Schmader Ex Rel. Schmader v. Warren County School District

(Claimant), efits to Jose Mora is affirmed.

However, Board, insofar the order affirmed the decision of the WCJ

suspending Claimant’s benefits as of Janu- reversed. The case is re- Board, with specific

manded instruc- WCJ, for further

tions remand to opinion. consistent with this

proceedings relinquished.

Jurisdiction SCHMADER, By Through Guardian,

His Parent and Natural SCHMADER,

Michelle

The WARREN COUNTY SCHOOL

DISTRICT, Appellant. Pennsylvania.

Commonwealth Court

Argued Sept. 2002.

Decided Oct. pursuant to

Inappropriate Behavior Sec- IV(0) tion of the School District’s Disci- pline alleged Code for his involvement of another the threatened assault student student, Tyler (Tyler). a third Gelotte immediately for suspended Jedidiah was 27, 2001, day, February one-half and on the School District conducted a formal stu- dent on discipline hearing the matter. hearing, At the Jedidiah testified that on 1, 2001, February Tyler play- he were ing at his home after school when he found a plastic throwing tip dart with a metal Tyler. and showed to He stated that Tyler then took dart and told him that he use dart hurt another wanted to (Aaron). student, Aaron Johnson Jedidiah Tyler stated that at that he told point, ahead, go he wanted to hurt Aaron to get but he did want to involved Stewart, Warren, Arthur J. appel- Tyler matter. He stated that he left lant. and went into his house and didn’t tell his Blackman, Warren, James C. for appel- mother because she wasn’t home or his lee. forgot. sister he because COLINS, BEFORE: Judge, President Tyler Jedidiah stated that he did not see McGINLEY, PELLEGRINI, Judge, day or the dart until the next when he was FRIEDMAN, Judge, Judge, school, principal’s called office of the LEADBETTER, SIMPSON, Judge, office, Principal Tyler Nichols’ after was LEAVITT, Judge, and Judge. apprehended Principal with the dart. office, Nichols’ Jedidiah stated he ad- BY Judge OPINION PELLEGRINI. him belonged mitted that the dart but County Warren District when asked what he intended to do with (School District) appeals from an order of dart, say because he anything he didn’t Pleas, the Court of Common 37th Judicial to hurt did not want his friend. Jedidiah Pennsylvania, District of County Warren thought Tyler later testified he (trial court), Branch directing the School going to hurt Aaron but that he didn’t District to rescind the disciplinary action him hurt Aaron want Aaron because (Jedidi- against taken Jedidiah Schmader However, stated that was his friend. ah) expunge any and to reference to the Tyler he didn’t tell Aaron because underlying perma- incident from Jedidiah’s probably something up. make nent record. testimony, Principal Nichols For his Jedidiah, February On a third- he made follow- read anecdotal record grade Elementary South Street Warren, ing Pennsylvania, the conversations charged Tyler parents February with one count of and their on Miscellaneous record, charge Inappropriate Be- Tyler of Miscellaneous According 2001.1 had Acknowledging havior. that Jedidiah was in Mrs. on Febru- Trubic’s classroom of out-of- one-half already served when he told another class- officer rec- suspension, that he and was going mate had a dart ommended that Jedidiah be issued three the in- throw it Aaron. After comment, detention not to ex- of after-school Tyler’s Mrs. of formed Trubic per day. ceed minutes On March to relayed Principal the information she the hear- adopted the School District Upon told questioning, Tyler Nichols. ing Report. officer’s Recommended to Principal belonged Nichols that the dart Jedidiah, boys had talked about the the School appealed Jedidiah gave Aaron and him the dart Jedidiah District’s determination to brought intending he it to school and purportedly pursuant it at throw Aaron. Jedidiah was then 12.8(b)(2),3 § who which allows a student office and admitted principal’s called formal disagrees with the of the results that the dart his and both Jedidiah’s appropri seek recourse in the hearing to Tyler’s parents were called. The rec- and Deter ate the court of Commonwealth. mother, ord indicated that when Jedidiah’s Inappropri that the Miscellaneous mining Schmader, they go- Mrs. what asked were Disciplinary ate Behavior dart, ing response to do with Jedidiah’s the by fail Code was make and re- Tyler’s was “to him bleed” ing to provide Jedidiah him, ... sponse was “not to hurt au notice that his failure to warn school Principal not bad.”2 Nichols then de- but to another potential about harm thorities suspend students for the rest cided both behavior inappropriate student constituted day, boys’ parents told the action, the would result report super- incident to the he the trial the District to court ordered of intendent schools. against any action Jedidiah and rescind

