School Resources & Training Institute
Legal and Liability Article Database

For assistance with this database contact us at information@school-training.com or at 800-365-0119.
Return to SR-TI Article Index

PATC Article Detail


Title: Missouri HS Cheerleaders Drunk on Vodka: Court Weighs Deliberate Indifference and Due Process
Author: Tim McClure
ID: LL128
Issue: SU2-2
Issue Date: 2005-03-01
Edition: School
Type: Article

Body: Rachel and Lauren, cheerleaders at a Missouri high school, drank vodka before performing at a Friday night football game. (See Jennings v. Wentzville R-IV Sch. Dist., 397 F.3d 1118 (2005)

One of the other cheerleaders discovered this and told the squadís faculty supervisor, Diane Moran. After the game, Moran spoke with Rachel, Lauren and a third cheerleader about the drinking allegations. Rachel and Lauren denied that they had been drinking alcohol before the game and Moran allowed them to leave.

Later that evening five of the other cheerleaders informed Moran that they were quitting the squad because Rachel and Lauren had come to the game drunk. Moran then called a meeting late that night to address the matter. Moran drove to Rachel and Laurenís homes, picked them up, and took them to the home of another cheerleader where the other members of the squad had gathered. The group discussed the drinking issue from about 11 p.m. to 2 a.m. Neither Rachel nor Lauren admitted drinking. Moran took Rachel and Lauren home after the meeting.

Moran notified Rachel and Laurenís parents about the drinking allegations on Saturday. Both girls admitted to their mothers that they had been drinking. Moran notified school administrators the following Monday.

School administrators decided that Principal John Waters should conduct an investigation into the matter and that information that came from the late-night meeting held by Moran should not be used. Waters removed Moran as the cheerleading supervisor, alleging she had used poor judgment in holding the late-night meeting.

Mr. Waters conducted student interviews and collected ìoverwhelmingî evidence that indicated that Rachel and Lauren had been drinking alcohol before the game. He subsequently suspended both girls for 10 days for attending a school function while under the influence of alcohol. He notified the girlsí parents of the suspension orally and in writing.

The parents filed a federal lawsuit under 42 U.S.C.S. ß 1983 against the school district, Waters and Moran. They raised two issues: (1) That, because the school failed to properly train Moran how to investigate student misconduct, the district was deliberately indifferent to the studentsí rights and consequently Moran deprived Rachel and Lauren of their right to liberty by taking them to the late-night meeting; and (2) That Waters violated the girlsí due process rights when he acted as both the investigator and the person imposing punishment on the girls and when he failed to offer them an opportunity to defend against the allegations.

The district court dismissed the lawsuit, finding in favor of the defendants. The parents appealed and the United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courtís ruling.

In deciding the failure to train issue, the court focused on the school districtís training policy and facts surrounding Moranís school orientation and in-service training. It did not consider whether Moran acted consistent with that training.

The court found that, because Moran had attended orientation training where dealing with student discipline issues was discussed and because the school held three training sessions a year for faculty who are involved in athletics, the school was not liable for failing to train Moran. Even though there was evidence presented that Moran missed some of the training, the court noted that the school compensated for that by providing her with written materials applicable to the subject for her review.

In addressing the due process issue, the court found that the girls had received adequate notice to appeal the discipline issued by Waters. Waters provided the students and their parents an opportunity to discuss the evidence and the school district had an appeals process that the families chose not to follow. Furthermore, the court said it was not inappropriate for Waters to both investigate and issue the punishment in this matter; to do otherwise would place an unreasonable burden on school systems. The court said there was no evidence in this case that Waters held any animus toward the girls and that the suspensions were clearly based on a published school policy of long standing.

While the court dismissed the due process complaint as frivolous, it did seriously consider whether the school district had provided adequate training for its employees with respect to the investigation of student misconduct. Other school districts would be well advised to do as the district did in this matter: It had sound policy in place; acted according to the policy; and adequately documented its actions with respect to the type and frequency of the training it provided. The court seemed to especially like that the district periodically updated its training.



Citation 1:
Citation 2:
Citation 3:
Keywords:
Other Information: