GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge.
Currently pending before the Court, in this civil rights action filed by Debra Spero as the natural mother of the infant V.S.
Generally, liberally construed, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants violated V.S.'s rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by (1) retaliating against him for exercising his First Amendment right to freedom of speech, and (2) imposing an excessive punishment for his constitutionally protected speech in violation of his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. (See generally Dkt. No. 26 [Plf.'s Am. Compl.].)
Unless otherwise noted, the following facts were asserted and supported with
1. Defendant Vestal Central School District ("the District") is a public school district organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, and a recipient of federal aid.
2. V.S. was, at the time of the incidents relevant to Plaintiff's claims, a senior student of the District.
3. Defendant Jeffrey Ahearn is the Superintendent of Schools of the Vestal Central School District.
4. Defendant Albert Penna was, at the time of the incidents relevant to Plaintiff's claims, the building principal of Vestal High School.
5. In or about November of 2016, V.S. was a student in a mathematics class taught by Katharine Dyer.
6. On November 22, 2016, an incident occurred in Ms. Dyer's mathematics class in which V.S. called Ms. Dyer a "fucking racist," and was thereafter sent to the principal's office by Ms. Dyer.
7. V.S. was placed on senior probation as a disciplinary penalty for the November 22 incident in Ms. Dyer's mathematics class.
8. More specifically, on or about December 2, 2016, V.S. was suspended from school for five (5) days based on allegations that he engaged in behavior designed to intimidate Ms. Dyer: reciting her address and her husband's first and middle names aloud in her classroom without preamble or reason to voice that information.
9. Between December 2 and 5, 2016, V.S. made several posts to the social media site Twitter ("Tweets") alleging that his suspension was the subject of racism.
10. Other students at Vestal High School received and viewed V.S.'s "Tweets," and V.S. was aware that other students in the school were receiving and viewing his "Tweets."
11. On December 7, 2016, two days after V.S.'s last "Tweet" alleging racism in Vestal High School, V.S. posted a video to the social media site Snapchat showing a woman handling a firearm.
12. V.S.'s Snapchat post was captioned "Guidette with a strap."
13. V.S.'s Snapchat post was viewed by other students of Vestal High School, and V.S. was aware that those other students would receive and view his Snapchat post.
14. On December 8, 2016, two students brought V.S.'s social media posts to the attention of the administration.
15. District employees received at least three phone calls regarding V.S.'s Snapchat post, including a call from a State Police Captain whose daughter attends Vestal High School.
16. On December 8, 2016, the school resource officer for Vestal High School visited V.S.'s home to investigate the gun.
17. On December 8, 2016, high school administers left a meeting to respond to concerns about the atmosphere created in
18. The District canceled a state-mandated lockdown drill that had been scheduled to occur on December 9, 2016, due to the concerns about the atmosphere created in Vestal High School by V.S.'s Snapchat and Twitter posts.
19. On December 8, 2016, V.S. was suspended from school for five (5) additional days and informed that the reason for the additional suspension was for engaging in disruptive, insubordinate conduct; specifically, V.S.'s social media posts that caused the disruption at Vestal High School.
20. V.S. and his family were provided notice of a hearing pursuant to New York Education Law § 3214, to commence on December 20, 2016, to determine whether a suspension longer than five days should be imposed upon V.S. for engaging in disruptive, insubordinate conduct due to the disruption in Vestal High School caused by his social media posts.
21. V.S.'s suspension hearing was held over the course of four days on December 20, 2016, and January 25, 30, and 31, 2017, before Hearing Officer Michael A. Sherwood.
22. During the pendency of the hearing, V.S. returned to school, and remained in school from January 5, 2017, to February 7, 2017; during this time, V.S. demonstrated a marked improvement in his academic performance.
23. Following a hearing, hearing officer Sherwood found V.S. guilty of violating the Vestal Central School's student code of conduct, and issued a recommendation (also issued by counsel for the school district) that V.S. be suspended from school for the remainder of the 2016-17 school year and the entire 2017-18 school year, as a penalty for his conduct.