Following incident from hearing, hearing expunge any offi- reference of the appeal by his in his This the School Report, cer issued Recommended record. guilty he found Jedidiah of one District followed.4 which expulsion, Principal a student is entitled also stated that students Nichols hearing, provided copy is a fundamental are with a of the School Dis- a formal which (Handbook), process. due trict's which includes element of Handbook Code, (b) hearing all Discipline Discipline required that the ex- A formal hearing may pulsion will This be held Code is discussed in school all students. actions. of or before the board school directors an board, or committee hearing, Schmader authorized 2. At Mrs. denied qualified appointed by examiner Jedidiah ever stated that he intended to make making ... bleed. also denied the board Aaron However, upon the statement. her cross-ex- Nichols, Principal amination of reaffirmed (2) disagrees with the Where the student make state- that he had heard Jedidiah hearing, is available results of recourse ment. appropriate the Common- in the court of alleged If it is that a constitutional wealth. provides, relevant 3. 22 Pa.Code 12.8 involved, may file the student issue is part: appropriate in the Federal claim for relief (a) statutory right, and stu- Education is a district court. ele- dents must be afforded all they scope of review a school district’s process to be 4.Our ments of due are complete involving adjudication, where a record is excluded from school. case The School District case, contends that The provision at issue in this Sec- IV(0) tion the trial court erred School District’s Disci- by concluding that the Code, pline provides: Miscellaneous Inappropriate pro Behavior Any engages student who in inappropri- vision of Discipline its Code was unconsti behavior, ate specifically otherwise tutionally vague. It is well established Code, addressed in this including but that it is fundamental to due process that behavior, not limited to self-destructive statute regulation must not vague be so may behavior that be harmful to others require persons as to ordinary intelli others, or the property of or other be- gence guess at meaning possi its or its havior which negatively reflects the val- application. ble Grayned City Rock ues of this phüoso- code or the ford, 104, 2294, 408 U.S. 92 S.Ct. 33 phy, goals and aims of the Warren (1972). However, 222 L.Ed.2d the Consti County will be to tution does not require impossible stan suspension or other disciplinary action. dards; required all that is is that discipline may include action language convey sufficiently a definite administration as well as refer- warning as to proscribed conduct when ral hearing to the officer for further measured common understanding and discipline. practice. States, Roth v. United 354 U.S. 83a-84a).5 (Handbook, R.R. at 476, 1304, (1957). 77 S.Ct. 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 statement, In its 1925 purposes clarified for of that it appeal did Because schools need to be able to not find the entire Inappro- Miscellaneous impose disciplinary sanctions for a wide priate Behavior provision of the School range of unanticipated disruptive conduct Discipline District’s Code unconstitutional- of the educational process, the United ly vague or that the School District was Supreme States Court has determined that authority without eight-year- an school rules need not be as old student warning for not authorities detañed as criminal codes. See Bethel when he knew that someone intended to Fraser, School District No. 478 U.S. 403 Instead, injure another student. it held (1986). 106 S.Ct. 92 L.Ed.2d 549 only pursuant that language to the used in A looser standard of constitutional review the Miscellaneous Inappropriate Behavior regulations of such school appropriate is provision, an student could greater because flexibility must be afford not have known that when someone told ed to regulate the conduct of chüdren as they him or her that that planned injure Allen, opposed to adults. Alex v. 409 school, another student at she should (W.D.Pa.1976). F.Supp. 379 tell someone about the threat. made, determining is policy apply limited to whether may con- that "this outside of school violated, rights stitutional were property whether an or school related activities if there is error of law was committed or whether neces- misconduct a that has direct and immediate sary findings supported by of fact are tendency substan- to influence the conduct of other tial evidence. Ream v. (Hand- Centennial School Dis- people while in the school room.” trict, (Pa.Cmwith.), book, A.2d petition 80a). 765 1195 pro- R.R. at The Handbook also denied, appeal allowance responsibility vides "[i]t is the of the (2001). A.2d 551 (2) willing students to ... Be to volunteer health, relating information in matters Inappro- safety, In addition to the community Miscellaneous and welfare priate provision, protection property.” Behavior Section II of the and the of school (Handbook, 86a). Discipline provides District's Code R.R. at burden, are not

