A federal judge from the Eastern District of Michigan has granted a school district’s motion for summary judgment in a case in which a baseball player, who was suspended after he stole a case of beer from a local store, sued the district for violating his Constitutional rights and breach of contract.
Dennis Natke II was a junior at North Branch High and a member of the school’s varsity baseball team. In order to participate in the forthcoming 2009 baseball season, Natke signed a form entitled “Consent to Participate in Athletics.” The form was also signed by the boy’s mother.
After signing the form, Natke and his mother were provided with a copy of a document known as the NBHS “Athletic Handbook.” Since Natke had participated in athletics during each of his previous years at NBHS, he and his mother were familiar with both the consent form and the handbook.
The handbook specifically states that participation in athletic programs is deemed to be a “privilege,” not a right. The handbook further states that if a student is found to have committed “gross misconduct,” then he or she will be suspended for a minimum of one-third of the remaining athletic season. The handbook defines the term “gross misconduct” in the following terms:
“GROSS MISCONDUCT — The student-athlete is a role model for other students and a representative of the school. Therefore, the student-athlete must not engage in behavior that is inappropriate. Students shall not engage in acts of gross misconduct including behavior which school officials consider conduct unbecoming to an athlete and a representative of the North Branch Area Schools. Gross misconduct may include, but is not limited to, acts of theft, extortion, vandalism, forgery, assault, harassment, sexual misconduct, hazing or initiation of other students, fighting, or gross disrespect. Depending upon the severity of the incident, penalties may range from restitution, community service, suspension from athletic competition, dismissal from the squad, or a combination of penalties. School officials will make a determination on whether the misconduct falls under the penalties in the athletic handbook for gross misconduct.”
The court went on to write that it is incumbent on school officials “to determine if a given student infraction/violation is sufficiently severe that it amounts to ‘gross misconduct.’”
On Dec. 13, 2008, Natke – then 16 years old – stole a case of beer from a store and was subsequently charged with retail fraud by the police department — a charge to which he pleaded guilty. Two days later, NBHS Athletic Director James Fish learned of the incident and, after interviewing the parties, concluded that the student’s conduct constituted “gross misconduct” under the terms of the handbook. Natke was suspended for one-third of the 2009 baseball season.
The plaintiff argued that the suspension “was unduly harsh and that two other students were punished less harshly for similar acts of misconduct.”
In those instances, however, the police never brought charges. “A finding of criminal liability by the police and the courts” was the catalyst for the determination of “gross misconduct” by Athletic Director Fish.
Next, the court turned to the plaintiff’s allegation of two distinct constitutional violations:
that the defendant violated his equal protection rights under a “class of one” theory and that the defendant violated his right to due process.
Regarding the first, the court noted that the plaintiff has a high burden in establishing such a claim. “To present a class of one claim a plaintiff must demonstrate that he has been intentionally treated differently from others who are similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment.” Benjamin v. Brachman, 246 Fed.Appx. 905, 927 (6th Cir. 2007).
The federal judge went on to note that the plaintiff “does not even attempt to establish that the two students he seeks to compare himself with are similarly situated. Moreover, the undisputed facts show that they are not similarly situated. Of the three students, the plaintiff was the only student who was convicted of a crime.”
Turning to the plaintiff’s due process claim, the court noted that the plaintiff “must first show a protected life, liberty or property interest. Only after meeting that requirement can the plaintiff proceed by showing that such interest was ‘abridged without appropriate process.’ Ferencz v. Hairston, 119 F.3d 1244, 1247 (6th Cir. 1997).
“… (T)his action does not involve an alleged constitutionally protected property interest in continued enrollment in an academic program. Rather, in this case, the plaintiff was suspended from participating in extracurricular athletics. This distinction is key because ‘it is well established that students do not have a general constitutional right to participate in extracurricular athletics.’ Lowery v. Euverard, 497 F.3d 584, 588 (6th Cir. 2007).
“In response to the defendant’s motion, the plaintiff has offered no authority whatsoever to establish that he has a constitutionally protected interest in continued participation on the baseball team.”
Turning to the breach of contract claim, the court found that the “plaintiff cannot identify a single case to support his position that, under Michigan law, a student can bring a breach of contract claim against a public school.
“In addition, even if such claims were cognizable, and the handbook could be construed as a contract, the plaintiff has not established that the defendant breached it in any event. It is undisputed that the handbook: 1) provides that if a student is found to have committed gross misconduct, then he or she will be suspended for a minimum of one-third of the remaining athletic season; and 2) gives school officials the discretion to determine whether misconduct constitutes gross misconduct.”
Dennis M. Natke, et al. v. North Branch Area School District; E.D. Mich.; Case No. 09-11304, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10480; 2/8/10
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiffs) Bernard A. Jocuns, LEAD ATTORNEY, Bernard Anthony Jocuns & Associates, PLLC, North Branch, MI. (for defendant) Stephen J. Hitchcock, Giarmarco, Mullins, Troy, MI.
