STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
STUDENT N. Doe,
By his parents,
Petitioners
v.
BRISTOL-WARREN REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent
RIDE No. 21-044J
DECISION AND ORDER
Held: Petitioners’ appeal of school committee’s decision to suspend student for the remainder of the 2021-2022 school year was denied by the Commissioner because: (1) sufficient evidence was introduced demonstrating that the student was both a “disruptive student” and represented a “demonstrable threat”; and (2) the suspension was proportionate and reasonable.
Date: July 7, 2022
I. INTRODUCTION
On or about December 20, 2021, Petitioners, Mr. and Ms. Doe, on behalf of their minor son, Student N. Doe (“Doe”), filed a petition with the Commissioner of the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (the “Commissioner”) appealing a decision by the Bristol Warren Regional School District (“BWSD”) to suspend their son for the remainder of the 2021-2022 school year. The School Committee’s decision provided for the transfer of Doe to an alternative education program pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-21-27. Petitioners seek an order from the Commissioner finding that the disciplinary action imposed was excessive and request that the suspension be reduced to an appropriate amount of time.
II. JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Commissioner has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-39-2, and as the Commissioner has noted on many occasions, the applicable standard of review is de novo. See Alba v. Cranston School Committee, 90 A.3d 174, 185-85 (R.I. 2014) (citing Slattery v. School Committee of Cranston, 116 R.I. 252, 262 (1976)).
III. MATERIAL FACTS
The material facts are not in dispute, and the following recitation was deduced from the testimony and documentary evidence submitted at separate hearings before Hearing Officer Julie Sacks on March 9, 2022 and March 16, 2022, as well as before the undersigned Hearing Officer on May 4, 2022.[1]
1. At all relevant times, Doe was a Junior at Mount Hope High School (the “High School”) in the BWSD.
2. Since entering the High School in September 2019 as a freshman, Doe’s Student Conduct Incident List sets forth 24 disciplinary infractions, including cutting class, disrespect, bullying, and disorderly conduct.
3. Prior to attending the High School, Doe was also found to have engaged in numerous other disciplinary incidents, including fighting, assault of a student, and being obscene with another student.[2]
4. On October 28, 2021, there were two separate physical altercations in which Doe was involved, both of which are at issue in this matter.
5. The first incident occurred at approximately 8:57 a.m. in the High School cafeteria and involved five students: Student A, Doe, Student C, Student D, and Student E (“Cafeteria Incident”).
6. The full Cafeteria Incident was captured on video by a surveillance camera as well as by student bystanders, which corroborated written statements taken from the involved students and the hearing testimony.
7. The Cafeteria Incident began during passing time between class periods. Doe entered the cafeteria wearing a white hooded sweatshirt while, according to Student A’s testimony, Student A was in the bathroom blowing his nose.
8. Both Student A and Doe deny having any prior relationship with each other.
9. While Student A was in the bathroom, he testified that Doe began calling him names.
10. Student A exited the bathroom and approached Doe, at which time the two students became engaged in a verbal exchange.[3] Other students began to crowd around Student A and Doe, including Student C, Student D, and Student E.
11. During this verbal exchange, Doe dropped his backpack to the floor. Student C, who was standing directly behind Student A, then pushed Student A from behind and into Doe.
12. Doe began punching Student A, at which time Student C, Student D, and Student E joined the fight.
13. As the group of students moved through the cafeteria, Doe stepped away and removed himself from the fight.
14. At one point in the altercation, Student A pushed Student E off himself and onto one of the cafeteria tables. At this time, Doe re-engaged and pushed Student A to the floor in defense of Student E.
15. While Student A was on the ground, Doe, Student C, and Student E continued to punch and kick him.
16. Doe then again stepped away from the fight while Student C and Student E continued kicking and punching Student A.
17. During this altercation, the kitchen manager reported that she was sitting in her office when she heard shoes squeaking on the cafeteria floor. As she walked into the cafeteria, she witnessed two or three students punching another student on the floor. She reportedly yelled “hey” a few times, which caused all the students to scatter and exit the cafeteria.
18. Following the Cafeteria Incident, Student A was allowed to walk through the hallways with a school security technician to “help him calm down.”
19. It was during this period, at approximately 9:10 a.m., when the second incident occurred in the hallway of the school building that involved three students: Student A, Student D, and Doe (“Hallway Incident”).
