Philip Shen, through his Guardian John Shen; Nima Kormi, through his Guardian Ellie Kormi; Michael Bales, through his Guardian Patricia Mingucci; and Kevin Chen, through his Guardian Kai Dong Chen v. Albany Unified School District; Albany High School; Valerie Williams, in her personal and official capacities as Superintendent of the Albany Unified School District; Jeff Anderson, in his personal and official capacities as Principal of Albany High School; Melisa Pfohl, in her personal and official capacities as assistant principal of Albany High School; Suzanne Young, in her personal and official capacities as Instructor at Albany High School, and Does 1-50
Published: May 8, 2020 | Result Date: Jan. 29, 2020 | Filing Date: May 1, 2017 |Case number: 3:17-cv-02478-JD Summary Judgment – Defense
Judge
Court
USDC Northern District of California
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Alan A. Beck
(Law Offices of Alan Beck)
Darryl D. Yorkey
(Law Offices of Darryl D. Yorkey)
Joseph Salama
(Law Offices of Joseph Salama)
Defendant
Katherine A. Alberts
(Leone & Alberts )
Louis A. Leone
(Leone, Alberts & Duus)
Seth L. Gordon
(Leone & Alberts APC)
Facts
In March 2017, a group of high school students in the Albany Unified School District were found to be making Nazi-salutes in the hallway. Further investigation revealed numerous racist messages targeted at students of color posted on Instagram. The students were suspended, one of whom indefinitely. The students filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 in response.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that the suspensions violated their First Amendment freedom of speech rights. Plaintiffs contended that that the Instagram investigation violated their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. Plaintiff also contended that the school's disciplinary system violated their Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.
DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendants contended that their actions were lawful and appropriate. Defendants contended that their investigation and discipline was reasonably tailored to protecting other student's educational environment. Defendants contended that the student's speech was not protected because it was hateful and held a sufficient nexus to maintaining school discipline.
Result
The court sustained the defendants' motion for summary judgment. To the extent that plaintiff's claims had merit, they were barred by the defendants' qualified immunity.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390