MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Chester Union Free School District’s (“School District” or “Defendant”) motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff Mary Marino (“Marino”) and Plaintiff Theresa Decker’s (“Decker”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Article 1 §§ 6, 12 of the New York Constitution, which they have brought individually and on behalf of their minor children. For the reasons that follow, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.
I. Background
All facts are taken from the parties’ Rule 56.1 statements, unless otherwise noted. At the time of the events at issue in this litigation, Marino’s son, A.M., was thirteen-years-old and Decker’s daughter, E.J., was fourteen-years-old. (Def.’s Rule 56.1 Statement 12). Both were students at Chester Middle School, which is located within the School District. A.M. had received thirteen disciplinary infractions during the 2007-2008 school year and E.J. had received twelve infractions. Most of these infractions involved disruptive behavior and tardiness, and neither student had been cited for possession of illegal substances. (Id. ¶¶ 26-27).
On April 7, 2008, Ernest Jackson (“Jackson”), who was then middle school principal, learned from a hall monitor that A.M. and E.J. may have been smoking cigarettes in the hallway of the school, in contravention of school rules. (Jackson Depo. at 78). A.M. and E.J. were summoned to the Nurse’s office separately, where Jackson and the school nurse, Carol Schug (“Schug”), conducted an investigation. (Def.’s Rule 56.1 Statement ¶¶ 16-13).
A.M. arrived at Schug’s office first and was escorted into the examination room. According to Jackson, he instructed A.M. only “to empty his pockets” and take off his shoes. After that, Jackson states, A.M. voluntarily lifted his shirt. Marino states, however, that her son was directed to empty his pockets, remove his pants, shirt, undershirt, socks, shoes, and to shake out his underwear. (Id. ¶ 20).
Next, E.J. reported to the Nurse’s office for the investigation. (Id. at 92). Jackson instructed Schug to model her search of E.J. after Jackson’s search of A.M. (Schug Depo. at 25). According to Schug, Jackson chose not to be present for the search of E.J. because he believed it was more appropriate for a woman to conduct the search. (Id.). Schug states that she asked E.J. to empty her pockets and remove her shoes. Decker, however, states that her daughter was directed to remove her shoes, lift each pant leg, lift her shirt, and shake out her bra while Schug looked up E.J.’s shirt.
II. Discussion
A. Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment is warranted when “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322,
The parties’ allegations demonstrate that there are strong disputes over the material facts, most importantly, whether the students were strip searched. As such, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment rests largely on legal, as opposed to factual, grounds. First, Defendant argues that Decker and Marino cannot assert claims as individuals. Second, Defendant argues that the § 1983 claims Plaintiffs have asserted on behalf of their children are improper because the School District cannot be held liable for the acts of the principal and school nurse. Third, Defendant states that the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state claim, or, in the alternative, grant summary judgment because the Plaintiffs did not satisfy the state’s notice requirement.
B. § 1983 Claims
i. Plaintiffs in Their Individual Capacity
It is well-settled that standing for the purpose of a § 1983 claim is not conferred solely on the basis of harm to plaintiffs family member. See T.C. v. Valley Cent. Sch. Dist., 777 F.Supp.2d 577, 589 (S.D.N.Y.2011). Instead, where minor children are the real parties in interest, parents appropriately bring litigation on their children’s behalf. See Collins v. West Hartford Police Dep’t,
ii. School District’s Liability
A municipality and its agencies may not be held liable for the actions of its employees under a broad respondeat superior theory; rather, they can be held liable only “when execution of a government’s policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts the injury.” Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Social Servs.,
To determine whether a municipal actor, such as a school principal, can trigger a municipality’s liability, the Supreme Court has set forth a number of guiding principles. First, only those actions by municipal officials who are vested with “final policymaking authority” may subject the municipality to § 1983 liability. Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati,
Defendants have argued that, under state law, only the School District has policymaking authority, and because it did not have a policy on strip searching, it cannot be held liable under § 1983. (Def. Mem. at 7). Indeed, New York Education Law § 1709(2) provides that the board of education for a school district has the power “[t]o establish such rules and regulations concerning the order and discipline of the schools, in the several departments thereof, as they may deem necessary to secure the best educational results.”
However, while broad rulemaking authority is vested in the school board by law, policymaking authority may not be so strictly limited. As a practical matter, principals are the highest ranking officials in the school and thus have policymaking authority in the day-to-day operations of the school. “A school principal has final policymaking authority in the management of the school and her conduct represents official district policy within the purview of the school.” T.Z. v. City of New York,
In response to a question about the established procedure for student searches
Next, the Court will consider whether the searches of A.M. and E.J. were school policy created by Jackson in his capacity as policymaker. The Court will not address the merits of the parties’ divergent versions of events, but rather will determine whether the searches, in whatever manner they were executed, could represent school policy. At his deposition, Jackson stated that the school board did not have a policy regarding searches of a student’s person, admitting that, when checking students for contraband, he modeled the searches after state law and what he perceived as airport security protocol. (Jackson Depo. at 51). Helen Ann Livingston, the former superintendent of the Chester School District, could not recall the Board’s policy regarding student searches. (Livingston Depo. at 55). Schug stated that she observed Jackson conduct the search of A.M., and that Jackson instructed her to search E.J. in the same manner. (Schug Depo. at 38). These statements permit the inferences that the school board did not adopt a policy on student searches, deciding to leave such policy determinations in Jackson’s discretion, and that Jackson fashioned his own policy, which he instructed his subordinates to follow. Accordingly, it is plausible that the searches of A.M. and E.J., whether or not they were strip searches, as Plaintiff has alleged, represented school policy.
C. New York Constitution Claim
Defendant has also moved for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ state law claims. Because Defendant’s first ground for summary judgment rested on the assumption that the § 1983 claim would be dismissed, the Court will consider only Defendant’s second ground for summary judgment, inadequate notice. According to Defendant, Plaintiffs are barred from asserting the state law claims because they specified only federal civil rights claims in the notice of claim served upon the School District.
Section 3813(1) of New York State Education Law provides that no action may be maintained against a school district unless notice of claim was served within three months of the date on which the claim accrued. Parochial Bus Sys., Inc. v. Bd. of Educ.,
“The test of the sufficiency of a notice of claim is whether it includes enough information to enable the municipality to investigate the claim adequately.” Lieber v. Village of Spring Valley,
The notices of claim that Plaintiffs served on the School District indicates that the “nature of the claim” encompassed “deprivation of Claimant’s civil liberties including but not limited to violating Fourth Amendment rights after the Claimant was unreasonably searched [and] unreasonably strip searched.” The subsequently filed Complaints asserts three causes of action: violation of Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure, violation of Plaintiffs’ due process rights under the Fifth Amendment, and violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under the New York State Constitution to due process and against unreasonable search and seizure.
Because Plaintiffs’ claims under the state constitution are analogous to their claims under the U.S. Constitution, the notice of claim complies with § 3813(1) and § 50-e. Upon receiving notice of the federal claim from Plaintiffs, the School District likely commenced an investigation into the events leading up to and during the alleged strip search, which would have been the same course of action undertaken had the notice specifically mentioned the state law claim. The notice of claim sufficiently asserts civil liberties violations such that the School District could adequately investigate the claim. See Kirk v. Metro. Trans. Auth., No. 99 Civ. 3787,
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted with, respect to claims asserted by Plaintiffs Decker and Marino as individuals. Summary judgment is denied with respect to the § 1983 and state law claims. The settlement conference of March 27, 2012 is adjourned until April 10, 2012 at 11 a.m.
SO ORDERED.