Taylor v. Enumclaw School Dist. No. 216

• Decision Date: 01 May 2006
• Docket Number: No. 55704-1-I.,55704-1-I.
• Citation: 133 P.3d 492,132 Wn. App. 688
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals
• Parties: Jeffrey TAYLOR, as parent and guardian of Zachary Taylor, a minor, Appellant, v. ENUMCLAW SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 216, Respondent, and Timothy Tubbs and Jane Doe Tubbs, husband and wife; Terry W. Parker and Jane Doe Parker, husband and wife; Ronald L. Swanson and Jane Doe Swanson, husband and wife; Randy C. Gallatin and Jane Doe Gallatin, husband and wife; Arthur O. Jarvis and Jane Doe Jarvis, husband and wife; and Michael Goodfellow and Jane Doe Goodfellow, husband and wife; Dale Holland and Jane Doe Holland, husband and wife; Nancy Merrill and John Doe Merrill, wife and husband; Lorianne Taff and John Doe Taff, wife and husband; and Andrew Willner and Jane Doe Willner, husband and wife, Defendants.

133 P.3d 492

132 Wn. App. 688

Jeffrey TAYLOR, as parent and guardian of Zachary Taylor, a minor, Appellant, v. ENUMCLAW SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 216, Respondent, and Timothy Tubbs and Jane Doe Tubbs, husband and wife; Terry W. Parker and Jane Doe Parker, husband and wife; Ronald L. Swanson and Jane Doe Swanson, husband and wife; Randy C. Gallatin and Jane Doe Gallatin, husband and wife; Arthur O. Jarvis and Jane Doe Jarvis, husband and wife; and Michael Goodfellow and Jane Doe Goodfellow, husband and wife; Dale Holland and Jane Doe Holland, husband and wife; Nancy Merrill and John Doe Merrill, wife and husband; Lorianne Taff and John Doe Taff, wife and husband; and Andrew Willner and Jane Doe Willner, husband and wife, Defendants.

No. 55704-1-I.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1.

May 1, 2006.

Tyler K. Firkins, Vansiclen Stocks & Firkins, Auburn, WA, for Appellant/Minor.

Dan L. Johnson, Jerret E. Sale, Bullivant Houser Bailey PC, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.

AGID, J.

¶ 1 Jeffrey Taylor, on behalf of his son Zachary Taylor, appeals the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the Enumclaw School District (District) on his 42 U.S.C. section 1983 claim. Mr. Taylor argues that Zachary has a property and liberty interest in participating in interscholastic sports. When the District imposed academic and athletic suspensions, he contends they violated Zachary's Fourteenth Amendment rights by depriving him of his right to confront his accusers, examine and cross-examine witnesses, and review the evidence against him. In order to prevail on a section 1983 claim, Zachary must prove that the District deprived him of a constitutional right. Because students do not have a property or liberty interest in participation in interscholastic sports, Zachary cannot establish a violation of his civil rights. We affirm the trial court.

FACTS

¶ 2 On October 23, 2002, Enumclaw High School Principal Terry Parker received telephone calls from parents telling him that several underage students, including school athletes, were drinking at a post-homecoming dance. Principal Parker, Athletic Director Tim Tubb, and Safe and Civil Schools Director Randy Gallatin interviewed numerous students about the party. During this investigation, they learned that Zachary Taylor was one of the students drinking at the party.

¶ 3 After the November 1, 2002 football game between Enumclaw and Sumner High School, Head Football Coach Mike Ernaga told Athletic Director Tubbs he had received reports that there were Enumclaw football players under the influence of alcohol during the game. Over the next two days, Principal Parker, Assistant Principal Ann Baker, and Athletic Director Tubbs interviewed several football players, including Zachary Taylor and two other players suspected of consuming alcohol.

¶ 4 On Thursday of the same week, Sumner Head Football Coach Keith Ross attended the Enumclaw football game against Kentridge. During the game, Coach Ross told Tubbs that one of Sumner's players said Zachary was under the influence of alcohol during the preceding week's game. Principal Parker got a written statement from a Sumner football player about his observations of Zachary's behavior, including a statement that he smelled alcohol on Zachary during and after the game. Principal Parker re-interviewed a number of football players about the football game and possible athletic code violations.

¶ 5 On November 4, 2002, security staff member Cindy Turner notified Principal Parker that she saw an alcohol container in the car parked in Zachary's parking space. Principal Parker then went to the car, where he saw a Coors Light beer box in the back seat. He contacted Safety Director Gallatin and asked him to conduct a search of Zachary's car with both Zachary and a police officer present. Zachary confirmed it was his car, consented to the search, and opened the car door. They found an empty Coors Light beer box, an empty package of Swisher Sweet cigars, and a closed clear plastic drink bottle containing tobacco residue and spit. Zachary told Gallatin that he "heard someone had put a beer box in his car that morning."