24. Superintendent of Schools Jeffrey Ahearn accepted Hearing Officer Sherwood's findings that V.S. violated the Vestal Central Schools Code of Conduct, and imposed a penalty of suspension from school for the remainder of the 2016-2017 school year and the entire 2017-2018 school year.
25. On March 13, 2017, V.S. appealed his suspension to the Vestal Central School District Board of Education, which voted to affirm the suspension.
26. V.S. filed an appeal to the New York State Commissioner of Education pursuant to New York Education Law § 310 seeking expungement of his suspension and a stay to immediately reinstate V.S. in school.
27. On April 21, 2017, V.S.'s request to the Commissioner of Education to stay implementation of the penalty was denied.
28. On August 29, 2017, V.S.'s appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner of Education without examination of the merits of his claims, and with leave to re-file based upon the outcome of the within proceedings.
29. Hearing Officer Sherwood's disciplinary recommendations regarding other Vetsal High School students concerned conduct including the following: writing out the chemical formula for a bomb, engaging in racially discriminating conduct, and retaliating against a student for reporting
30. Superintendent Ahearn has accepted Hearing Officer Sherwood's disciplinary recommendations regarding other Vestal High School students for out-of-school suspensions of the following durations: eight months, an academic year, twelve months, and sixteen months.
Familiarity with the remaining undisputed material facts of this action, as well as the disputed material facts, as set forth in the parties' Rule 7.1 Statements and Rule 7.1 Responses, is assumed in this Decision and Order, which (again) is intended primarily for review by the parties. (Id.)
Generally, in support of their motion for summary judgment, Defendants argue as follows: (1) Defendants reasonably foresaw a substantial disruption in the educational environment at Vestal High School due to V.S.'s alleged protected speech; (2) Plaintiff's substantive due process claim is encompassed in her First Amendment claim and thus is meritless; (3) Defendants Ahearn and Penna are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct was objectively reasonable under the clearly established law as it existed at the time of the suspension; and (4) the official-capacity claims against Defendants Ahearn and Penna are redundant because Plaintiff named the District and the Board of Education as Defendants. (See generally Dkt. No. 101-45 [Defs. Memo. of Law].)
Generally, in Plaintiff's response to Defendants' motion for summary judgment, she argues as follows: (1) it was not reasonably foreseeable that V.S.'s speech would create a substantial disruption, (2) V.S.'s substantive due process rights were violated because there was no rational relationship between V.S.'s speech and his suspension, (3) Defendants Ahearn and Penna are not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law, and (4) V.S. is entitled to a permanent injunction requiring the District to expunge all mention of V.S.'s suspension from his permanent record. (See generally Dkt. No. 104-65 [Plf.'s Opp'n Memo. of Law].)
Generally, in their reply, Defendants argue as follows: (1) at the very least, Plaintiff's cross-motion must be denied because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to V.S.'s mental state when making the allegedly defamatory statements; (2) Defendants have shown that Plaintiff's Tweets and Snapchat video were reasonably predicted to cause a substantial disruption; (3) the danger of substantial disruption from V.S.'s social media posts, not the posts themselves, were the "but-for" cause of V.S.'s suspension; (4) Plaintiff's argument that the length of suspension violated the First Amendment is meritless because courts cannot supersede the District's judgment once a substantial disruption can be reasonably foreseen from student speech; (5) Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's substantive due process claim because the length of the suspension was rationally related V.S.'s conduct; and (6) Defendants Ahearn and Penna are entitled to qualified immunity
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, summary judgment is warranted if "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A dispute of fact is "genuine" if "the [record] evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the [non-movant]." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).
In determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, the Court must resolve all ambiguities and draw all reasonable inferences against the movant. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505. In addition, "[the movant] bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the . . . [record] which it believes demonstrate[s] the absence of any genuine issue of material fact." Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). However, when the movant has met its initial burden, the non-movant must come forward with specific facts showing a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a), (c), (e).
