323 F. Supp. 3d 1052
E.D. Wis.2018Background
- Plaintiff, a sophomore and member of Arrowhead High School girls' soccer team, hosted a party where other students consumed alcohol; she alleges she neither provided nor drank alcohol and did not know it would be present.
- Arrowhead concluded Plaintiff hosted the party and suspended her from 30% of the season (four games) under the Parent/Athlete & Co-Curricular Code of Conduct for hosting/possessing alcohol and related misconduct.
- Plaintiff appealed through the school's Appeal Committee and Personnel Committee; both upheld the suspension. School administrators relied on student interviews and photographs showing beer cans in the background.
- Plaintiff sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in state court asserting procedural due process, substantive due process, and equal protection violations; the case was removed to federal court.
- Defendants moved to dismiss; the district court dismissed the federal constitutional claims with prejudice and remanded the remaining Wisconsin writ-of-certiorari claim to state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural due process: whether Plaintiff had a constitutionally protected property/liberty interest in continued participation in school athletics | Arrowhead created a protectible property interest in athletics (citing Butler and state authorities) | Participation in interscholastic athletics is a privilege, not a protected property interest; school code and WIAA rules create procedural, not substantive, entitlements | No protected property interest; procedural due process claim dismissed |
| Substantive due process: whether suspension was arbitrary/shocks the conscience | Suspension was arbitrary and based on shifting justifications; hosting alone may not violate the code | Suspension was rationally related to legitimate interest in preventing underage drinking; school action not conscience-shocking; courts should defer to school disciplinary decisions | Action did not shock the conscience; substantive due process claim dismissed |
| Equal protection (class-of-one): whether Plaintiff was treated differently from similarly situated students without rational basis | Plaintiff was singled out: others who attended and did not drink were not suspended or received lesser punishment | Host is more culpable than attendees; comparators not similarly situated; punishment rationally related to legitimate goals | Comparators not similarly situated; equal protection claim dismissed |
| State-law certiorari: whether federal court should retain or remand the state-law certiorari claim | Sought review of school decision under Wisconsin common law | Federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the state-law claim after dismissing federal claims | District court declined supplemental jurisdiction and remanded certiorari claim to state court |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must plausibly suggest entitlement to relief)
- Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975) (due process requires protection of certain liberty/property interests created by state law)
- Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (legitimate claim of entitlement requires more than abstract expectation)
- Miller v. Crystal Lake Park Dist., 47 F.3d 865 (7th Cir. 1995) (property-interest analysis requires explicitly mandatory language linking predicates to outcomes)
- Schaill v. Tippecanoe County School Corp., 864 F.2d 1309 (7th Cir. 1988) (doubt expressed that athletics create a protected liberty interest)
- Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308 (1975) (federal courts should not relitigate evidentiary questions from school disciplinary proceedings)
- Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000) (standards for class-of-one equal protection claims)
- Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (1993) (rational-basis review allows upholding action if any legitimate justification can be conceived)