Walters v. Dobbins

• Decision Date: 24 June 2010
• Docket Number: No. 09–1004.,09–1004.
• Citation: 370 S.W.3d 209,2010 Ark. 260,282 Ed. Law Rep. 1245
• Parties: Kevin R. WALTERS, Jacqueline W. Walters, and Payne A. Walters, Appellants, v. James DOBBINS, John Ward, and the Horatio School District, Appellees.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

2010 Ark. 260
370 S.W.3d 209
282 Ed. Law Rep. 1245

Kevin R. WALTERS, Jacqueline W. Walters, and Payne A. Walters, Appellants,
v.
James DOBBINS, John Ward, and the Horatio School District, Appellees.

No. 09–1004.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

May 27, 2010.
Rehearing Denied June 24, 2010.

[370 S.W.3d 210]

Pryor, Robertson, Beasley & Smith, PLLC, by: Amanda M. Thomas, Fort Smith, for appellants.

Sharon Carden Streett, Little Rock, for appellees.

PAUL E. DANIELSON, Justice.

Appellants, [2010 Ark. 1]Kevin R. Walters, Jacqueline W. Walters, and Payne A. Walters, appeal from the order of the circuit court granting the motion for summary judgment of appellees, James Dobbins, John Ward, and the Horatio School District (collectively, “the District”), and dismissing the Walterses' complaint with prejudice. The Walterses had sued the District after Payne Walters was suspended from school for his actions taken while speaking at a school event. The Walterses assert three points on appeal: (1) that Payne's speech was not plainly offensive, did not advocate illegal activities, nor was it disruptive to the educational process; (2) that schools may not retroactively censor or punish speech based on an administrator's personal views of propriety; and (3) that Payne's due-process rights were violated, as the punishment, expulsion, and prohibition from participating in graduation ceremonies were far more severe than necessary and violated the school's own policies. We affirm the circuit [2010 Ark. 2]court's order.

The facts are these. In May 2008, Payne Walters was a senior at Horatio High School and was eligible for graduation. Payne was also a speaker at Class Day, a school event, during which he played an audio clip from his cell phone. That clip was of a female student saying “Oh my gosh, I'm horny!” After the playing of the audio clip, Payne's cell phone was taken away and given to appellee John Ward, the superintendent of the Horatio School District, and the decision was made to suspend Payne for three days, a consequence of which was that Payne was precluded from participating in his graduation ceremony. Despite pleas by Payne and his mother for some other punishment

[370 S.W.3d 211]

during a meeting on the morning of graduation day with Ward and James Dobbins, the principal of Horatio High School, the suspension decision was upheld, and Payne was not permitted to participate in the graduation ceremony.

On September 26, 2008, Payne and his parents filed a complaint against Dobbins, Ward, and the school district under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act, which is codified at Ark.Code Ann. § 16–123–101 to 16–123–108 (Repl.2006). They contended that Payne's suspension was in violation of the school's own policies, that he was denied “due process” in having the punishment inflicted, and that the punishment was in retaliation for him “exercising his First Amendment rights” and in retaliation for his father “exercising his speech and property rights under the Arkansas Constitution.” They asserted that the school board “refused to meet” and allowed and acquiesced in Payne being denied the right to participate in graduation. Maintaining that the term “horny” was not obscene, they averred that, at [2010 Ark. 3]most, Payne should have been punished by in-school punishment, such that he could have participated in graduation. The District answered the complaint, asserting that Payne was suspended for three days, thereby excluding him from participating in the ceremony, because “he played the cell phone clip containing vulgar or obscene language in his class day speech showing disrespect.”

On December 8, 2008, the Walterses filed a motion for summary judgment, in which they asserted that the District was liable under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act for two reasons: (1) the suspension was improper because it violated Payne's due-process rights in that the school failed to follow its own procedures; and (2) the suspension was improper retaliation for Payne exercising his free-speech rights. They maintained that the use of the term “horny” was “not properly a punishable offense” under the school's policy, and they further argued, again, that, even were the term considered profane or disruptive, the proper punishment should have been an in-school punishment that still would have allowed Payne to participate in the graduation ceremony. Additionally, they argued that Payne's suspension violated his free-speech rights in that it was done in retaliation because the female student's stepfather, who was a school-board member, had been in the audience when the clip was played.

The District responded and filed its own cross-motion for summary judgment. In it, the District maintained that Payne received due process, in that Payne was notified the same day of the incident, both orally and by letter, that he was suspended. It further asserted that Payne and his mother were given the opportunity to meet with both Dobbins and Ward the [2010 Ark. 4]morning before graduation. During that time, the District claimed, Payne did not deny the conduct. It asserted that its actions were not a violation of Payne's free-speech rights, where the speech was “lewd, offensive, and embarrassing to many in the audience, disrespectful to the audience, disrespectful of female students, and in particular of the female student whose voice was played in the clip,” and it maintained that this was a school-sponsored activity and that the school had a legitimate interest in setting boundaries on the vulgarity of student presentations.

A hearing was held on the cross-motions for summary judgment, during which the circuit court heard arguments from both sides. On March 23, 2009, the circuit court filed a letter opinion in the matter, finding that the Walterses' motion for summary judgment should be denied and the District's summary-judgment motion granted. On May 29, 2009, the circuit

[370 S.W.3d 212]

court entered its order, which found, in pertinent part:

Certain facts are undisputed. The student was immediately advised of his improper conduct and the action taken by the school as a result of his behavior; the parents received written notification of the school's action and why it was imposed; the parents and student were able to meet with school officials the next day prior to the graduation ceremony.

The fundamental prerequisite of due process in this situation is the opportunity to be heard and the right to be informed of the matter pending so a person can choose...