Northwest Education Law Blog : Northwest Education Lawyer & Attorney : Williams Kastner Law Firm : Tacoma, Seattle, Portland

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held on January 4, 2010, that a charter school’s alleged conduct did not satisfy the “state actor” requirement for purposes of a 42 U.S.C. §1983 claim in Caviness v. Horizon Cmty. Learning Ctr., 590 F.3d 806 (9th Cir. 2010).

The lawsuit revolved around plaintiff Michael Caviness, who had served as a teacher and track coach at Horizon Community Learning Center in Phoenix, Arizona for six years. A female student enamored of Caviness, and angered by his relationship with his adult girlfriend, filed a grievance falsely alleging Caviness maintained an inappropriate relationship with the student. Horizon placed Caviness on paid administrative leave pending investigation, and during that leave prohibited Caviness from attending track meets. While the investigation largely cleared Caviness, the school deemed Caviness’s telephone calls with the student inappropriate and, as a result, chose not to renew Caviness’s contract. When Caviness sought new employment at another school, Horizon refused to provide affirmative references.

Caviness filed suit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging Horizon, acting under color of state law, deprived him of a protected interest in finding employment by making false statements to potential employers, and further deprived him of First Amendment rights by prohibiting his attendance at track meets during the paid administrative leave. Section 1983 claims require a state actor. For private defendants, that requirement may be met where there is such a close nexus between the state and the challenged action that the private entity’s action must be treated as an act of the state itself.

The trial court dismissed Caviness’s claims for failure to satisfy the state actor requirement, and Caviness appealed. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal, holding Caviness failed to demonstrate sufficient nexus between the state and the alleged actions by Horizon. Despite the fact that Arizona law deems charter schools public schools, and despite the fact that several Arizona statutes regulated charter schools’ personnel policies, Horizon’s actions did not constitute state action under Section 1983.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On April 21, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case involving the controversial strip search of 8th grader Savana Redding, Redding v. Safford United Sch. Dist. No. 1.

In August 2003, public school officials observed disorderly behavior at a school dance among a group of students, including Savana Redding. Officials believed they smelled alcohol. Nearly two months later, a student informed officials he had received pills from Redding and her friend, Marisa. School officials searched Marisa and found pills, which Marisa attributed to Redding. They also found Redding’s organizer, which Redding insisted Marisa had borrowed several days earlier, in Marisa’s vicinity. The organizer also contained pills.

School officials then retrieved Redding. Redding denied ever possessing or distributing drugs and invited officials to search her backpack, which they did, finding nothing. Nevertheless, school officials subjected Redding to a thorough strip search, requiring her to remove her jacket, shoes, socks, pants, and shirt, then pull out her bra to one side and shake it, while exposing herself. Finally, they required Redding to pull her underwear out and expose her pelvic area.

Redding filed suit, alleging violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by virtue of the public school’s violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. After the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the school district, the Ninth Circuit affirmed, finding the search reasonable. However, the Ninth Circuit subsequently reheard the case, vacated its earlier decision, and reversed the trial court’s dismissal, finding the search unreasonable. The school district appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court will be asked to decide whether the search of Ms. Redding was reasonable. Under the Court’s precedent, New Jersey v. TLO, the reasonableness of a search by public school officials on school premises during school hours is determined by considering whether the search was: (1) justified at its inception; and (2) reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the search. Williams Kastner will update this blog post on the Redding case once the Court hands down its decision.

Redding v. Safford Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1, 531 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2008)