However, contrary heavy trial as the courts explanation, any eight-year-old prone appar- to interfere unless court’s knows know knowl actions are child or should ent that the school board’s edge capricious, prejudicial of the throw arbitrary, intent of child to injure child is interest. In the absence public a dart order to third discretion, others,” harmful abuse of may gross “behavior be and, therefore, wrong, and that if the second-guess policies courts will not (Citations omitted). property, action results in harm on school the school board. will in “trouble” he or she be at school. added). (Emphasis ap more needed to impose No should be 12.8(a) provides Although and, therefore, we propriate discipline, statutory right, “education is IV(0) say cannot Section students must be afforded all un Disciplinary Code is process they are to be elements of due as to Jedidiah. constitutionally vague school,” case, the from in this excluded Moreover, three a 15-min- only discipline imposed a result ute after school detention does not rise (because suspension half-day deprivation any type a constitutional prior hearing) had imposed been right property requiring through redress school,” i.e., af- minutes of “more 15 judicial system. As we stated in In re days. for ter-school detention three school (Pa.Cmwlth. JAD, 1069, 782 A.2d 1071 dis- If is no recourse from a school there 2001), petition allowance de appeal suspend trict’s for decision a student for (2002): nied, 708, 796 A.2d 987 here, where, days, fewer ten as than expulsions

Different attach to and rights and expulsion suspension imposed no or is §§ 22 suspensions extended, under Pa.Code 12.6 only day is there the school (Code). Expulsion and 12.8 is exclusion This should recourse to courts. be no by from school a board of education for de- especially is so because the 15-minute period exceeding days, ten school imposed tention not so for three hearing. 22 Pa. requires it a formal much to teach Jedidiah as was 12.6(b)(2). If a Code student dis attempt him a that he should lesson results of formal agrees hu- prevent befalling harm from right has a to seek hearing, the student man being. court of the appropriate

recourse in the the trial the decision of Accordingly, 22 Commonwealth. court is reversed. 12.8(c). 12.8(b)(2) §§ The Code provide any from a does not recourse ORDER suspend a decision to school district’s October, NOW, AND 9th this days. than fewer ten 2002, order of the Court of Common Moreover, Flynn-Scarcella v. Pocono Pleas, Pennsylva- District of 37th Judicial District, 117, 745 A.2d Mountain School nia, Branch, 214 of County No. Warren (Pa.Cmwlth.2000), stated, we 120 2001, reversed. August dated Pennsylvania, law that in The is clear have local school boards broad discre- Judge BY OPINION DISSENTING in determining tion FRIEDMAN. Therefore, when attacks policies. one I respectfully dissent. Unlike a school action on matters com- must board trial court that discretion, agree I with the majority, to its he has mitted law

