A recent case from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) ruled that a student could sue her school for suspending her even though she did not “exhaust administrative remedies” by appealing the Principal’s decision to the Superintendent as prescribed by statute and school policy.
A Lee High School Senior was suspended for felonious behavior – stealing a firearm – by the High School Principal. The suspension was based on MGL c. 71, §37H½, which provides that students charged with a felony may be suspended if returning the student to school “would have a substantial detrimental effect on the general welfare of the school.” The problem was that the student had not actually been charged with any crime, much less a felony, at the time the suspension was imposed. When this was brought to the attention of the District, the student was nonetheless kept on suspension until the legal situation could be “clarified,” as the school administrators apparently believed that charges would be forthcoming imminently. A second letter was issued suspending student pursuant to MGL c. 71, §37H½, and notifying the student and parent of their right to appeal to the Superintendent in writing. No such appeal was filed.
After three months of suspension, a criminal complaint finally issued, but the student was charged only with a misdemeanor – receipt of stolen property under $250. At that point the student’s attorney requested an end to the suspension. The District agreed to allow the student to return to classes, but indicated that she would not be permitted to walk in graduation later that year. The student declined to return under those conditions and an agreement was reached to allow her to make up work through tutoring and receive her diploma (a year late) without returning to school.
The student sued the school for damages for unlawfully excluding her from school in violation of MGL c. 76, §16. The school district sought to dismiss the case because the student had not formally appealed the decision to exclude her. The trial judge granted the District’s motion but the SJC reversed. First, the SJC noted that §37H½ is an exception to the rule stated in MGL c. 71, § 84, that students may not be suspended for conduct not connected with school-sponsored activities. If the suspension was unsupported by §37H½ then it would be unlawful under any other provision. Second the SJC found that the lack of any felony charges at the time of the two suspension letters placed the case outside of §37H½ so the administrative remedies in that statute were not activated. Third, and finally, the SJC ruled that the tort remedy in MGL c. 76, §16 for unlawful exclusion is available whether a student appeals the suspension or not.
Practically speaking, it can be difficult to determine whether felony charges have been filed in a given case, since cooperation from the police can vary depending on where the offense occurred and the state of the investigation. School administrators must have proof that felony charges have issued before invoking remedies under MGL c. 71, §37H½. Even if they have such proof, they should ensure that they meet all of the statutory requirements as the suspension can still be tested in court in a wrongful exclusion tort claim.