Implied in the above-stated burden-shifting standard is the fact that, where a non-movant willfully fails to respond to a motion for summary judgment, a district court has no duty to perform an independent review of the record to find proof of a factual dispute-even if that non-movant is proceeding pro se.
Of course, when a non-movant willfully fails to respond to a motion for summary judgment, "[t]he fact that there has been no [such] response . . . does not . . . [by itself] mean that the motion is to be granted automatically." Champion v. Artuz, 76 F.3d 483, 486 (2d Cir. 1996). Rather, as indicated above, the Court must assure itself that, based on the undisputed
For these reasons, this Court has often enforced Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) by deeming facts set forth in a movant's statement of material facts to be admitted, where (1) those facts are supported by evidence in the record, and (2) the non-movant has willfully failed to properly respond to that statement.
Similarly, in this District, where a non-movant has willfully failed to respond to a movant's properly filed and facially meritorious memorandum of law, the non-movant is deemed to have "consented" to the legal arguments contained in that memorandum of law under Local Rule 7.1(b)(3).
After carefully considering the matter, the Court answers this question in the affirmative for the reasons set forth in Defendants' memoranda of law. (Dkt. No. 101-45, at 13-23; Dkt. No. 107-7, at 8-16.) To those reasons, the Court adds only the following two points.
First, the Court finds that there is no genuine dispute of material fact that there was a reasonably foreseeable risk that V.S.'s social media posts would come to the attention of school officials. V.S. made several posts over multiple days on Twitter and Snapchat, where many of his Vestal High School classmates follow him and thus have the ability to view his posts. See Bradford v. Norwich City Sch. Dist., 54 F.Supp.3d 177, 185-86 (N.D.N.Y. 2014) (Suddaby, J.) (holding that there was a foreseeable risk that the speech would come to
Second, the Court finds that there was a reasonably foreseeable risk that V.S.'s social media posts would substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school. Although Plaintiff argues that it was not reasonably foreseeable that V.S.'s speech would create a substantial disruption (Dkt. No. 104-65, at 13-26), Plaintiff's argument ignores the Tinker standard for resolving conflicts between student speech and discipline. Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 89 S.Ct. 733, 21 L.Ed.2d 731 (1969). Under Tinker, otherwise protected speech can support the imposition of student discipline when there are facts that "might reasonably have led school authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities." 393 U.S. at 514, 89 S.Ct. 733. Under this standard, "the question is `whether school officials might reasonably portend disruption from the student expression at issue.'" Cuff v. Valley Cent. Sch. Dist., 677 F.3d 109, 113 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting Doninger v. Niehoff, 527 F.3d 41, 51 [2d Cir. 2008]). A threat of violence, even if remote, satisfies the Tinker substantial-disruption test. Wisniewski v. Bd. of Educ. of Weedsport Cent. Sch. Dist., 494 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 2007). Accordingly, Defendants need not demonstrate that substantial disruption was inevitable. Cuff, 677 F.3d at 113.
Here, based on the current record, no reasonable fact finder could conclude that the school officials unreasonably anticipated a substantial disruption. V.S.'s Snapchat post depicted an unknown woman handling a gun after V.S. had recently been disciplined and posted several Tweets criticizing the school. Defendants have a duty to provide a safe and stable learning environment that is free of distraction and fear. Cohn v. New Paltz Cent. Sch. Dist., 363 F.Supp.2d 421, 434 (N.D.N.Y. 2005) (Kahn, J.). Moreover, several students approached multiple school officials expressing concern for their safety after seeing V.S.'s Snapchat video and Tweets,
For these reasons, Plaintiff's First Amendment claim is dismissed.
After carefully considering the matter, the Court answers this question in the negative for the reasons stated below.
