In the case of Sala et al v. Warwick Valley Central School District (2009), John Sala, Jr., a high school senior, was dismissed from his high school football team. Sala was arrested after police came to a friend’s house to find Sala and his friends in the presence of alcohol and marijuana. Following the arrest, he was suspended from the football team for the rest of the season. While serving the suspension, the District Athletic Director corrected Sala for speeding in the school parking lot, and he accused Sala of cursing at him in response. Sala was also ticketed for driving past the curfew of his license. This string of incidents led to Sala’s dismissal from the team by his coach. Throughout the dismissal process, Sala was given a meeting with his coaches and his parent, followed by an appeal to the superintendent. The Salas were advised that they could subsequently appeal to the School Board. They did not, and sued for Sala’s reinstatement. Sala was granted the injunction that allowed him back onto the team. However, his coach played him infrequently, which led to the complaint. In this complaint, Sala claimed that his right to due process was violated, both in terms of procedural due process and substantive due process. The court determined that Sala was afforded procedural due process by the school district, and in an almost scathing response, deemed the claim that he was denied a constitutional right to play football or receive precisely equal treatment as “border[ing] on the absurd.” In Palmer v.
…show more content…
Merluzzi (1988), Daniel Palmer, a senior football player, was suspended for ten days from both curricular and extracurricular activities, following his admission that he had smoked marijuana and drank beer on school property. His father was notified by phone of the suspension, and again by written letter. Though this letter made no mention of additional penalties, Merluzzi, the superintendent of schools, suspended Palmer from the football team for an additional 60 days. This decision was made reliant on a policy that states, “No student may participate [in a scheduled event – in this case, a sport] who has not demonstrated good citizenship and responsibility.” The court upheld the 10-day suspension, finding that it was “procedurally faultless and consistent with announced policy.” The 60-day suspension was remanded to the Board of Education for a new decision, as the court found that the defendant had denied Palmer due process. However, on appeal, Palmer’s claims were dismissed. Palmer claimed that he had a property interest in playing football, and that he was denied due process on that basis. The court, though noting that a minority of opinions have held that students have a property interest in sports, determined that participation in extracurricular activities is a privilege, and not a guaranteed right. Therefore, a due process violation cannot occur in this circumstance. Palmer also challenged that the school handbook did not provide for an additional disciplinary action beyond the stated 10-day suspension. The court stated that constitutional and federal law did not govern school regulations; therefore Palmer had to rely on the language of the student handbook. The court ruled that Palmer could not possibly believe that participating in criminal conduct for which he could be arrested and prosecuted would not also result in the less serious result of a suspension from the football team. Palmer could not prove that he “reasonably relied on the school handbook before drinking beer and smoking marijuana.” Discussion One of the controlling and clarifying cases that is frequently referenced in high school due process cases is Goss v. Lopez (1975), in which a group of suspended students sued the school district, claiming that they had not been …show more content…
Lopez (1975) Justice Powell commented, “As it is difficult to think of any less consequential infringement than suspension of a junior high school student for a single day, it is equally difficult to perceive any principled limit to the new reach of procedural due process.” Schools and athletic administrators would be wise to consider this comment and recognize that it is a still-developing area of law, with consequences that are not always predictable. Therefore, it is prudent for them to develop rigorous policies and procedures to protect themselves and coaches, in the event that a property or liberty interest is
Merluzzi (1988), Daniel Palmer, a senior football player, was suspended for ten days from both curricular and extracurricular activities, following his admission that he had smoked marijuana and drank beer on school property. His father was notified by phone of the suspension, and again by written letter. Though this letter made no mention of additional penalties, Merluzzi, the superintendent of schools, suspended Palmer from the football team for an additional 60 days. This decision was made reliant on a policy that states, “No student may participate [in a scheduled event – in this case, a sport] who has not demonstrated good citizenship and responsibility.” The court upheld the 10-day suspension, finding that it was “procedurally faultless and consistent with announced policy.” The 60-day suspension was remanded to the Board of Education for a new decision, as the court found that the defendant had denied Palmer due process. However, on appeal, Palmer’s claims were dismissed. Palmer claimed that he had a property interest in playing football, and that he was denied due process on that basis. The court, though noting that a minority of opinions have held that students have a property interest in sports, determined that participation in extracurricular activities is a privilege, and not a guaranteed right. Therefore, a due process violation cannot occur in this circumstance. Palmer also challenged that the school handbook did not provide for an additional disciplinary action beyond the stated 10-day suspension. The court stated that constitutional and federal law did not govern school regulations; therefore Palmer had to rely on the language of the student handbook. The court ruled that Palmer could not possibly believe that participating in criminal conduct for which he could be arrested and prosecuted would not also result in the less serious result of a suspension from the football team. Palmer could not prove that he “reasonably relied on the school handbook before drinking beer and smoking marijuana.” Discussion One of the controlling and clarifying cases that is frequently referenced in high school due process cases is Goss v. Lopez (1975), in which a group of suspended students sued the school district, claiming that they had not been …show more content…
Lopez (1975) Justice Powell commented, “As it is difficult to think of any less consequential infringement than suspension of a junior high school student for a single day, it is equally difficult to perceive any principled limit to the new reach of procedural due process.” Schools and athletic administrators would be wise to consider this comment and recognize that it is a still-developing area of law, with consequences that are not always predictable. Therefore, it is prudent for them to develop rigorous policies and procedures to protect themselves and coaches, in the event that a property or liberty interest is