C.R. Ex Rel. Rainville v. Eugene School District 4J
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16202
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- C.R., a 12-year-old seventh grader at Monroe Middle School, was suspended for two days after participating in sexually suggestive harassment of two younger (sixth-grade) students in a public park a few hundred feet from school, just after dismissal.
- The harassment included sexual jokes referencing a local restaurant and made the female victim (A.I.) feel scared; an instructional aide witnessed the incident and reported it to school administrators.
- School administrators investigated, interviewed victims and participants; C.R. initially denied involvement, later admitted making an inappropriate comment, and was found to have violated the district’s sexual-harassment policy.
- The district relied on a “door-to-door” policy and in loco parentis authority to discipline students for off-campus conduct occurring immediately after dismissal on the path from school.
- C.R.’s parents sued under the First Amendment and for procedural and substantive due process violations; the district court granted summary judgment for the School District and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether school had authority to regulate/discipline off-campus speech | C.R.: speech occurred off campus in public park, so school lacked authority | School: speech was closely tied to school (same students, minutes after dismissal on path abutting campus) so school could regulate | Court: School had authority under both "nexus" and "reasonable foreseeability" tests given close temporal/physical connection |
| Whether discipline violated First Amendment (Tinker, Fraser framework) | C.R.: punishment for off-campus speech infringed free speech rights | School: speech was sexually harassing and interfered with victims’ right to be secure; Tinker permits disciplining such speech | Court: Suspension permissible under Tinker (speech interfered with other students’ rights); school characterization of sexual harassment reasonable and entitled to deference |
| Procedural due process for short suspension | C.R.: inadequate notice of specific charges, insufficient opportunity to gather rebuttal evidence, failure to follow district procedures | School: only informal process required for ≤10-day suspension; C.R. received notice and chance to tell his side | Court: Informal procedures required by Goss satisfied; procedural due process claim fails |
| Substantive due process / stigma from disciplinary record labeling | C.R.: labeling suspension as "harassment - sexual" stigmatized him and violated substantive due process | School: recording reasons for discipline is permissible absent fundamental-rights deprivation | Court: No fundamental right implicated; no viable substantive due process claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (students do not shed rights at school gate; schools may restrict speech that materially disrupts or infringes rights of others)
- Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986) (schools may discipline lewd/sexually offensive student speech)
- Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975) (informal procedures required for short suspensions: notice and opportunity to explain)
- Davis ex rel. LaShonda D. v. Monroe Cty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (1999) (addressing school responsibility for student sexual harassment harms)
- Wynar v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist., 728 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2013) (schools may discipline for off-campus speech when it threatens school safety or is closely tied to school; apply Tinker to determine constitutionality)
- Kowalski v. Berkeley Cty. Schs., 652 F.3d 565 (4th Cir. 2011) (nexus test for off-campus speech regulation)
- S.J.W. v. Lee’s Summit R–7 Sch. Dist., 696 F.3d 771 (8th Cir. 2012) (reasonable-foreseeability test for off-campus speech reaching school)
- Bell v. Itawamba Cty. Sch. Bd., 799 F.3d 379 (5th Cir. 2015) (schools may discipline off-campus speech intentionally directed at school community that threatens/harasses)
- LaVine v. Blaine Sch. Dist., 257 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2001) (upholding discipline for off-campus-originated but school-linked threatening poem)
- Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308 (schools’ reasonable interpretation of their rules is owed deference)