"The touchstone of due process is protection of the individual against arbitrary
A party must demonstrate two things to successfully claim a deprivation of a property interest in violation of the Substantive Due Process Clause: (1) government action, and (2) that the government action was "so egregious, so outrageous, that it may fairly be said to shock the contemporary conscience." Cty. of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 847 n.8, 118 S.Ct. 1708, 140 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1998). Specifically, a plaintiff must show that the challenged government decision "was arbitrary or irrational or motivated by bad faith." Rosa R. v. Connelly, 889 F.2d 435, 439 (2d Cir. 1989); see also Lowrance v. Achtyl, 20 F.3d 529, 537 (2d Cir. 1994) (explaining that substantive due process protects against government action that is arbitrary, conscience shocking, or oppressive in a constitutional sense, but not against government action that is `incorrect or ill-advised.'). "[W]hether executive action shocks the conscience depends on the state of mind of the government actor and the context in which the action was taken." O'Connor v. Pierson, 426 F.3d 187, 203 (2d Cir. 2005); Horton v. Westling, 765 F. App'x 531, 533-34 (2d Cir. 2019). "Only the most egregious official conduct can be said to be arbitrary in the constitutional sense." D.F. ex rel. Finkle v. Bd. of Educ. of Syosset Cent. Sch. Dist., 386 F.Supp.2d 119, 127 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (quoting Lewis, 523 U.S. at 840, 118 S.Ct. 1708).
"Courts do not and cannot intervene in the resolution of conflicts which arise in the daily operation of school systems and which do not directly and sharply
Horton v. Bd. of Educ. of Sherburne-Earlville Cent. Sch. Dist., 17-CV-0045, 2017 WL 1437186, at *5-6 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2017) (D'Agostino, J.) (quoting Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308, 326, 95 S.Ct. 992, 43 L.Ed.2d 214 [1975]). However, a school board's interpretation of its rules can be so extreme as to violate a student's due process rights. McCluskey, 458 U.S. at 970, 102 S.Ct. 3469.
The Court begins its analysis by finding that Defendants did not violate V.S.'s substantive due process rights when an additional suspension was imposed after V.S. had served two prior five-day suspensions in December 2016. As previously discussed in Part III.A. of this Decision and Order, school officials have significant authority to sanction student speech. Wisniewski, 494 F.3d at 38; DeFabio, 623 F.3d at 82. Moreover, courts have repeatedly found that suspensions from school are appropriate sanctions. DeFabio, 658 F. Supp. 2d at 486; Rosa R., 889 F.2d at 439; McCluskey, 458 U.S. at 970, 102 S.Ct. 3469; Butler v. Rio Rancho Pub. Schs. Bd. of Educ., 341 F.3d 1197, 1200-01 (10th Cir. 2003).
Here, Defendants decided to issue a suspension after conducting a fact-finding hearing in which V.S. had the opportunity to confront the witnesses against him. At the hearing, counsel for the District recommended an additional suspension because V.S. "refused to accept consequences," "up[ped] the ante by going out into social media and . . . harassing and defaming the teacher and the school district with intent to harm . . ." in addition to having an extensive disciplinary history and "pattern of insubordination and retaliation." (Dkt. No. 104-6, at 191.) V.S. served several in-school suspensions, as well as two out-of-school suspensions, prior to the suspension at issue. Therefore, it was rational for the school district to issue an additional out-of-school suspension, particularly in light of the fact that V.S.'s conduct was seemingly escalating in December 2016.