20. The full Hallway Incident was captured on video by a student bystander, which corroborated written statements taken from the involved persons and the hearing testimony.[4]
21. Doe testified that all three involved students were walking separately through the hallway just prior to the Hallway Incident. Doe testified to walking past Student D at the same time that Student A was also walking down the hallway with the security technician.
22. When Student A saw Student D and Doe, he approached them while yelling. Both Doe and Student D stopped and turned around when they heard Student A.
23. A verbal altercation then ensued between Student A and Student D, during which time Doe remained standing to the side of Student A and Student D.[5] Doe did not engage in the verbal altercation but testified to remaining present in an attempt to calm Student D and deescalate the situation.
24. During the verbal altercation, the security technician made several attempts to calm Student D and told him to walk away, while simultaneously calling for assistance over her walkie talkie. The Assistant Principal responded to the security technician’s call over the radio.
25. As the Assistant Principal approached the scene, he repeatedly yelled at the students to stop and back away.
26. Student D then shoved Student A, who in turn swung his sweatshirt in the general direction of Student D. Doe testified that he saw the sweatshirt swing and believed that Student A was throwing the sweatshirt at him, given the prior Cafeteria Incident.
27. Doe reacted by punching Student A.
28. Doe and Student A became entangled and moved through the hallway, all while the Assistant Principal attempted to intervene and separate the students.
29. During the altercation, the Assistant Principal was knocked down to the floor along with Student A. The Assistant Principal also testified to being struck in the head and face during the incident, which broke his glasses and caused him to suffer scrapes and abrasions.
30. Once Student A was on the ground, Doe stepped away from the fight.
31. Subsequently, the other Assistant Principal, Principal, and College Career Coordinator arrived at the scene and caused the students to become disengaged.
32. Student D and Doe were escorted to one Assistant Principal’s office while Student A was escorted to the other Assistant Principal’s office.
33. Student A was taken home from school by his father and diagnosed later that same day with a severe concussion as a result of the fights.
34. BWSD administrators contacted the parents of the other four involved students (Student C, Student D, Student E, and Doe) and informed them of the Cafeteria Incident and Hallway Incident. BWSD administrators told the parents to keep their students home the following day, October 29, 2021, pending an investigation.
35. Student A’s parents were not asked to keep him home on October 29, 2021, but he did actually remain home on this date due to his injuries.
36. As Doe has an individualized education program (“IEP”), a manifestation determination hearing was conducted on November 1, 2021 in accordance with Doe’s rights under the Individuals with Disability Education Act (“IDEA”). At the hearing, it was determined that Doe’s behavior was not due to his disability.[6]
37. Following the manifestation determination hearing, and on the basis of the investigation conducted into both incidents, on November 1, 2021, the Principal decided to suspend all four students, including Doe, for a minimum of ten days with a recommendation to the Superintendent that the suspension be for the remainder of the 2021-2022 school year.
38. The Principal testified that BWSD administrators “handled [the investigation] the same way that we handle all other altercations” and that the disciplinary action recommended was “typical” for “an incident with this severity.” The Principal further testified that the recommendation to suspend all four students for the remainder of the school year was “due to the egregiousness of the action taken against this particular student, the concern was out of safety for other students in the building as well.”
39. On November 3, 2021, a hearing was held in the office of the BWSD Interim Superintendent that included Doe, his parents, and the Interim Superintendent. Following the hearing, and after considering the information and videos received from the High School, the Interim Superintendent recommended that Doe be suspended for the remainder of the 2021-2022 school year and be prevented from participating in or attending any sports or extracurricular activities for the remainder of the school year.
40. The current BWSD Superintendent testified at the hearing that, in her professional opinion, Doe’s suspension for the remainder of the school year was fair, reasonable, and necessary for maintaining an appropriate school environment.
41. On November 10, 2021, the Bristol Warren Regional School Committee (the “School Committee”) held a Disciplinary Hearing on the Superintendent’s recommendation that Doe be suspended from the High School for the remainder of the school year.
42. During this hearing, the BWSD Interim Superintendent opined to the School Committee that he believed this was “a serious, very serious incident.”
43. Following the Disciplinary Hearing, in a letter dated November 12, 2021, the School Committee voted to suspend Doe “for the remainder of the 2021-2022 school year and to prevent him from participating or attending any sports or extracurricular activities for the remainder of the school year.” The School Committee based its decision on ”the severity of the fight."
44. All four of the students (Doe, Student C, Student D, and Student E) received the same disciplinary action as a result of their involvement in the Cafeteria Incident and/or Hallway Incident.
