However, the policy did not specify to whom the confidential report was to be submitted or whether a copy has to be provided to the student accused of wrongdoing or the family.
As a result of its investigation, the school notified H. K.’s parents that it was barring their son from returning to school and requiring that he be evaluated by a mental health professional. The school agreed, however, to allow H. K. to complete his assignments from home for the remainder of the school year, without in-home instruction, but reserved its right to allow him to return in the fall until the school received the results of the evaluation.
In response, H. K.’s parents disputed whether “the investigation was conducted with complete thoroughness,” and suggested the situation “require[d] a more thorough investigation to uncover the complete timeline and facts.” They also complained that H. K. was not given “a fair opportunity to defend himself against the charges,” that the school’s HIB policy “had not been communicated,” and that “they did not have fair and proper notice of that policy.” They proposed the school reopen the investigation to be “conducted by three independent and respected community members,” who would have full access to the evidence and be permitted to question those involved.
Despite their objections, H. K.’s parents permitted their son to be evaluated by a psychologist selected by school. The doctor evaluated H. K. in May and issued an initial report with his findings and an updated report for “clarification” in July. According to the psychologist, while H. K. admitted to some of the misconduct of which he was accused, he “denied misbehavior of a sexual nature,” and, although the psychologist concluded the boy violated the school’s code of conduct, he “did not see signs of significant psychopathology or significant risks for violent behavior.” The doctor recommended counseling through the school, professional therapy, and “open discussions” between H. K. and his parents regarding acceptable behavior. In his follow- up report, the doctor clarified that his recommendations were not intended as punishment, and observed that, while the school had not provided the recommended counseling, H. K.’s parents had followed his recommendations, engaged their son in therapy, and provided him the suggested guidance. After speaking with the child again, the psychologist concluded the boy did “not warrant a mood disorder diagnosis and has shown an ability to effectively utilize help from his parents and myself.”
At the end of May, the school responded to the parents’ concerns regarding the investigation by stating that it
“was conducted in a fair, objective, and thorough manner in accordance with” the school’s policies, but did not give any details as to the process it followed or what
information was obtained in the investigation. It also told the parents “a final decision on [H. K.’s] status . . . [would] be made in accordance with the school’s written administrative procedures, and will abide by the evidence gathered during [its] extensive investigation.”
In June, the parent’s attorney sent a written demand for clarification regarding H. K.’s enrollment and the details of the purported violation, including the specific conduct H. K. engaged in, what provisions of the HIB policy were violated, and a copy of the investigative report. They also wanted an opportunity to discuss what would be included in H. K.’s permanent record and requested that H. K. be allowed to participate in the upcoming school trip and eighth grade graduation ceremony. They felt they had done their part, but the school had failed to do their part by restoring H. K. to the school’s student body.
The school responded a week later, indicating that it had conducted a further evaluation of H. K.’s situation—informed by its previous investigation, the psychologist’s report, and the continued lack of acceptance of responsibility despite the specific conclusions and recommendations included in the doctor’s report— and citing several portions of the report that it found particularly troubling. The school explained that, after extensive deliberation, it had determined H. K. would not be permitted to return to school or participate in school events for the remainder of the year, but would be permitted to complete the current school year under the existing special arrangements. It also noted it could have suspended and/or expelled H. K. and expressly reserved the right to do so.
The parents filed a lawsuit alleging that the school’s disciplinary procedure was fundamentally unfair because:
H. K. was not provided a fair opportunity to respond to the charges; he was presumed guilty and told to acknowledge and admit what he did; the School’s determinations are inconsistent with the psychological evaluation required by the School; the investigation was conducted by people who had a personal and biased interest in the outcome instead of neutral and unbiased decision makers without any conflict of interest that could hamper their judgment; H.K. was also detained for excessive periods of time and interrogated; and the same people who conducted the original investigation made the decision as to whether the investigation was conducted in a proper manner.
The school filed a motion to dismiss the case, claiming the parents failed to state a claim. The judge, after accepting motion and hearing oral arguments, granted the school’s motion and dismissed the case.
The parents appealed. Was there a claim of unfairness as stated by the parents? You be the judge.
B.S. v. Noor-Ul-Iman School, 2016 WL 4145921
© 2016 by the Association of Christian Schools International
27.2 | 41
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24
