Plaintiff A v. Park Hill Sch. Dist.

PLAINTIFF A, by his natural mother and general guardian, PARENT A, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PARK HILL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants.

No. 21-cv-6153-SRB

United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, St. Joseph Division

February 8, 2022

ORDER

STEPHEN R. BOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is Plaintiff A, Plaintiff B, Plaintiff C, and Plaintiff D's (collectively “Plaintiffs”)^[1] Motion for Temporary Restraining Order or in the Alternative for a Preliminary Injunction. (Doc #7.) Plaintiffs request the Court to “readmit [Plaintiffs A, B, C, and D] to Park Hill South High School with . . . full privileges” and “that all school records regarding any disciplinary measures taken . . . be temporarily removed . . . as well as an order prohibiting Defendants from further violating the rights of Plaintiffs A B, C, and D.” (Doc. #7, p. 1.) On January 31, 2022, the Court presided over a preliminary injunction hearing. Upon consideration of the entire record, and for the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

Defendant Park Hill School District (“Park Hill SD”) is a public school district in Platte County, Missouri.^[2] Defendants Janice Bolin (“Bolin”), Bart Klein (“Klein”), Kimberley Ried (“Ried”), Todd Fane (“Fane”), Scott Monsees (“Monsees”), Susan Newburger (“Newburger”), and Brandy Woodley (“Woodley”) are members of the Park Hill School District Board of Education (“the School Board”). Also named as defendants are Dr. Jeanette Cowherd (“Dr. Cowherd”), the Superintendent of Park Hill SD; Dr. Josh Colvin (“Dr. Colvin”), the Director of Student Services at Park Hill SD; and Dr. Kerrie Herren (“Dr. Herren”), the Principal at Park Hill South High School (collectively, “Defendants”).

As of September 16, 2021, Plaintiffs were in ninth grade at Park Hill South High School (“PHS”). “Plaintiff A is biracial, Black and Brazilian[, ]” and, as of September 16, 2021, he was fifteen years old. (Doc. #1, p. 6.) “Plaintiff B is White[, ]” and, as of September 16, 2021, he was fourteen years old. (Doc. #1, p. 6.) “Plaintiff C is White[, ]” and, as of September 16, 2021, he was fourteen years old. (Doc. #1, pp. 6-7.) “Plaintiff D is biracial, White and Asian[, ]” and, as of September 16, 2021, he was fourteen years old. (Doc. #1, p. 7.) Plaintiffs were part of PHS's ninth grade football team (“the football team”) and attended the summer football camp and school practices. Plaintiffs allege that the use of racial slurs was common at PHS, “most often in friendly bantering[, ]” and that racial slurs were “often used in the locker room within the hearing of coaches or other adults and was most often tolerated by those adults.” (Doc. #1, p. 12.)

On September 16, 2021, Plaintiffs traveled on a school bus to an afternoon away football game. Plaintiffs A, B, and C were on one of the two busses (“Bus One”) together, while Plaintiff D was on the second of the two busses (“Bus Two”). While travelling to the game, the football team members were sending Snapchat messages and videos back-and-forth between Bus One and Bus Two. Plaintiff A and another student on the football team, Student X, “were engaging in playful bantering about jobs and slaves, a subject first mentioned by Student X to Plaintiff A.” (Doc. #1, p. 13.) Student X is Black. Plaintiff A drafted a petition on Change.org titled “Start slavery again” (“the Petition”). Plaintiff A showed the Petition to the students “seated near him, including Student X[, ]” who “all laughed about it and encouraged Plaintiff A to post it, which he did.” (Doc. #1, pp. 13-14.)

Plaintiff A, after “encouragement” by another teammate, shared the Petition to the football team's Snapchat group. (Doc. #1, p. 14.) After sharing the Petition, the students arrived at their destination and participated in the football game. At some point that day, other members of the football team “liked” the Petition.^[3] Plaintiffs commented on the Petition. Plaintiff A commented that a fellow black student “needs a job.” Plaintiff B commented “I love slavery.” Plaintiff C commented “I hate blacks.” Plaintiff D commented “I want a slave.” “The ninth graders who posted, liked, or commented on the [Petition], as well as [Student X], who participated in the creation and sharing of the [Petition], viewed it as a joke and those who commented on it wanted to be in on the joke.” (Doc. #1, p. 15.)

