Federal district court rules parents of student with autism stated valid claim that charter school employees’ use of corporal punishment violated student’s substantive due process rights
S.S. v. Princeton House Charter Sch., No. 11-1145 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 20, 2011)
Abstract: A federal district court in Florida has ruled that parents of a student with autism have stated a valid claim that charter school employees’ use of excessive force constituted a violation of the student’s substantive due process rights. The court concluded that the parents had alleged facts sufficient to show: (1) use of excessive force that “shocks the conscience;” and (2) the charter school employees acted under color of state law. It found, however, that the parents’ allegations of emotional injuries and psychological harm were insufficient to rise to the level of conduct that shocks the conscience.
Facts/Issues: S.S., who suffers from non-verbal autism, attended Princeton House Charter School (PHCS). The suit arose from two incidents that involved alleged physical and verbal abuse of S.S. by PHCS employees. The first incident involved confining S.S. in a fabric tunnel, shoving and then forcibly dragging her. The second incident involved S.S. being forcibly dragged and then restrained in a chair. Her parents filed suit in federal district court under § 1983 against PHCS alleging that its employees had violated S.S.’s Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process right to be free from excessive force. They claimed that as a result of the two incidents, S.S. had suffered severe psychological trauma and physical injuries. PHCS filed a motion to dismiss the suit, arguing that the parents had failed to state a valid § 1983 claim because: (1) the allegations do not “shock the conscience,” as required to establish the violation of a constitutional right; and (2) PHCS was not acting under color of state law.
Ruling/Rationale: The district court denied PHCS’s motion to dismiss, holding that the parents’ allegations were sufficient to state a valid § 1983 claim for violation of S.S.’s substantive due process rights. In order to state a valid claim, the parents needed to plead facts sufficient to show that the defendant’s conduct “shocks the conscience” and that the defendant was acting under color of state law. The court found the parents’ argument that emotional injuries are relevant to the determination of whether PHCS employees’ conduct “shocks the conscience” without merit. It pointed out that it had previously noted “verbal abuse is normally not a constitutional violation” and, that the test outlined by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit focuses not on psychological harm, but instead requires “a reasonably foreseeable risk of serious bodily injury.”
Nonetheless, the district court concluded that the parents’ allegations of physical harm and restraint were sufficient to survive the motion to dismiss. In particular, it noted that the “conscience shocking threshold is more quickly reached in cases where the victim is particularly vulnerable to abuse and otherwise defenseless.” It quickly disposed of PHCS’s argument that it could not have acted under color of state law because as a charter school it is a private entity. While acknowledging that the parents had conceded that PHCS is a private entity, the court agreed that the charter school could still be held to be acting under color of state law under either the “nexus/joint action test” or the “public function test” because under Florida law charter schools are subject to accounting and oversight by the state.
S.S. v. Princeton House Charter Sch., No. 11-1145 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 20, 2011)
[Editor's Note: Charter schools are in essence hybrids that in a number of states enjoy considerable autonomy from the school districts in which they are located, but are subject to some state oversight because they are publicly funded. In January 2011, Legal Clips summarized the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in Cordray v. International Prep. Sch. finding that the treasurer of a community (charter) school was a public official who could be held strictly liable to the state for lost public funds that the school accepted but was not entitled to receive. The court concluded that it was well-established under Ohio law that public officials are liable for the misuse of public funds they receive. An officer, employee or duly authorized representative of a charter school is a public official, the court decided.
On the other hand, in November 2010, Legal Clips summarized the New York Court of Appeals decision in New York Charter Sch. Ass'n v. Smith ruling that New York’s prevailing wage provision of the state’s labor code, which mandates that all laborers, workmen and mechanics employed on “any public work” within the state must be paid at the rate of wages prevailing in the locality where the work is situated, does not apply to charter school projects.]
