor had to agree to a disclaimer. The disclaimer indicated, inter alia, that the visitor was not a member of the School District's faculty or administration and that the visitor did not intend to disclose the identity of the web-site creator or intend to cause trouble for that individual.
Through an anonymous e-mail, a Nitschmann instructor learned of the web-site and promptly reported it to Mr. Kartsotis, who proceeded to view portions of the site. Mr. Kartsotis then convened a faculty meeting and informed it that there was a problem in the school, but he did not disclose the nature of it.
Mr. Kartsotis contacted the local police authorities. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was also contacted. Both agencies conducted investigations into the matter and were able to identify Student as the creator of the web-site.2 During the investigations, Student continued to attend classes and participate in extra-curricular activities. Student voluntarily removed the web-site approximately one week after Mr. Kartsotis became aware of it.
On or about July 30, 1998, the School District sent Appellants a letter articulating its intent to suspend Student for a period of three days. The letter alleged that Student violated School District policy through three Level III offenses:3 threat to a teacher, harassment of a teacher and principal and, disrespect to a teacher and principal. After a hearing on the suspension, the School District opted to extend the suspension period to ten days, effective the beginning of the 1998-99 school year. Shortly thereafter, the School District commenced expulsion proceedings against Student.
Expulsion hearings were conducted on August 19 and 26, 1998. By that time, however, Parents had enrolled Student in an out-of-state school for the 1998-99 school year and thus, Student was unable to attend the August 26, 1998 hearing.
On August 31, 1998, the School District issued the following Findings of Fact, in relevant part:
34. The Board offered to continue the hearing the next day (Thursday, August 20, 1998), however, [Student's] father was unavailable that day and requested another date.
35. The Board scheduled the hearing for August 26, 1998 over [Parents'] objection that their son could not be available that date because he would not be available again until Thanksgiving 1998.
Accordingly, based upon its findings, the School District concluded that 1) Student's statement constituted a threat to a teacher and was perceived by Mrs. Fulmer and others as a threat, 2) the statements regarding Mr. Kartsotis and Mrs. Fulmer constituted harassment of a teacher and principal, 3) the statements constituted disrespect to a teacher and principal resulting in actual harm to the health, safety and welfare of the school community, 4) the School District Code of Conduct prohibited such student conduct and 5), the statements caused actual physical harm to Mrs. Fulmer, as well other students and teachers. Consequently, the School District voted to permanently expel Student from its schools.
Appellants appealed the School District's determination to the trial court, which affirmed. On appeal to this Court, Appellants maintain that Student's constitutional rights were violated, the School District committed errors of law and, the School District's findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence.5 For the reasons that follow, we dismiss Appellants' arguments.
The law is clear in Pennsylvania that local school boards have broad discretion in determining school disciplinary policies. Hamilton v. Unionville-Chadds Ford Sch. Dist., 552 Pa. 245, 714 A.2d 1012 (1998). Therefore, when one attacks a school board action on matters committed by law to its discretion, he has a heavy burden, as the courts are not prone to interfere unless it is apparent that the school board's actions are arbitrary, capricious, and prejudicial to the public interest. Commonwealth v. Hall, 309 Pa.Super. 407, 455 A.2d 674 (1983). In the absence of gross abuse of discretion, the courts will not second-guess policies of the school board. Id. The School District is empowered under Section 510 of the Public School Code of 1949 (School Code)6 to adopt and enforce such reasonable rules and regulations as it may deem necessary and proper regarding the management of its schools and the conduct and deportment of all pupils attending the public schools within its district. In addition, Section 1318 of the School Code7 provides that the school board may, after a proper hearing, permanently expel a student.
Section 12.6...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cohn v. New Paltz Central School Dist.
...with physical violence and finding that such a threat was not protected speech under the First Amendment); J.S., a Minor v. Bethlehem Area Sch. Dist., 757 A.2d 412, 422 (Pa.Cmwlth.2000) (upholding the suspension of student who solicited funds to have a teacher killed on his web page). Defen......
-
IML v. State
...to school violence. The web site, however, contained no references to violence or threats of any kind. Cf. J.S. v. Bethlehem Area Sch. Dist., 757 A.2d 412, 416 (Pa.2000) (expulsion of child upheld where child created web site that proposed murdering 2. According to I.M.L., none of the other......
-
Mardis v. HANNIBAL PUBLIC SCHOOL DIST.
...(school could punish student for underground newspaper distributed off-campus but near school grounds); see also J.S. v. Bethlehem Area Sch. Dist., 757 A.2d 412, 418-22 (Pa. Cmwlth.2000) (upheld permanent expulsion of student for using her home computer to put a picture of her teacher's sev......
-
Doninger v. Niehoff
...446, 454 (W.D.Pa. 2001), and Beussink v. Woodland R-IV Sch. Dist., 30 F.Supp.2d 1175 (E.D.Mo. 1998), with J.S. v. Bethlehem Area Sch. Dist., 757 A.2d 412, 415 (Pa. Commw.Ct.2000), and Boucher v. School Bd., 134 F.3d 821, 827 (7th Perhaps more importantly, we are not living in the same world......
-
The warrantless interception of e-mail: Fourth Amendment search or free rein for the police?
...1177, 1184 (D. Ohio 1997); see also Commonwealth v. Proetto, 771 A.2d 823, 831 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2001); J.S. v. Bethlehem Area Sch. Dist., 757 A.2d 412, 425 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2000) (distinguishing a website which is not password-protected from e-mail, which (315.) See supra notes 93-113 and acc......
-
Enforcement of Law Schools' Non-academic Honor Codes: a Necessary Step Towards Professionalism?
...an article in the underground newspaper outlining techniques for hacking into school computers); J.S. v. Bethlehem Area Sch. Dist., 757 A.2d 412, 422 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2000) (upholding expulsion of a student for placing a picture of a severed head of a teacher on a website and soliciting fund......
-
Tinkering With School Discipline in the Name of the First Amendment: Expelling a Teacher's Ability to Proactively Quell Disruptions Caused by Cyberbullies at the Schoolhouse
...Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 514 (1969). 201. Id. at 513 (citation omitted). 202. See J.S. ex rel. H.S. v. Bethlehem Area Sch. Dist., 757 A.2d 412, 419 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2000), aff'd, 807 A.2d 847 (Pa. 2002) (holding that First Amendment was not violated, even after noting that "the matter......
-
Enough Tinkering with Students' Rights: The Need for an Enhanced First Amendment Standard to Protect Off-Campus Student Internet Speech
...harm to teachers, students, and administration, and potential and actual disruptions during school. See J.S. v. Bethlehem Area Sch. Dist., 757 A.2d 412, 416–17 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2000) (discussing the emotional and psychological harm to teacher and principal of J.S.); Sandy Coleman, Battling t......