Members of the Snapchat group shared the Petition, bringing it to the community's and Defendants' attention. On September 17, 2021, the next day, PHS interviewed Plaintiffs, who “all admitted their participation, characterizing it as a joke.” (Doc. #1, p. 15.) The same day, Plaintiffs were suspended from PHS for ten days for violating multiple school policies: cell phone use, disorderly conduct, disruptive behavior, and harassment. Park Hill SD's policy states that the “code of conduct . . . . will apply to all students in attendance in the district's instructional and support programs as well as at district-sponsored activities.” (Doc. #27-22, p. 1.) The policy provides that a student “may be disciplined for misconduct that occurs off district grounds and outside a district activity[, ]” among other situations, when “[t]he student's conduct negatively impacts the education environment or there is a nexus to the education environment.” (Doc. #27-22, p. 2.)

The day after Plaintiff A posted the Petition, Dr. Herren, the Principal of PHS, emailed the staff and parents of PHS students notifying them of “some unacceptable and racist statements that some students posted online during a school-related activity.” (Doc. #64-20.) News outlets started reporting on the Petition and the story drew national attention. As is often the case, the story went viral without all the facts. Defendants felt restrained to not tell the complete story due to Family and Education Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (“FERPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1232g, and did not identify that the racist comments were made by both mixed-race and white students. Defendants were aware that, based on Defendants' public comments, “[e]veryone has assumed these kids were all white.” (Doc. #64-22.) On September 22, 2021, Dr. Cowherd, Superintendent of Park Hill SD, emailed a letter to the community condemning the Petition. (Doc. #1, p. 16.) The letter implied that Plaintiffs were facing suspension or expulsion. (Doc. #64-23.) On November 3, 2021, the School Board held a hearing, which resulted in the expulsion of Plaintiff A and suspension of Plaintiffs B, C, and D for 180 days.

Plaintiffs then filed this suit against Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause, and failure to train and supervise or inadequate training or supervision. Plaintiffs seek actual damages, nominal damages, attorney's fees and costs, punitive damages, a preliminary injunction permitting Plaintiffs to return to school and make up for missed educational opportunities, and a permanent injunction expunging Plaintiffs' school records and prohibiting further violations of Plaintiffs' constitutional rights.

Plaintiffs argue that a preliminary injunction is warranted under the facts presented. Defendants disagree. The Court address the parties' arguments below.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a), the Court may issue a preliminary injunction. “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy . . . and the burden of establishing the propriety of an injunction is on the movant.” Watkins Inc v. Lewis, 346 F.3d 841, 844 (8th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). A preliminary injunction may be issued upon a showing of:

(1) the threat of irreparable harm to the movant; (2) the state of the balance between this harm and the injury that granting the injunction will inflict on other parties litigant; (3) the probability that movant will succeed on the merits; and (4) the public interest.

Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 113 (8th Cir. 1981).

“At base, the question is whether the balance of equities so favors the movant that justice requires the court to intervene to preserve the status quo until the merits are determined.” Id. Generally, all four Dataphase factors must be examined “to determine whether on balance they weigh towards granting the injunction.” Baker Elec. Co-op., Inc. v. Chaske, 28 F.3d 1466, 1472 (8th Cir. 1994) (citations and quotations omitted). However, “the likelihood of success on the merits is most significant” of the four factors. Barrett v. Claycomb, 705 F.3d 315, 320 (8th Cir. 2013) (citations and quotations omitted).

III. DISCUSSION

In support of their requested injunction, Plaintiffs focus on Count 1, which alleges that Defendants' disciplinary actions violated their rights under the First Amendment, and Count 2, which alleges that Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs with due process as afforded by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court will address the Dataphase factors below.

A. Threat of Irreparable Harm

To demonstrate irreparable harm, “a party must show that the harm is certain and great and of such imminence that there is a clear and present need for equitable relief.” Novus Franchising, Inc. v. Dawson, 725 F.3d 885, 895 (8th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). It is undisputed that being removed from school via suspension or expulsion harms Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have an interest in their schooling that is constitutionally protected. See Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 574-77 (1975).

Defendants argue that they have mitigated any harm resulting from the suspensions or expulsion. “[Park Hill SD] has allowed the Plaintiffs to coordinate their online work with the...