T.W. v. S. Columbia Area Sch. Dist., 4:20-CV-01688
| Decision Date | 25 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 4:20-CV-01688,4:20-CV-01688 |
| Parties | T.W., a minor, by and through his father, THOMAS WALTMAN, and his mother, KAREN WOJTOWICZ, THOMAS WALTMAN, individually, and KAREN WOJTOWICZ, individually, Plaintiffs, v. SOUTHERN COLUMBIA AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
(Judge Brann)
Pending before this Court is a motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order filed by Plaintiff, T.W. on September 17, 2020. Plaintiff commenced this action on September 16, 2020 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after he was suspended from participating in all school athletic programs for the 2020-21 school year for violating the Southern Columbia School District's Code of Conduct. T.W. seeks injunctive relief to prevent Defendant, the Southern Columbia School District, from enforcing the applicable section of its Code of Conduct against him, thereby lifting his suspension and allowing him to play sports this year. T.W. asserts that the policy is invalid on its face and raises equal protection, substantive due process, procedural due process, and state law challenges against the District.
Following an expedited briefing schedule, this matter is now ripe for the Court's consideration. For the following reasons, Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order will be denied.
This case arises from the Southern Columbia School District's Code of Conduct. The District has formalized its Code of Conduct in its High School Student Handbook.1 Acknowledging that participation in extracurriculars is a "privilege and not a right," Section VII of the Handbook explains that those who participate in extracurriculars will be held to a higher standard than those who do not.2 The purpose of holding these students to a higher standard is to "instill in students a respect for good citizenship in the form of positive peer pressure."3 Accordingly, Section VII states that the Code of Conduct will be enforced against such students "regardless of whether the offense occurs on or off schoolproperty."4 Supplementing the rules listed in the general Code of Conduct, Section VII sets forth additional rules applicable only to those involved in extracurriculars.5
One such rule (and the rule at issue in this case) prohibits students from "attending any event in which underage drinking, smoking, or drug use is occurring."6 Actual consumption of alcohol or drugs is not required to establish a violation.7 On its face, this rule applies to all students subject to Section VII, and thus to all students who participate in extracurriculars.8 On the next page, the Handbook includes a section titled "Tobacco/Nicotine Products/Alcohol/Controlled Substances/Paraphernalia."9 This section prohibits students from selling, giving, delivering, using, possessing, or being under the influence of alcohol or drugs.10
Immediately below this section, the Handbook specifies punishments for violations of this rule.11 These punishments are as follows. A first violation results in the student's suspension from 25% of the games of the current or upcomingseason in which the student has intended to participate.12 A second violation results in a suspension from 50% of such games.13 And a third violation results in a suspension from all interscholastic athletics for one full calendar year.14
The Handbook then repeats the rule that no student shall attend any off-campus parties or gatherings where alcohol or drug use occurs.15 The Handbook does not include any other specific punishments within Section VII. However, the Handbook does provide that coaches or advisors have the authority to impose "reasonable sanctions, which may include extra workouts, suspension from practice or competition, or removal from the activity for students who breach team/group conduct expectations but do not engage in prohibited conduct."16 The Handbook further states that "[a] student's failure to maintain good conduct, regardless of whether the behavior is school-related, will be grounds for disciplinary action ranging from counseling to immediate suspension or removal from the team or group depending on the severity of the misconduct."17
Section VII also lays out the procedures for establishing a violation and imposing sanctions.18 When the school learns that a violation has occurred, the "Principal or the Principal's designee shall give the student oral notice of theallegations and an opportunity to explain or defend the conduct."19 The Principal or designee will then determine if the violation has occurred and will impose sanctions as appropriate.20 The Handbook maintains that all students will be provided due process, which it defines as notice of the alleged violation and an opportunity for the student to tell his or her story.21
T.W., a seventeen-year-old student athlete and senior at the Southern Columbia Area High School, has been suspended three times for violating the District's Code of Conduct.22 First, in November 2019, T.W. was suspended for twenty-five percent of the 2019 football season for an incident involving alcohol.23 Second, in February 2020, T.W. was suspended for attending an off-campus party where underage drinking or drug use was taking place.24 While he did not consume alcohol or drugs at the party, he was banned from participating in the remainder of the 2020 wrestling season, as well as the first four games of the 2020 football season.25 Third, on September 5, 2020, T.W. was again suspended for attending an off-campus party where underage drinking or drug use was takingplace.26 He did not consume alcohol or drugs at the party.27 However, pursuant to the Handbook's policy, T.W. was then suspended from all athletics for the entire participating in all athletics for the entire 2020-21 school year.28
This suit followed. T.W. presently seeks injunctive relief enjoining his suspension and allowing him to participate in athletics for the 2020-21 school year pending a preliminary injunction hearing on October 15, 2020.
Injunctive relief is an "extraordinary remedy, which should be granted only in limited circumstances."29 A party seeking a temporary restraining order must establish four factors: "(1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the probability of irreparable harm if the relief is not granted, (3) that granting injunctive relief will not result in even greater harm to the other party, and (4) that granting relief will be in the public interest."30 Courts will use a balancing test to determine whether injunctive relief is warranted.31 However, the movant will bear the ultimate burden of establishing all four elements.32
The first factor to consider is whether the movant can demonstrate that their claims have a likelihood of success on the merits. To satisfy this showing, a movant need only establish a prima facie case demonstrating a "reasonable probability" of success;33 they are not required to prove that success is "more likely than not."34 Nevertheless, as with the other three factors, the movant bears the burden of making this showing.35
T.W. fails to establish that his equal protection claim has a likelihood of success on the merits. Equal protection claims, when not involving a suspect class or fundamental right, will be governed by the "rational basis test."36 Under this test, government action will be upheld so long as it "rationally furthers some legitimate, articulated state purpose."37 The rational basis test is a heavy burden to overcome, as "it has long been settled that the Equal Protection Clause is offended only by laws that are invidiously discriminatory—only by classifications that are wholly arbitrary or capricious."38 Because the District's policy does not implicatea suspect class or fundamental right,39 T.W.'s claim will be governed by the rational basis test.
T.W. challenges the Handbook's prohibition against attending off-campus parties as facially unconstitutional because the listed punishments in Section VII only apply to athletes. He cites the list of punishments provided for in the Handbook that refer only to suspensions from "games" and "seasons." While acknowledging that the policy on its face applies to all students, T.W. argues that, per the Handbook's list of punishments, the District would only be able to meaningfully enforce the rule against athletes.
This argument is unavailing. As T.W. concedes, the Handbook's policy applies not just to athletes but to all students who participate in extracurriculars. More importantly, however, the Handbook explicitly states that any student who participates in extracurriculars and violates this policy "will face disciplinary action." The Handbook is not required to list in detail every punishment that every student may conceivably face if they violate the policy. And it is clear from the language of Section VII that any student who participates in extracurriculars is subject to punishment for violating any policy contained within the Handbook. That Section VII explicitly states that a "student's failure to maintain good conduct" may result in "immediate suspension or removal from the team or group"sufficiently shows that the listed punishments are not the exclusive means of enforcing this rule.40
Even taking T.W.'s argument at face value that the Handbook distinguishes between athletes and non-athletes by providing for specific punishments only available against athletes, T.W. cannot demonstrate that such a distinction is irrational. The stated purpose of the Handbook is to give students and parents "an understanding of the general rules and guidelines" while attending school.41 And the District's stated reason for adopting these specific sanctions is to "combat student drug and alcohol use while...
To continue reading
Request your trial