Turning to the subject of the length of V.S.'s suspension, Defendants argue that an eighteen-month out-of-school suspension cannot be considered "egregious" for the purpose of a substantive due process claim because even excessive corporal punishment does not violate a student's substantive due process rights.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized the significance of public education, calling it "`perhaps the most important function of state and local governments.'" Goss, 419 U.S. at 576, 95 S.Ct. 729 (quoting Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 483, 493, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 S.Ct. 873 [1954]). "Public education has also been described as `a most vital civic institution for the preservation of a democratic system of government.'" Swindle, 655 F.3d at 398 (quoting Sch. Dist. of Abington Twp. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 230, 83 S.Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d 844 [1963] [Brennan, J., concurring]). The Supreme Court has consistently recognized how important education is to the professional and personal development of an individual, and that global competition has increased the importance of primary and secondary education. Swindle, 655 F.3d at 398; City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc., 507 U.S. 410, 437, 113 S.Ct. 1505, 123 L.Ed.2d 99 (1993) (Blackmun, J., concurring) (citing Brown, 347 U.S. at 493, 74 S.Ct. 686); United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 621, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995) (Breyer, J., dissenting, joined by Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ.).
"Disciplinarians, although proceeding in utmost good faith, frequently act on the reports and advice of others; and the controlling facts and the nature of the conduct under challenge are often disputed. The risk of error is not at all trivial. . . ." Swindle, 655 F.3d at 397 (quoting Goss, 419 U.S. at 580, 95 S.Ct. 729). "On the other hand, `[t]he difficulty is that our schools are vast and complex. Some modicum of discipline and order is essential if the educational function is to be performed.'" Id. (quoting Goss, 419 U.S. at 580, 95 S.Ct. 729). However, a suspension "that so isolates a student from educational opportunities that it infringes her property interest in an education, or one so long in duration that it damages one's reputation, could raise [substantive due process] issues. . . ." Laney v. Farley, 501 F.3d 577, 584 (6th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, "[a] suspension of sufficient length or consequence can implicate the Due Process Clause." Laney, 501 F.3d at 584.
In DeFabio, a rumor spread throughout East Hampton High School that then-tenth grader DeFabio commented "one down, forty thousand to go," after learning that a Hispanic student was killed in a motorcycle accident. 623 F.3d at 74. The school sent DeFabio home for his own protection after students became openly hostile to DeFabio, threatening to kill him and bomb his home. Id. The Second Circuit held that the school did not violate DeFabio's substantive due process rights when it subsequently decided to suspend DeFabio for the remainder of the school year. Id. at 82. Specifically, the Second Circuit found that the school's decision to suspend DeFabio for the remainder of the
Additionally, in D.F. ex rel. Finkle, a sixth grader was suspended for thirty days for writing and reading aloud to the class his story in which named students were murdered and sexually assaulted. 386 F. Supp. 2d at 123-24. The district court found that the school had the discretion to suspend the student for thirty days because the student's conduct warranted serious disciplinary action. Id. at 127-28; see also Binder v. Cold Spring Harbor Cent. Sch. Dist., 09-CV-4181, 2010 WL 3257708, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. July 19, 2010) (explaining that the school's decision to impose an approximate ten-month suspension did not violate a student's substantive due process rights because the student possessed and intended to distribute a large amount of marijuana and the student showed no remorse or responsibility for his actions). The court reasoned that a thirty-day suspension is not so egregious to warrant judicial intervention as a student may miss thirty days of school as the result of illness. D.F. ex rel. Finkle, 386 F. Supp. 2d at 128.
In this case, although Defendants provided several reasons to impose an out of school suspension, a question of fact remains as to whether the length of that suspension was arbitrary, conscious shocking, or motivated by bad faith. The hearing officer found that V.S. created "threatening social media posts (including the video of his sister unloading a gun)" "[i]n retaliation" for his suspension. (Dkt. No. 101-33, at 5.) Defendants recommended and ultimately imposed an eighteen-month suspension because V.S. "not only refused to accept [the] consequences [of his actions] but really up[ped] the ante by . . . harassing and defaming the teacher and the school district with intent to harm. . . ."
