Appeal of R.W. and C.W., on behalf of their child, from action of the Board of Education of the Hauppauge Union Free School District regarding student discipline.

Decision No. 18,529

(December 2, 2024)

Law Offices of Susan Deedy & Associates, attorneys for petitioner, Richard F. Corrao, Jr., Esq., of counsel

Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, attorneys for respondent, Lindsay Crocker and Mara N. Harvey, Esqs., of counsel

Rosa., Commissioner.--Petitioners appeal the decision of the Board of Education of the Hauppauge Union Free School District (“respondent”) to impose discipline upon their child (the “student”).  The appeal must be sustained. 

After the school day on December 6, 2023, the student, her friend, and other classmates gathered at “Restaurant Row,” a collection of restaurants located within walking distance from the high school campus.  At some point, four new students arrived, who argued with the friend.  The assemblage then entered an abandoned restaurant.  At some point thereafter, the newly arrived students attacked the friend.  The student proceeded to escort her injured friend to the high school.  Upon their return, the friend experienced a medical event that required intervention by school staff, police, and emergency medical services.    

In a letter dated December 8, 2023, the principal informed petitioners that the student would be suspended for five days.  The letter alleged that the student “ha[d] prior knowledge of a physical confrontation that was going to take place at the abandoned McDonald’s in Hauppauge.”  The letter further alleged that the student “attended ... to witness the confrontation.”  After speaking with petitioners, respondent replaced the phase “at the abandoned McDonald’s in Hauppauge” with the phrase “between two students.”  Following an informal conference, respondent again modified the charge, framing the student’s offense as “willingly enter[ing] the abandoned McDonald’s where the physical confrontation took place.”[1]  Appeals to the superintendent and respondent were denied; this appeal ensued.

Petitioners raise several contentions, primarily that respondent failed to prove that the student engaged in the charged conduct.  For relief, petitioners seek expungement of the student’s suspension from her record.[2]

Respondent denies petitioners’ contentions.  Respondent asserts that it permissibly suspended the student based on her proximity to the events in question and her failure to intercede or notify an adult.

The decision to suspend a student from school pursuant to Education Law § 3214 must be based on competent and substantial evidence that the student participated in the objectionable conduct (Matter of Board of Educ. of Monticello Cent. School Dist. v Commissioner of Educ., 91 NY2d 133, 140-141 [1997]; Matter of Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y. v Mills, 293 AD2d 37, 39 [3d Dept 2002]; Appeal of M.J., 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,292; Appeal of B.M., 48 id. 441, Decision No. 15,909). 

In an appeal to the Commissioner, a petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested and establishing the facts upon which he or she seeks relief (8 NYCRR 275.10; Appeal of P.C. and K.C., 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,337; Appeal of Aversa, 48 id. 523, Decision No. 15,936; Appeal of Hansen, 48 id. 354, Decision No. 15,884).

Petitioners have proven that the student did not engage in conduct that “endanger[ed] the safety, morals, health or welfare of others” (Education Law § 3214 [3] [a]).  The record establishes only that the student was present during a physical altercation at an off-campus location.  Although the written notices suggested that the student had advance knowledge that a fight would occur, the principal indicates on appeal that he does “not doubt” that the student lacked knowledge that a fight would occur later that afternoon.[3]  But even if the student possessed such knowledge, respondent does not allege that the student instigated or encouraged the parties to fight.  Without such proof, I find that respondent lacked authority to discipline the student for conduct that “bore no nexus to an ensuing school disruption” (Appeals of A.F. and T.P., 56 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 16,997).  

Respondent’s argument that the student deserved to be suspended because she “did nothing to prevent the fight or seek outside help” is unpersuasive as the student was obligated to do neither.  In Appeal of B.A., I held that a student “did not have a legal duty to prevent [a classmate] from causing physical harm to another” (62 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,209 [citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 315 [1965]).  And, in Appeal of E.R., I rejected a board’s argument that a student was required to report misconduct to an adult (63 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,309 [“Ideally, the student would have promptly reported [a disciplinary issue] to an adult.  But he cannot be punished for failing to meet this ideal ....”] [internal citation omitted]).  Both appeals were issued several months prior to the events described herein.

While respondent was justified in investigating this incident, once it learned that the student did not participate in the altercation—and, in fact, sought to provide aid to her friend—its decision to pursue discipline was indefensible.[4]  I am particularly concerned that no one appears to have considered the effect of these events on the student.  Witnessing an assault or a seizure is a frightening experience, particularly for a 14-year-old.  Thus, in addition to inaccurately assessing the student’s culpability, the administrators involved in this incident “should have demonstrated greater empathy under the circumstances” (Appeal of B.A., 62 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,209).

In light of this disposition, I need not address the parties’ remaining contentions. 

THE APPEAL IS SUSTAINED. 

IT IS ORDERED that respondent expunge any reference to the suspension at issue in this appeal from the student’s record.

END OF FILE