Plaintiff A v. Park Hill Sch. Dist.

Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri

Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellants and appeared on the appellants' brief, was Arthur Benson, of Kansas City, MO.

Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellees and appeared on the appellees' brief, was William Joseph Hatley, of Kansas City, MO. The following attorney(s) also appeared on the appellees' brief; Stephanie Lovett-Bowman, of Kansas City, MO., Olawale Akinmoladun, of Kansas City, MO.

Before SMITH,¹ Chief Judge, GRUENDER and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

GRASZ, Circuit Judge.

As a part of an ill-advised "joke," a ninth-grade boy at Park Hill High School created an online petition calling for the return of slavery. Three other students posted online comments favoring the petition. After the Park Hill School District (the School District) expelled or suspended the four students, they sued, claiming the School District violated their rights to equal protection and due process. The district court² denied these claims on summary judgment. The four students appeal, and we affirm the district court.

Plaintiffs A, B, C, and D (collectively, Plaintiffs) were ninth-grade students on the football team at Park Hill High School (PHS), in Kansas City, Missouri. On September 16, 2021, they were traveling with the team to an away game. While en route,

Plaintiff A, a biracial black and Brazilian student, published a petition online titled "Start Slavery Again"; he then circulated the petition to other members of the team through Snapchat. Plaintiff B, a white student, commented "I love slavery." Plaintiff C, a white student, commented "i hate blacks." Plaintiff D, a biracial Asian and white student, commented "I want a slave." The petition included a picture of TRL, a black student.

The next day, PHS's Assistant Principal, Melvin Walker, investigated the incident. Walker spoke with Plaintiffs and determined they violated the School District's policies. The discipline notice stated violations of the following four school policies: Cellphone/Electronic Device, Disorderly Conduct, Disruptive Behavior, and Harassment. Plaintiffs' written statements noted they were "joking around" and "thought it would be funny." Plaintiffs B, C, and D explicitly noted they regretted their actions. Walker suspended Plaintiffs for ten days, and recommended extended-term suspensions or expulsions. That evening, PHS's Principal, Kerrie Herren, emailed PHS families. In that email, he condemned the racist statements and assured families that "we will not tolerate discrimination or harassment."

On Monday, September 20, Principal Herren sent letters to each of the Plaintiffs' parents, informing them of the ten-day suspensions and of his recommendations to the School District's Superintendent for extended-term suspensions or expulsions. The next day, the School District notified Plaintiffs' parents that it would hold disciplinary conferences on October 1, and gave the parents a procedural outline and a "Notice of Charges." The Notice of Charges—much like the ones Plaintiffs received—stated the discipline was due to "Harassment, Disruptive Behavior, Disorderly Conduct, Cell Phone/Electronic Device [Use]" in violation of school policies.

The following day, the School District's Superintendent, Jeanette Cowherd, emailed a letter to the community, condemning the petition, supporting the Principal's actions, and committing to following school policy. An onslaught of media attention followed, and the School District received calls from parents, students, community members, alumni, and others across the country, expressing concerns about the petition.

On October 1, the School District held disciplinary conferences with Plaintiffs and their parents. Superintendent Cowherd and Student Services Director Josh Colvin agreed that Plaintiff A should be suspended for 170 days, or the remainder of his freshman year, and further recommended to the School Board that Plaintiff A should be expelled. Cowherd and Colvin agreed that Plaintiffs B, C, and D should be suspended for 170 days. In making their decisions, the administrators compared the situation to other incidents where students were expelled. The first involved a student writing racist and threatening graffiti on school bathroom walls. The second involved a student drawing swastikas on school bathroom walls. Plaintiffs administratively appealed their punishments.

On November 3, the School District held an administrative appeal hearing with Plaintiffs, their parents, and their legal counsel. Plaintiffs were allowed to call and cross-examine witnesses. This hearing lasted from 5:00 p.m. until 3:00 a.m. The School District ultimately expelled Plaintiff A, and required Plaintiffs B, C, and D to undergo ten hours of diversity and inclusion training before they could return to PHS for the 2022-23 school year.

On November 12, Plaintiffs sued the School District, the PHS Principal, and various school board members (collectively,

the Defendants) in federal court, asserting various claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After voluntarily dismissing two of those claims, Plaintiffs proceeded to summary judgment on their due process and equal protection claims. Plaintiffs claimed the disciplinary procedures deprived them of substantive and procedural due process. They also claimed the Defendants deprived Plaintiffs of equal protection because they did not punish TRL—the black student whose photo was used on the petition—even though Plaintiffs claimed he was a willing participant in creating the petition. The district court granted summary judgement for the School District, dismissing the Plaintiffs' procedural due process, substantive due...