Defendants liken V.S.'s conduct to that of L.L.,
There are several differences between V.S.'s conduct and the other student's conduct. First, L.L. and H.H. both issued explicit verbal threats of future violence against individually named students. L.L. also verbally threatened to harm the school itself, while H.H. directed additional threats to school employees. V.S., however, did not speak throughout the approximate seven-second video, or issue any verbal threats directed to at school or any individual students. Moreover, the video's caption "Guidette with a strap" is not threatening on its face. Although Defendants argue that V.S. previously engaged in threatening behavior by reciting the teacher's address and name of her spouse approximately a week before V.S. posted the video, there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Plaintiff engaged in this behavior.
Additionally, V.S. was not similarly situated to either L.L. or H.H. when the school imposed the eighteen-month suspension. L.L. was a freshman and H.H. was a sophomore at the time the school imposed their suspensions. In this case, V.S. was a senior who was on pace to graduate within the next six months. Both L.L.'s and H.H.'s suspensions were, in part, motivated to protect the other students who would have repeatedly interacted with L.L. and H.H. over the next year to year-and-a-half. In fact, H.H.'s hearing officer specifically cited the school's duty to maintain a safe and orderly environment in his recommendation to Defendant Ahearn. (Dkt. No. 104-52, at 20.) Meanwhile, V.S. returned to school on January 5, 2017, and there were seemingly no issues or disruption caused by V.S.'s presence once he returned to school. V.S. even demonstrated a significant improvement in both his classes and attitude until his eighteen-month suspension was imposed on February 7, 2017. (Dkt. No. 104-47; Dkt. No. 104-67 ¶¶ 24-27, 199). Furthermore, both L.L. and H.H. were provided alternate forms of education because each student was of the compulsory-school-attendance age in New York State. V.S., on the other hand, was over the compulsory school attendance age and was not provided an alternate form of education. It was only after Plaintiff filed this lawsuit that V.S. was offered the option of attending summer classes in order to satisfy his graduation requirements.
Defendants further compare V.S.'s disciplinary history with that of L.L., arguing that the only reason V.S.'s suspension was two months longer than that of L.L. was because V.S.'s conduct occurred earlier in the school year. L.L.'s disciplinary history contained several entries, including multiple instances of cyber-bullying that were referred to juvenile law enforcement. (Dkt. No. 104-54 at 8.) Vestal High School also suspended L.L. for three days because of "inappropriate posts on social media."
There is also a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the Snapchat video V.S. posted was "threatening." Here, V.S. did not direct any threats to the school, school property, or an individual student. The "threatening" conduct was an approximate seven-second video of a woman (V.S.'s sister) handling a gun, which was not pointed at the camera. Specifically, the video shows a woman pointing a handgun at a wall inside a bedroom and subsequently lowering her arm. No shots were fired during the video and the gun was pointed at the wall throughout the entirety of the video, away from the camera. The Court also notes that a gun safe is visible on the bed. Additionally, the caption "Guidette with a strap" does not indicate a threat to either the school itself or individual students. However, it is important to evaluate the totality of the circumstances, not just the video itself. In this case, V.S. was serving a previously imposed suspension for allegedly intimidating a teacher when he posted the Snapchat video of a woman handling a gun. While on suspension, V.S. also ignored Defendants' instructions to not discuss his suspension, posting various messages on Twitter alleging social injustice and racism at Vestal High School. In light of the reaction to V.S.'s social media posts, Defendants suspended V.S. for an additional five days on December 8, 2016.
Unlike DeFabio, V.S.'s suspension was not motivated by safety, but to punish V.S.'s past conduct, namely his actions over social media and the substantial disruption caused to the school. In this case, V.S. was suspended approximately two months after the video was first posted. During that time, V.S. returned to school for over a month and, as previously discussed, had shown significant improvement during that time. Although V.S. had an extensive disciplinary history, V.S. was not subject to an out-of-school suspension prior to December 1, 2016. It is worth noting that V.S.'s conduct at issue occurred in close proximity to other allegedly problematic conduct; however, Defendants had previously issued suspensions of eight, ten, twelve, and sixteen months to Vestal High School freshman, juniors, and sophomores for extreme conduct. (Dkt. No. 104-67, at ¶¶ 235-40.)