IV. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
1. Petitioners
Petitioners do not dispute Doe’s involvement in the altercations but instead claim that the disciplinary action imposed was excessive and unwarranted.[7] Specifically, Petitioners aver that Doe does not pose a threat to the school community, emphasizing that he was approached by Student A, a student Doe did not know, in a threatening and aggressive manner. As a result of Student A’s actions, Doe “became involved in an altercation that he did not want to be a part of.”
Under such circumstances, Petitioners claim that Doe’s right to a safe school was violated due to the BWSD’s failure to protect Doe as well as to consider and take the threats against Doe seriously.
Petitioners also implicitly assert due process claims by alleging that the BWSD administrators “rushed to judgment after hearing initial reports that were unsubstantiated” and mishandled these incidents from the beginning because “[t]here was an assumption made based on a bias that [the BWSD administration] has against [Doe].” Since arriving at the High School, Petitioners allege that Doe has “been profiled, targeted, and discriminated against.” Based on this bias, Petitioners argue that the BWSD “excessively punished” Doe and “did not do a fact-based, fair investigation prior to making the decision to suspend him excessively.”
2. BWSD
Respondent argues that the decision to suspend Doe for the remainder of the school year was warranted and reasonable given both Doe’s prior disciplinary record and Doe’s actual involvement in the Cafeteria Incident and Hallway Incident. The video evidence “unquestionably show[s] his involvement” in the altercations and, regardless of Doe’s intent, his actions had severe consequences because a student and school administrator were injured during the fights. Moreover, Doe’s disciplinary record establishes a “clear, consistent pattern of showing an abject level of disrespect to students, teachers, [and] staff,” including bullying.
These combined circumstances formed the basis for the School Committee’s decision to suspend Doe for the remainder of the year as well as to prevent him from attending school sponsored social events. Respondent also points out that school administrators have wide latitude and discretion in making disciplinary determinations and that the disciplinary action taken here was necessary for the BWSD to fulfill its legal duty and obligation to maintain a safe school environment.
Respondent further contends that Doe has been properly afforded all due process rights. Doe was afforded an opportunity for, and did actually attend, a hearing before the School Committee in accordance with his procedural due process rights. Respondent also claims that there was no substantive due process violation because school administrators are “afforded the right to take swift action based on the reasonable facts before them” and there was a clear relationship between the discipline imposed and the offense.
V. DECISION
1. Doe’s due process rights were not violated because he had the opportunity to present his side of the events at issue and there is a rational relationship between the misconduct and the disciplinary action imposed.
The Commissioner has previously found that, when “a full investigation has taken place and the student directly, and through [his] parents, had an opportunity to present [his] side of the events now at issue,” a due process claim will not stand. See Student M.G. Doe v. Coventry School Committee, RIDE No. 0003-08 (Jan. 15, 2008). Moreover, there is no due process violation when there is a “rational basis” for the school committee’s decision to impose a disciplinary action. See In re: Eric Doe II, RIDE No. 011-98 (May 18, 1998).
Here, Petitioners have failed to set forth any evidence suggesting that the investigation into these incidents was biased or otherwise unfair. Rather, the evidence introduced demonstrates that the investigation was handled in the ordinary manner, with the High School Principal testifying that school administrators “handled [the investigation] the same way that we handle all other altercations” and that the disciplinary action recommended was “typical” for “an incident with this severity.” Indeed, the investigation included the consideration of video evidence and witness statements and was therefore not “unsubstantiated” or otherwise “mishandled” as Petitioners contend. Moreover, despite Petitioners’ claims, Doe’s case manager testified that he did not “feel that [Doe] has been targeted” since arriving at the High School and that he was not made aware of any pre-determined outcomes relative to the disciplinary action imposed for the subject altercations. There is also no dispute that Petitioners and Doe had the opportunity to present their case in a meeting before the BWSD Interim Superintendent and then, subsequently, at a hearing before the School Committee.
Even assuming, arguendo, that the procedures afforded to Doe were constitutionally defective at the school district level, "his post-deprivation hearing de novo before the Commissioner remedies any procedural inadequacy." See Student E. Doe v. North Kingstown School Dept., RIDE No. 19-93K (Dec. 10, 2021) (citing L.A. Ray Realty v. Town Council of Town of Cumberland, 698 A.2d 202 (R.I. 1997); Slattery v. School Committee of Cranston, 354 A.2d 741, 747 (R.I. 1976)). Thus, Petitioners’ due process claims are without merit.
2. Doe’s suspension for the remainder of the 2021-2022 school year was warranted under Rhode Island law because Doe was a “disruptive student” and represented a “demonstrable threat.”