¶ 6 On November 5, Zachary received a 10-day academic suspension for violating Enumclaw High School policy by drinking alcohol as a member of the football team at the November 1 game. The District told him 5 days of his suspension could be deferred and withdrawn if he completed an alcohol assessment program. Zachary appealed his suspension.

¶ 7 On November 6, the Athletic Board met with Zachary. It found his use of alcohol was conduct unbecoming an athlete that violated the Athletic Code. It scheduled a hearing to determine appropriate athletic-related sanctions and sent a letter to Zachary's father summarizing its findings and sanctions.¹ Zachary appealed.

¶ 8 On November 18, Zachary and Mr. Taylor met with Principal Parker for an informal grievance conference to discuss Zachary's appeal of his academic suspension and athletic sanctions. At this meeting, Principal Parker provided them with copies of the following documents:

(1) Letter from Athletic Director Tubbs specifying the athletic sanctions imposed by the Athletic Board.

(2) A summary of general evidence/information prepared by Principal Parker.

(3) Statement of Safety Director Gallatin about the search of Zachary's car on November 4.

(4) Short-term suspension letter.

(5) Zachary's appeal note.

(6) List of names, provided by Zachary, of people who would testify that he did not drink on the date in question.

(7) Zachary's signed Athletic Eligibility card.

Principal Parker upheld the academic suspension and the athletic sanctions but stayed the academic suspension until the appeals were exhausted. He also told them the athletic sanction could not be addressed until the Athletic Board had concluded the necessary hearings on the matter.

¶ 9 At Mr. Taylor's request, the Athletic Board held a hearing to address the November 4 search of Zachary's car and a final disciplinary hearing. At the final disciplinary hearing, the Athletic Board found that Zachary violated the Athletic Code by (1) consuming/possessing alcohol on October 19, 2002, (2) consuming alcohol on November 1, 2002, and (3) using/possessing tobacco on November 4, 2002. On November 22, the Athletic Board sent a letter to Mr. Taylor summarizing its findings and conclusions.

¶ 10 On November 26, Enumclaw School District Hearing Officer Ron Swanson upheld the academic suspension and athletic sanctions. He also recommended that Zachary return to active sports participation by mid-December 2002 and expedited his appeal hearing on the academic suspension so Zachary could become eligible for sports more quickly.

¶ 11 On December 16, the Enumclaw School District Board of Directors held a hearing to review the actions of the school board. It found that Zachary received appropriate sanctions given the multiple violations, and that the process used to impose athletic discipline followed the regulations and procedures used for short-term academic suspensions.

¶ 12 On June 13, 2003, Jeffrey Taylor, on behalf of his minor son Zachary, filed a complaint against the District alleging (1) denial of due process under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, the Fourteenth Amendment, and article I, section 3 of the Washington Constitution, (2) negligence, (3) unlawful search and seizure, (4) negligent supervision, and (5) defamation, libel and slander. On April 16, 2004, the trial court granted the District's motion for summary judgment.

DISCUSSION

¶ 13 We review summary judgment orders de novo, engaging in the same inquiry as the trial court.² Summary judgment is proper if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.³ The trial court should grant summary judgment only if, after reviewing all the evidence, a reasonable person could reach but one conclusion.⁴ We consider all facts and reasonable inferences from them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.⁵ Mere assertions that there is a genuine material issue will not defeat a summary judgment motion.⁶

I. Standing

¶ 14 The District contends Mr. Taylor lacks standing because Zachary turned 18 while the lawsuit was pending. It also asserts Mr. Taylor cannot maintain this action as a third party or as an action on his own behalf because he has no separate interest in the claims. Mr. Taylor argues he has standing to bring this suit on Zachary's behalf because the suit was originally brought when Zachary was a minor. He also argues the District cites no authority to support either of its arguments.

¶ 15 Because minors are unable to pursue an action on their own until adulthood, RCW 4.08.050 permits guardians to bring suits on behalf of their minor children. Mr. Taylor was authorized to sue as Zachary's guardian because Zachary was a minor at the time. While it would have been preferable to substitute Zachary under RAP 3.2, we decline to dismiss on this basis.

II. 42 U.S.C. Section 1983

¶ 16 Zachary asserts the District violated his Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights because it deprived him of his right to confront his accusers, examine and cross-examine witnesses, and review the evidence against him in the athletic discipline hearings. He argues participation in interscholastic sports gives him a protected interest because athletics and other extracurricular activities are an integral part of the total educational process. Because students have a property interest in education that is protected by due process, he contends athletics are an integral part of a whole education and he had a reasonable expectation that he would not be arbitrarily or unfairly denied the opportunity to participate. The opportunity to participate in interscholastic athletics is particularly important to him because as an otherwise average student, he depended on excelling in high school sports to attend college on a...