Although it is a close decision, the Court concludes that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether V.S.'s eighteen-month suspension was rationally related to his conduct, and in the interests of justice, a jury should determine the merits of Plaintiff's substantive due process claim. For these reasons, Plaintiff's claim for a substantive due process violation survives Defendant's motion for summary judgment.
After carefully considering the matter, the Court answers this question in the affirmative for the reasons stated in Defendants' memoranda of law. (Dkt. No. 101-45, at 23-25; Dkt. No. 107-7, at 24-25.) The Court would only add the following point.
"Qualified immunity protects public officials from legal actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if their behavior does not violate `clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" Mudge v. Zugalla, 939 F.3d 72, 79 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 [1982]). A school official is not immune from damages under section 1983 if he "knew or reasonably should have known that the action he took within his sphere of official responsibility would violate the constitutional rights of the student affected, or if he took the action with the malicious intention to cause a deprivation of constitutional rights or other injury to the student." Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308, 322, 95 S.Ct. 992, 43 L.Ed.2d 214 (1975). The relevant question is whether the state of the law gives the defendant "fair warning" that her actions against Plaintiff were unconstitutional; there is no requirement that the facts of a precedential case be "fundamentally similar" to establish that a right was clearly established. Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 741, 122 S.Ct. 2508, 153 L.Ed.2d 666 (2002). The state of the law is
"A qualified immunity defense is established if (a) the defendant's action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not violate such law." Tierney v. Davidson, 133 F.3d 189, 196 (2d Cir. 1998) (quoting Salim v. Proulx, 93 F.3d 86, 89 [2d Cir. 1996]). Put another way, qualified immunity "applies if the official's mistake as to what the law requires is reasonable." DC v. Valley Cent Sch. Dist., 09-cv-9036, 2013 WL 2181213, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 2013) (citing Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 205, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 [2001]).
In this case, Defendants Ahearn and Penna did not violate clearly established law. As previously discussed above in Part III.A. of this Decision and Order, school administrators did not violate V.S.'s First Amendment rights. Because school administrators reasonably anticipated that V.S.'s social media posts would cause a substantial disruption to the educational process, Defendants Ahearn and Penna did not violate V.S.'s First Amendment rights or other clearly established law.
Additionally, it was objectively reasonable for Defendants Ahearn and Penna to believe that further suspending V.S. would not violate his constitutional rights. Here, the District's hearing officer recommended additional punishment for V.S.'s actions. Defendants Ahearn and Penna acted within the confines of the school's regulations and Defendant Ahearn imposed the hearing officer's recommended punishment. V.S. was punished only after the school board held a hearing that complied with V.S.'s procedural due process rights. V.S. was also represented by counsel and had the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. Moreover, it is objectively reasonable for Defendants Ahearn and Penna to believe that imposing an eighteen-month suspension did not violate clearly established law. The Court has not found any Supreme Court or Second Circuit case that forbids school officials from imposing an out-of-school suspension for eighteen months. Accordingly, it is objectively reasonable that Defendants Ahearn and Penna believed they were within their right to impose such a substantial punishment.
For these reasons, Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Ahearn and Defendant Penna in their individual capacity are dismissed.
After carefully considering the matter, the Court answers this question in the negative for the reasons stated below.
A plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must satisfy a four-factor test before a district court can use its equitable discretion to grant such relief. eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391, 126 S.Ct. 1837, 164 L.Ed.2d 641 (2006); Beastie Boys v. Monster Energy Co., 87 F.Supp.3d 672, 677 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). Specifically, a plaintiff must demonstrate the following:
eBay, 547 U.S. at 391, 126 S.Ct. 1837; U.S.S.E.C. v. Citigroup Glob. Mkts., Inc., 752 F.3d 285, 296 (2d. Cir. 2014).
For these reasons, Plaintiff's motion for a permanent injunction is denied.