Recently, the Rhode Island General Assembly amended R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-2-17.1 to limit the reasons for which districts may properly impose out of school suspensions. In full, this statute provides:
Suspensions issued shall not be served out of school unless the student’s conduct meets the standards set forth in § 16-2-17(a) or the student represents a demonstrable threat to students, teachers, or administrators.
In turn, R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-2-17(a) provides, in pertinent part: “Each student, staff member, teacher, and administrator has a right to attend and/or work at a school. . . which is free from the threat, actual or implied, of physical harm by a disruptive student.” The Commissioner recently found that, in reading these two statutes together, a school district may properly impose an out of school suspension after finding that the student: (1) is a “disruptive student” as defined in R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-2-17(a); or (2) represents a “demonstrable threat” as provided for in R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-2-17.1. See Student E. Doe, RIDE No. 19-93K.
For the reasons detailed infra, Doe’s conduct meets the standards set forth in both statutes such that the School Committee’s decision to suspend Doe for the remainder of the 2021-2022 school year was warranted and proper.
a. Doe’s misconduct met the standards for a “disruptive student” under R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-2-17(a).
Rhode Island statutes and regulations have long established that each school district has a duty to provide students with a school “which is safe and secure and which is conducive to learning, and which is free from the threat, actual or implied, of physical harm by a disruptive student.” R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-2-17(a); see also 200-RICR-20-10-1.3.2(D)(2). The Rhode Island Supreme Court has also emphasized that this duty exists under common law negligence principles such that school districts are obligated to protect all students and staff from foreseeable harm. See Dextraze v. Bernard, 253 A.3d 411, 417 (R.I. 2021); Daniels v. Fluette, 64 A.3d 302, 307 (R.I. 2013).
Included in this duty is an obligation to respond appropriately to “disruptive students” who threaten and/or carry out instances of physical harm, with R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-2-17(b) expressly enabling school committees to suspend “all pupils found guilty of this conduct. . . or where a student represents a threat to those rights of students, teachers, or administrators, as described in subsection (a).” Notably, Rhode Island law affords school districts broad discretion to protect every student’s enumerated rights, and the Basic Education Program Regulations (the “BEP”) provides that “[e]ach LEA shall:. . . [p]revent and respond appropriately to incidents of bullying, hazing, teen dating violence, sexual violence, and related issues.” 200-RICR-20-10-1.3.2(E)(1).
A “disruptive student” is defined by the statute as:
[A] person who is subject to compulsory school attendance, who exhibits persistent conduct which substantially impedes the ability of other students to learn, or otherwise substantially interferes with the rights stated above, and who has failed to respond to corrective and rehabilitative measures presented by staff, teachers, or administrators.
R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-2-17(a).
Here, the evidence demonstrates that Doe fits the definition of a “disruptive student” under R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-2-17(a). Doe’s Student Conduct Incident List evidences a “persistent pattern of violent, threatening, intimidating, and abusive misconduct” despite corrective measures imposed by the BWSD. See Student E. Doe, RIDE No. 19-93K. Further, Doe’s actual involvement in two separate physical altercations occurring within twenty minutes of each other and involving the same group of students further demonstrates Doe’s “persistent conduct” in substantially impeding the ability of other students to learn and attend a safe school, especially given that Doe’s actions during the Cafeteria Incident and Hallway Incident resulted in physical harm to both Student A and the High School Assistant Principal.
Having determined that Doe’s conduct qualified him as a “disruptive student,” the School Committee was enabled under R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-2-17 to suspend Doe for the remainder of the 2021-2022 school year in order to effectively carry out its legal duty to provide all students and faculty with a school that is safe from “physical harm by a disruptive student.” R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-2-17(a)-(b). Indeed, the High School Principal testified that the decision to suspend Doe, as well as the other involved students, for the remainder of the school year was due to a concern for the safety of all students at the school. This same concern was shared by the current BWSD Superintendent, who testified at the hearing that Doe’s suspension was necessary for maintaining a safe school environment. In light of this testimony, and absent any evidence to the contrary, the School Committee’s decision to suspend Doe for the remainder of the school year was warranted under R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-2-17(a).
a. Doe represented a “demonstrable threat” under R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-2-17.1.
While R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-2-17.1 does not define “demonstrable threat,” the Commissioner has noted:
[T]he word ‘threat’ is defined as: “[a] communicated intent to inflict harm or loss on another or on another’s property, esp. one that might diminish a person’s freedom to act voluntarily or with lawful consent; a declaration, express or implied, of an intent to inflict loss or pain on another.”
