Cole v. Cent. Greene Sch. Dist.

SAWYER COLE, Plaintiff(s), v. CENTRAL GREENE SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendant(s).

Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-00375

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

December 27, 2019

Chief United States Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Presently pending before the Court is a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 15) filed on behalf of Defendants. For the following reasons, the motion will be granted.¹

I. Procedural History

On April 3, 2019, Plaintiff Sawyer Cole ("Plaintiff") initiated this action with the filing of a Complaint against Defendants, Central Greene School District ("the District"), Helen McCracken (Superintendent) ("Superintendent McCracken"), Matthew Blair (Assistant Superintendent) ("Assistant Superintendent Blair"), Andrew Zimmer (School Resource Officer) ("Officer Zimmer"), Justin Stephenson (Vice Principal) ("Vice Principal Stephenson") and Robert Stephenson (Principal ) ("Principal Stephenson"). Plaintiff asserts Defendants violated his constitutional rights after he was suspended and expelled from high school for suspicion ofdrug use. On June 24, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The matter has been fully briefed and is ripe for consideration.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 1331.

II. Factual Allegations

The following facts are either alleged in the complaint, which the Court will accept as true for the sole purpose of deciding the pending motion, appear in the public record or are gleaned from documents relied upon and attached to the Complaint. Plaintiff was enrolled as a senior at Waynesburg Central High School ("the school") in the District. (Complaint ("Compl."), ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 4, 11.) On January 24, 2018, Plaintiff, whose parking privileges had been revoked by the school, parked a car at the Big Lots near the school and walked to the school; he arrived late sometime between 10:15 and 10:30 a.m. (Id. ¶ 12.) This was Plaintiff's 40th day being tardy out of the 90 school days of the school year. (Tr. p. 26.)² Shortly after his arrival, one of Plaintiff's teachers observed Plaintiff in a deep sleep during his study hall class. (Id. ¶¶ 14-15.) The teacher thought this behavior was suspicious and reported it to the Vice Principal. (Id. ¶¶ 15-16.) The teacher described the Plaintiff to the Vice Principal as being "out cold."

In response, the Vice Principal Stephenson, along with the Officer Zimmer, located Plaintiff in his workshop class shortly before noon. (Id. ¶¶ 17-18.) Upon entering Plaintiff's workshop class, both the Vice Principal and Officer Zimmer observed the Plaintiff sleeping. (Id. ¶ 19.) When Plaintiff awoke, he had a red mark on his forehead, indicating that his head had been down for some time. (ECF No. 15-4, Transcript of Expulsion Hearing (hereinafter "Tr.") at 9).

As a result of this lethargic behavior, Plaintiff was taken to the Central Office where he was allegedly forced to undergo a medical examination in the presence of the Vice Principal and the Officer Zimmer. (Id. ¶¶ 20-21, 110, 118.) According to Plaintiff's testimony at the February 5, 2018 disciplinary hearing,³ the medical examination consisted of the school nurse checking Plaintiff's pupil dilation, blood pressure and heart rate. (Tr. at 28). The nurse found Plaintiff's "blood pressure to be extremely high, pulse to be very elevated, and pupils to be dilated [and] not reacting to light." (Id. at 10). According to Officer Zimmer, who has training through the Pennsylvania State Police to recognize symptoms of drug use, Plaintiff's symptoms were "definitely indicative of drug use." (Id. at 22-23). Plaintiff was then questioned about whether he had taken drugs. (Compl. ¶¶ 111). Plaintiff denied taking drugs. (Id. ¶114). Based on the medical examination and Plaintiff's lethargic behavior, Vice Principal Stephenson and Officer Zimmer determined that they had enough information to reasonably suspect that Plaintiff was under the influence of drugs. (Id. ¶ 24). Vice Principal Stephenson then consulted with the Principal Stephenson, who then contacted Superintendent McCracken. (Id. ¶ 27). Vice Principal Stephenson also called Plaintiff's parents and left a message to notify them of the situation. (Id. ¶ 26). In response, Plaintiff's father was told by Principal Stephenson that Plaintiff was in the office for suspected drug use. (Id. ¶¶ 28-29). Before Plaintiff's father arrived at the school, Plaintiff was asked to submit to a urinalysis drug test. (Id. ¶¶ 33, 36). Plaintiff refused to take a drug test. (Id. ¶ 36).

