Free Trial Brief - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5

COLLINS & COLLINS, L.L.P. By: JOSEPH E. COLLINS Attorneys for Plaintiff Arizona Bar #018289 10801 North 32nd Street, Suite 3 Phoenix, Az., 85028 (602) 788-7227 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6 FOP THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ESTRALLA FOOTHILLS HIGH SCHOOL, et al. Defendant. and In Re The Matter of: KENNETH & TOWANDA LYON, for TARALYN D. LYON, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FACTS

Case Number CV03-2306PHX-JAT

PLAINTIFF'S TRIAL BRIEF

On November 6, 2002, Plaintiff was a student at Estrella Mountain High School and was returning from a gym class when another student offered her a drink from a water bottle. Plaintiff accepted and upon tasting the water realized it had an odd taste. It was later claimed by another student that the water was alcohol. Defendants subsequently suspended Plaintiff from school for this accident claiming a no tolerance policy against drinking while at school regardless of a student's knowledge. None of the Defendants detected any alcohol on Plaintiff's breath nor did any testing prove alcohol in Plaintiff's system. Interrogation of Plaintiff who was a minor at the time occurred without the presence of her parents or attorneys. The Goodyear City

Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT

Document 75

Filed 06/21/2006

Page 1 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Police were contacted, but took no action. After several hearing and contrary to the recommendations of Defendants' hearing officer, Plaintiff was suspended from school for the remainder of the school year. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM Plaintiff claims that the punishment given to her for this offense, assuming without admitting that the offense was intentional, was greater than the punishment set forth in Defendants' written policy and greater than had ever been given before or since to any other student similarly situated to Plaintiff. THE LAW Plaintiff generally agrees with the law cited by Defendants as far as it goes, however, it does not deal with issues of defining the class.
1. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Squaw Valley Development vs. Goldberg, 375 F.3rd 936, (9TH Circuit 2004) stated that a trial court must first "...... in any equal protection analysis....identify the class or group being discriminated against," citing Freeman v. City of Santa Ana, 68 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir 1995) . 2. Squaw Valley citing Freeman indicated that "the goal in identifying a similarly situated class ... is to isolate the factor allegedly subject to impermissible discrimination [to] the similarly situated group" and use it as a "control group". 3. Freeman dealt with discrimination based upon "Mexican Immigrant Bars". The trial court in Freeman determined that for the purposes of defining a similarly situated class, Freeman could only introduce evidence of those with the same licence type as that held by the plaintiff there. Freeman said that a District Court

24 25 26 27 28

Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT

Document 75

Filed 06/21/2006

Page 2 of 6

1 2 3

has broad discretion to include and/or exclude evidence that the Court feels defines or does not define a class that is similarly situated to the class in which a plaintiff finds herself.

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 The handbook also states that for a first offense, there is long term suspension or 23 24 25 26 27 28 expulsion and a second Offence is solely expulsion. (Bates page number EF000231of Exhibit 7) The handbook also states that "depending upon the nature of the violation, student discipline shall be progressive. For example, generally a student's first violation should merit a lighter penalty than a subsequent violation. District employees shall take into account all other The handbook lists three (3) disciplinary categorizes; A, B, and C with A considered the most severe. Each category has an established disciplinary action. Group A offenses are those offenses that are generally felonious in nature. Group A offenses are drug/alcohol use or possession including paraphernalia, arson, verbal/physical assault of a staff, drug selling or pushing, inciting to riot, possession of a weapon, bomb threat, gang activity. The student hand book which is Defendants' Exhibit 7 (Bates Number EF000230) states "if you violate the rules of the Estrella Foothills High School, certain consequences will follow. The specific consequences will be determine on the basis of the severity and or the frequency of the offense". Defendants here ignored completely the "frequency of the offence" and never informed Plaintiff of the "severity" of the accidental consumption of alcohol. DISCUSSION In this case, the Court should look at the Defendants' definition of a class to determine what evidence goes before the jury. Arizona Revised Statute §15-843(N) requires that Defendants through "the Principal of each school..... ensure that all rules pertaining to the discipline, suspension, and expulsion are communicated to students at the beginning of each school year."

Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT

Document 75

Filed 06/21/2006

Page 3 of 6

1 2 3

relevant factors in determining an appropriate penalty. The principal penalty may be imposed either alone or in combination." The handbook, however, does not say what "all other relevant factors" include. Plaintiff received the maximum allowed and more than any other student has

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 own stated policies. 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated June 21, 2006 COLLINS & COLLINS L.L.P /s// 018289 jec ______________________________ JOSEPH E. COLLINS Defendants claim qualified immunity as a shield. This claim is not applicable. Squaw Valley states that it shields Defendants from "liability from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights which a reasonable person would have known" existed. Under the policy as defined by Defendants in written form and in other testimony, the Defendants violated Plaintiff's right to be treated equally in violation of their Defendants give for their actions against her is nothing more than a pretext and that the Defendants actually acted based upon improper motive. See Squaw Valley at Page 9576. ["an equal protection plaintiff may show pretext by creating a triable issue of fact that either (1) the proffered rational basis was objectively false; or (2) the defendant actually acted based on an improper motive" citing Patel v. Penman, 103 F.3rd 875 (9th Cir 1996)] ever received, although she was an honor student, a student body officer and had no prior history of any discipline. Squaw Valley states that a student may pursue an equal protection claim by raising a triable issue of fact when the conduct of the school or its officials are irrational or were rational, but that rational basis was a pretext. Plaintiff assets that the stated reasons that

Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT

Document 75

Filed 06/21/2006

Page 4 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT

Document 75

Filed 06/21/2006

Page 5 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 /s// 018289 jec 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ` ______________________________ JOSEPH E. COLLINS CERTIFICATE OF MAILING THIS IS TO CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was hand delivered, not mailed, to Respondent on June 22, 2006 to:

Georgia A. Staton, Bar #004863 JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C. 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Case 2:03-cv-02306-JAT

Document 75

Filed 06/21/2006

Page 6 of 6