A Washington state appeals court has affirmed a trial court’s finding that a school district provided enough procedural safeguards to a high school student athlete, who had been suspended for his involvement with alcohol.
In so ruling, the appeals court affirmed the oft-held legal standard that “students do not have a property or liberty interest in participation in interscholastic sports.”
The student athlete in question, Zachary Taylor, was implicated in the fall of 2002 as a user of alcohol. Various incidents, including one where Taylor was allegedly drinking during a game, led the school district to impose a 10-day academic suspension on Taylor. Shortly thereafter, the Athletic Board met and determined that Taylor’s use of alcohol was “conduct unbecoming an athlete that violated the Athletic Code.”
On November 18, the student athlete and his father met with the principal for an informal grievance conference to discuss Zachary’s appeal of his academic suspension and athletic sanctions. At this meeting, the principal provided them with copies of the following documents:
(1) Letter from Athletic Director Tubbs specifying the athletic sanctions imposed by the Athletic Board.
(2) A summary of general evidence/information prepared by Principal Parker.
(3) Statement of Safety Director Gallatin about the search of Zachary’s car on November 4.
(4) Short-term suspension letter.
(5) Zachary’s appeal note.
(6) List of names, provided by Zachary, of people who would testify that he did not drink on the date in question.
(7) Zachary’s signed Athletic Eligibility card.
The principal upheld the academic suspension and the athletic sanctions, but stayed the academic suspension until the appeals were exhausted. He also told them the athletic sanction could not be addressed until the Athletic Board had concluded the necessary hearings on the matter.
At various steps along the way, the plaintiffs appealed, only to have the ruling upheld.
On June 13, 2003, Jeffrey Taylor, on behalf of his minor son Zachary, filed a complaint against the District alleging (1) denial of due process under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, the Fourteenth Amendment, and article I, section 3 of the Washington Constitution, (2) negligence, (3) unlawful search and seizure, (4) negligent supervision, and (5) defamation, libel and slander.
On April 16, 2004, the trial court granted the school district’s motion for summary judgment, spawning the present appeal.
The appeals court paraphrased the arguments, thusly:
“Zachary asserts the District violated his Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights because it deprived him of his right to confront his accusers, examine and cross-examine witnesses, and review the evidence against him in the athletic discipline hearings. He argues participation in interscholastic sports gives him a protected interest because athletics and other extracurricular activities are an integral part of the total educational process. Because students have a property interest in education that is protected by due process, he contends athletics are an integral part of a whole education and he had a reasonable expectation that he would not be arbitrarily or unfairly denied the opportunity to participate. The opportunity to participate in interscholastic athletics is particularly important to him because as an otherwise average student, he depended on excelling in high school sports to attend college on a football scholarship.
“The District argues participation in an athletic program is a privilege, not a property or liberty interest, and no Washington or federal court has ever held there is a fundamental right to engage in interscholastic sports. It contends Zachary’s desire to receive a college scholarship based on a high school athletic career is a ‘unilateral expectation’ or an ‘abstract need or desire’ that does not give rise to a property interest protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.”
The school district cited Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577, 92 S. Ct. 2701, 33 L. Ed. 2d. 548 (1972).
The court further noted that to assert a claim under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, a plaintiff, such as Taylor, “must first establish that a person acting under color of state law deprived him of a federal constitutional or statutory right. He must then present evidence establishing gross negligence, recklessness, or deliberate indifference.”
Citing case law, the appeals court wrote that “Washington courts have held there is no fundamental right to engage in interscholastic sports. And, participation in interscholastic sports is not a constitutionally protected property interest.
“ … Although participation in extracurricular activities, including sports, clearly supplements and enriches a student’s educational experience, neither sports nor any other extracurricular activity is required for graduation or mandated by state law. We hold that participation in interscholastic sports is a privilege, not a protected property or liberty interest arising under Washington Law.
“Here, the District provided Zachary with more process than was required under the circumstances when it applied the WAC 180-40-255 process for short-term academic suspensions to the athletic sanction hearings. Contrary to Zachary’s argument, it was not required to provide him with process equivalent to that provided for an expulsion simply because he received both an academic suspension and athletic sanctions. Because participation in interscholastic sports is not a protected interest, the process Zachary received was adequate.”
Jeffrey Taylor, as parent and guardian of Zachary Taylor, a minor v. Enumclaw School District No. 216 et al.; Ct.App.Wash., Div. 1; No. 55704-1-I; 2006 Wash. App. LEXIS 815; 5/1/06
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Tyler K. Firkins, Vansiclen Stocks & Firkins, Auburn, WA. (for defendants) Dan L. Johnson, Jerret E. Sale, Bullivant Houser Bailey PC, Seattle, WA.