See Student E. Doe, RIDE No. 19-93K (citing Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019)).
Here, Doe’s uncontested involvement in two separate physical altercations involving the same students and occurring in close temporal proximity evidences that Doe was a “demonstrable threat” under R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-2-17.1. Regardless of Doe’s subjective intent when getting involved in either altercation, there is no dispute that his actions did, in fact, cause harm to another student and school administrator. Thus, in order to prevent further acts of physical violence and subsequent harm, as well as to ensure a safe school environment, the School Committee had the discretionary authority to suspend Doe for the remainder of the 2021-2022 school year under R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-2-17.1.
3. Doe’s suspension for the remainder of the 2021-2022 school year was both proportionate and reasonable.
Similar to the disciplinary action imposed in Student E. Doe, the School Committee’s decision here to suspend Doe for the remainder of the 2021-2022 school year was proportionate to his misconduct, as “[t]he suspension was designed to provide Doe with an alternative educational placement to ensure Doe’s continued education, while ensuring the safety of all students at [BWSD] (including Doe’s)[.]” See Student E. Doe, RIDE No. 19-93K (citing 200-RICR-20-10-1.3.2(F)(2)(f) (“Schools shall provide a continuum of interim alternative educational placement options to continue a student’s education while suspended that ensure the safety of the student and the school community.”)).
Petitioners claim that Doe’s suspension was disproportionate and unreasonable because he was purportedly targeted by teachers and administrators at the High School prior to and during the investigation. However, as discussed supra, this claim lacks merit. The evidence does not demonstrate any procedural or substantive unfairness, as there was no evidence suggesting that the punishment imposed was anything but even-handed. Indeed, all the involved students received the same punishment as a result of the investigation, which properly consisted of taking written statements from the involved students, witnesses, and involved school personnel as well as reviewing all video evidence taken of the Cafeteria Incident and Hallway Incident. As the Commissioner has stated before:
It is almost always the case that identical discipline will have very different consequences depending on the individual student, but it is only the very rare case when such difference justifies relief from the discipline. No compelling rationale or relevant evidence has been introduced to suggest that this is that very rare case.
Student H. Doe v. East Providence School Department, RIDE No. 18-010A (Feb. 22, 2018).
Additionally, as discussed in Student H. Doe, the High School Principal’s “quick response” in addressing Doe’s conduct was “both legally mandated, as well as appropriate” and the Principal “acted in an even-handed manner when, after making an initial investigation,” she:
“(a) promptly made the legally-mandated notifications of the alleged incident to the appropriate persons and the involved parents”; (2) “gave [Doe] and others the opportunity to respond to the claims and imposed a penalty that was appropriate” for acts of physical violence; and (3) “showed neither bias nor favoritism and imposed the same penalty upon each and every” student involved in the altercations. See id.
Therefore, Doe’s suspension was proportionate to his misconduct and reasonable.
VI. ORDER
For all of the above reasons, Petitioners’ Appeal is hereby denied and dismissed.
Footnotes
[1] Following Hearing Officer Sack’s departure from RIDE, the Commissioner appointed the undersigned Hearing Officer to preside over this matter and render a decision.
[2] Doe’s Student Conduct Incident List was admitted in full from April 7, 2017 to the present over the objection of Petitioners, who disputed the relevance of any incident that occurred prior to Doe’s attendance at the High School.
[3] Doe denied saying anything to Student A while Student A was in the bathroom but instead testified that Student A first approached him in an aggressive and threatening manner while directing “disrespectful” and “foul” language towards Doe.
[4] In his written statement and hearing testimony, Student A denied having any memory of the Hallway Incident. Doe did not include the Hallway Incident in his written statement but did testify regarding the Hallway Incident during the hearing.
[5] In his written statement, Student D stated that he began yelling at Student A in defense of Doe following the Cafeteria Incident.
[6] The parties stipulated that the manifestation determination is not in dispute and that this Hearing Officer lacks jurisdiction under the IDEA to consider the appropriateness of the manifestation determination.
[7] Petitioners request that the suspension term be reduced but also contradictorily claim that they do not want Doe to return to the High School. Implicit in this argument is a request that this Hearing Officer reduce Doe’s suspension so that Doe may partake in extracurricular school functions.
KAELYN R. PHELPS, ESQ.,
as Hearing Officer for the Commissioner
ANGÉLICA INFANTE-GREEN,
Commissioner
Date: July 7, 2022