601 discriminatory enforcement. trary Behavior Inappropriate the Miscellaneous (MIB Regional School Dis Killion v. Franklin provision) of the Warren provision District) (W.D.Pa.2001); (School trict, F.Supp.2d. 446 136 County District’s Wiemerslage v. Maine Wiemerslage ex rel. Discipline Code is (Jedidi- District 824 Township High School applied as Jedidiah Schmader (N.D.Ill.1993), aff'd, 29 F.3d ah). F.Supp. 136 Cir.1994). (7th Here, trial court 1149 majority The reminds us because MIB determined that the impose disciplin need to be able to schools ran afoul Discipline Code ary range for a of unantic sanctions wide principles. of both these ipated disruptive conduct of the education MIB set forth in section provision, process, al Supreme the United States IV(O) Code, Discipline provides: disciplin has determined that school Court Any engages inappropri- crimi student who rules need be as detailed as behavior, specifically nal ate not otherwise codes. See Bethel School District No. Code, in- Fraser, [Discipline] addressed this 478 106 U.S. S.Ct. (1986). cluding but not limited to self-destruc- Further, 92 L.Ed.2d 549 a looser behavior, may tive behavior that be standard of constitutional of such review others, property harmful to others or school regulations because negatively re- other behavior which greater flexibility reg must be afforded to [Discipline flects the values of this ulate the conduct of children as opposed to philosophy, goals or the and aims [C]ode Allen, adults. Alex v. F.Supp. County of the Warren (W.D.Pa.1976). question do not these suspension will be or other standards; however, acknowledged disciplinary discipline may action. The majority, the it is pro fundamental due by include action the administration as regulation cess that a statute or must not well as referral to the vague be so as to of ordi require persons discipline. officer for further nary intelligence to at guess meaning its (R.R. 83a-84a.) possible application. Grayned City considering at In this lan- of 104, 2294, Rockford, 408 U.S. 92 S.Ct. I trial guage, agree with the court’s assess- (1972). L.Ed.2d 222 Accordingly, an en provision ment that the MIB of the Disci- actment prohibited pline put eight-year-old must define the con not an Code “does duct with sufficient a failure to definiteness to inform student on notice that inform an ordinary individual as a off to what conduct school authorities of threat made (Trial prohibited and ct. prohibit property must define the school is violation.”1 105a.)2 10, in discouraging op. ed conduct a manner arbi- at R.R. at warning response 1. On November in old student not school authorities for filing complained plan School District's of to hurt another matters when he knows some student, appeal, supple- of on the court trial filed tell him in advance of his must mentary opinion pursuant obligation language to Pa. R.A.P.1925 to do so in the child (R.R. (R.R. 113a.) clarify August its order of 2001. at is able to understand.” 113a-14a.) opinion, at In that addition, explained the that it did not hold the "entire” In trial court concluded provision,” provision unconstitutionally vague provision is a "catchall MIB and MIB restrictions, and, by any did not hold that the School District cannot unlimited thus, articulated punish failing a student for to warn school "the School District retains unlimited plan punish a he of a to harm and unfettered discretion to wide authorities when knows student; rather, occurring range acts or omissions both on it held that "if the (Trial op. at eight-year- property.” ct. School District wants to an or off otherwise, during and non-school hours majority property In rea- holding subjects provision sons that and him- violates action. Even any eight-year-old child knows or should self to under knowledge of the intent of applicable know that relaxed constitutional standards a dart in order to another child to throw here, MIB agree provi- I cannot that the that if injure wrong, a third child is proscribed conduct with sion defines suffi- in harm the action results on school clarity provide necessary cient will be in ‘trouble’ at property, he or she action, or, that his warning to Jedidiah needed to school. No more should be inaction, correctly, more would be both and, discipline, impose prohibited punishable.3 therefore, say that we cannot Section majority accepts also the School The IV(O) Disciplin- District’s trial argument court District’s Code is affording in not the School District erred to Jedidiah. light maximum discretion its decision 600.) However, (Majority apply- at op. Noting imposed. of the minimal reasoning, majority ing such believe ten suspensions of less than that school are sight question loses here. We by the days normally are not reviewable eight-year- asked decide an whether (Pa. JAD, courts, A.2d 1069 see re wrong old should know whether it is denied, Cmwlth.2001), appeal injure someone intend to a child with (2002), majority 796 A.2d 987 concludes dart; this is so. question there is no days of a 15-minute after that “three Rather, an we must determine whether does not rise to a consti school detention language can read the any type proper deprivation tutional the MIB and understand that provision ju ty right requiring through redress forgetting to tell school authorities of (Majority at system.”4 op. off school dicial vague classmate’s threat made 105a.) Be based on a threat made outside school. That the MIB R.R. facts, discriminatory unique arbitrary en- cause of these the cases relied easily upon by distin al- the School District are is evidenced the fact forcement support though very guished and do not the School Dis they played different roles in the offense, position. Specifically, Dis Tyler trict's the School Jedidiah and Gelotte received Fraser, A. on Brian A. ex rel. Arthur punishments. trict relies identical Stroudsburg 141 v. Area School Alex, (M.D.Pa.2001), not and Deli F.Supp.2d 3. The School District contends that it is Dist., City give what Area School required to an exhaustive list of sio Ellwood cases, (1975). In of these inappropriate behav- D. & C.2d 524 each qualifies or harmful as and, fact, ior, discipline imposition on the student numer- the in relies on cases from however, upheld disciplin- upheld; all these cases concern have was ous courts that school objectiona the containing generalized similar older students who committed rules terms at challenged provision. themselves at school or a school- to those in the MIB ble action cases, judg sponsored None involves the majority does not discuss these but function. The that, eight-year-old as to the conse District fails to ment of an I note what the School neglecting at making argument quences to inform someone acknowledge this is that in intent, the another child's heard off does not conclude that school of the trial court here vague property, Be unconstitutionally on to harm third child. provision is school MIB here, face, but, rather, I the it is unconsti- cause that is the situation believe its holds that argument fail. tutionally vague applied to Jedidiah. As must as court, Jedidiah was an stressed the trial forget majority appears to that Jedidi- eight-year-old no harm- 4. The child who committed but, rather, seeking only to avoid what simply failed to ah was not ful act himself perceived unjust as detention but also report of another the intended action the results of majority acknowledges disagrees that 22 Pa.Code “the student 12.8(a) § provides students with a statuto opportunity to seek hearing.” the ry right to education and affords students only in courts is tied redress process they due are to be it does not holding hearing; of a formal school; however, major excluded from ultimately im- discipline on the depend case, in ity points out this Jedidiah’s posed. discipline was not exclusion from school Further, adopting the School District’s but, instead, “more school.” The ma position the minimal na- that we consider jority “if then reasons that there is no recourse from a school district’s decision to that I discipline require ture of the suspend days, than student fewer ten ignore my prior determination where, here, as expulsion no or sus provision MIB is pension imposed only day is the school applied to Jedidiah. As extended, is there should be no recourse to opinion, stated in its November (Majority op. the courts.” at I can certainly punish District can a stu- agree analysis. not with this fading dent for to warn school authorities Initially, disagree I would that after- student, and, harm in plan of a school detention the equivalent is of “more than day age, important this it is more Clearly, school” for Jedidiah. protect- that school authorities told ever be right ed to an education in 22 Pa.Code impending danger. students of Nonethe- 12.8(a) § guarantee is the that a student less, if an fails to do will not be denied classroom instruction so, him if we cannot we never both- process. without due Because such ered to tell him he should in words he is “schooling” does not place during take (R.R. 113a-14a.) I able understand. extended that comes with de- tention, punishment Jedidiah’s does have no doubt that the School District’s give him any “more school.”5 designed inter- MIB to serve numer- important ests that are both