After Plaintiff's refusal, Plaintiff's father arrived at the school and met privately with Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 38). Principal Stephenson then reiterated to Plaintiff's father that they suspected Plaintiff was under the influence of drugs and would be required to take a drug test. (Id. ¶¶ 37,39). According to the Complaint, Plaintiff and his father were advised that if the Plaintiff refused a urinalysis drug test, his refusal would be considered a positive drug test and corresponding disciplinary action would be taken accordingly. (Id). Plaintiff again refused to take the drug test. According to the Plaintiff, School District policy requires a saliva drug test -- not a urinalysis test -- when students are suspected to be under the influence of drugs. (Id. ¶ 41). He asserts that the urinalysis drug test offered by Principal Stephenson did not comport with School District policy. (Id. ¶¶ 40-43). Thus, Plaintiff asserts that the statements from the school officials regarding the urinalysis test were false. (Id. ¶ 40). The Complaint does not state whether Plaintiff or his father were aware of the School District policy at the time Plaintiff refused to take the urinalysis drug test. The first time Plaintiff or his father raised any issue with the type of drug test offered to Plaintiff was at the February 5, 2018 disciplinary hearing. (Id. ¶ 51).

After Plaintiff refused to take the drug test, Plaintiff and his father were notified that Plaintiff was being suspended because under school policy, refusals to submit to a drug test are considered positive drug tests. (Id. ¶¶ 39, 44). That same day, January 24, 2018, Plaintiff and his father were given an official letter from the School District detailing that Plaintiff was being suspended for a period of 10 days. (Id. ¶ 45). The notice also stated that "[d]ue to the severity of this matter, disciplinary action could be taken by the School Directors of Central Greene School District which could include expulsion." (Id. ¶ 46; see also Jan. 24, 2018 Notice of Suspension, Compl., Exhibit B, ECF No. 1-2).

After giving Plaintiff's father a copy of the Notice of Suspension, Plaintiff's father requested a meeting with Principal Stephenson to appeal the suspension. (Tr. at 12). On January 26, 2018, Plaintiff's father met with the Principal Stephenson again to appeal the suspension, at which time Principal Stephenson explained that the suspension was proper under school policy.(Id.) Principal Stephenson explained to Plaintiff's father that the next step was an expulsion hearing. (Id.)

Thereafter, on January 29, 2018, Superintendent McCracken sent Plaintiff and his parents a letter detailing the circumstances and sequence of events that led the School to find that Plaintiff was in violation of the High School's drug usage policy, Policy No. 227.1. (ECF No. 15-3 at 1). The letter further notified them that the School Board would be holding a hearing on February 5, 2018 to further adjudicate the matter. (Id.) Also, the letter explained the role of the Board as an impartial tribunal, and that any decision they make is appealable to the appropriate state court. (Id.) Finally, the letter provided Plaintiff with the following list of rights he had with regard to the hearing:

You [(parents)] have the right to appear at the hearing, produce witnesses on [Plaintiff's] behalf, and be represented by legal counsel. You, Sawyer, or your legal counsel shall have a right, upon reasonable request prior to the hearing, to examine written statements about the incident and examine Sawyer's academic and behavioral records.

(Id.) Superintendent McCracken concluded the letter by telling Plaintiff and his parents that if they had any questions, that they could contact her directly. (Id.)

At the February 5, 2018 disciplinary hearing, Plaintiff's father acknowledged receipt of the Superintendent's January 29, 2018 letter. (Tr. at 3, 6). The school solicitor also reiterated to the Plaintiff and his father that they "are afforded every right to offer testimony, cross-examine witnesses, present any exhibits and make any statements to the Board." (Id. at 4). Thereafter, the January 29, 2018 letter was read into the record. Plaintiff's father gave a short opening statement, stating for the first time that the wrong type of drug test was offered to his son. (Compl. ¶51; Tr. at 7). Thereafter, Vice Principal Stephenson testified as to the events of January 24, 2018. (Tr. at 8-13). Plaintiff's father then testified, stating that the school should not have chosen the "nuclearoption of drug testing" because his son was ill on the day in question, attributing his son's behavior to the effects of cold medicine which he himself had given to his son that morning. (Id. at 20). We note that this contradicts the allegation in the complaint that when Plaintiff "was asked if he had used any drugs, he informed the Defendants he had not." (Compl. ¶ 14). He further stated that he was not surprised of his son's conduct and described his son as being "a little overbearing, rude, cocky, and he doesn't always question authority respectfully." (Id.) Plaintiff testified that he was opposed to the urine test, but not the saliva test. He didn't know about the saliva test option, and had he known, he would have taken it. (Tr. at 28). He further testified that he taught his son to never relinquish his personal privacy even if doing so would result in his expulsion from school...