Moreover, view, in adopting this the ma- jority sight ous, loses of the fact that recognize the School and I that the School Dis- District itself chose to take matter to a imposed very punishment; trict minimal formal hearing, thereby subjecting the de- nevertheless, I will not sanction the disci- cision to review under 22 Pa.Code they where had plining of students cases 12.8(b)(2).6 opinion, majority its anticipate punitive no reason to conse- presumes to invent a pre- rule that would quences.7 clude recourse to the courts cases where affirm. Accordingly, would a student’s following a formal something expulsion other than suspension days. excess of ten How- ever, 12.8(b)(2) § judi- Pa.Code makes

cial available in all recourse cases where seeking day days, expungement per after school for three of all reference to the minutes record, underlying incident from a disci- his ordinarily even would not have plinary procedure with a much more far- happened only jurisdiction, and it here be- reaching effect. Hearing matter was referred to a cause the possible expulsion pursu- case Officer as a Indeed, majority’s

5. I am baffled at- 12.8(a). § See 22 Pa.Code ant to tempt equate school attendance after- 12.8(b)(2). detention, something clearly meant as punishment for a student. by major- persuaded otherwise 7.I am not case, suspended Jedidiah was 6. In this where ity’s that "the detention statement 15-minute required spend fifteen for one-half Petitioner, WEAVER,

William

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (STATE

APPEAL BOARD OF ART, INC.), Respondent.

THE Pennsylvania.

Commonwealth Court of 6, 2002. Sept.

Submitted

Decided Oct. Jedi- imposed much to there is another valuable lesson for for three was not so Appellee’s to teach him learn. As brief. as it was diah to stated in prevent attempt harm lesson that he should Appellee does take with noble issue (Ma- being." befalling from another human Dis- statements set forth in [the court, op. jority brief to this In its argument concerning duties of trict’s] thing, suggests the same School District much However, Appel- it is the School District. that, have stating even did not if Jedidiah position with the lee’s that concomitant proscribed notice that action was advance his the District duties of discipline, it is a lesson well law, following responsibility for also has (See 21- brief at learned. Appellee that one of and the believes 22). suggest the lesson learned can learn most valuable lessons punishment for receiving Jedidiah in values, respect community ... aside from reasonably anticipate that he action could not social, authority, moral and for discipline, that the would merit is not the one values, he, no political is to also learn that imagines. School District protected by the age, what his matter States of Amer- further, constitution the United cer- Going bit add I would ica. tainly, parent, demonstrated Jedidiah's action, pursuit (Appellee's brief aggressive believes her of this

Case Details

Case Name: Schmader Ex Rel. Schmader v. Warren County School District

Court Name: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Date Published: Oct 9, 2002

Citation: 808 A.2d 596

Court Abbreviation: Pa. Commw. Ct.