|
“I took this case because I felt it was my contribution to these kids and their parents, and to a better school,” Mr. Ward said. “This was a case about respect and fairness.”
The school sponsored a student-exchange program in March 2004, allowing students to travel to Munich, Germany with a Mariemont teacher. Students stayed with a host family for two weeks, and took supervised field trips to cultural and historic sites. They also were allowed time to spend with the host family without direct supervision of Mariemont personnel.
During the trip, a number of students, who were of legal drinking age in Germany, consumed alcoholic beverages at biergartens while not accompanied by their host parents. Their chaperone teacher told them they would be disciplined under the school’s code of conduct when they returned home, which resulted in suspensions of three to five days.
School officials maintained that the students had violated the code of conduct prohibiting consumption or possession of alcohol while in control or custody of the school district.
A number of students appealed the suspensions to the Mariemont City Board of Education. At a board hearing, about 15 students and their parents testified that teacher Mark Nadobny, coordinator of the trip, had “verbally created an exception” to the code of conduct.
“The parents and students understood that the exception would allow the parents, either alone or in consultation with the host families, to decide whether the students could consume alcohol while on the trip,” the lawsuit states.
“The outrage at the school was palpable and unanimous among the parents,” Mr. Ward said. “Children don’t check their rights at the schoolhouse door, and neither do their parents.”
Mr. Nadobny told the school board he made an exception only for such behavior to take place in a host family’s home or under direct supervision of host parents. Yet he also conceded that neither he nor any other school personnel had put the exception in writing.
After the hearing, the school board overturned the suspensions and ordered the suspended students to perform community service. A couple students had to attend extra Friday school sessions.
Two students appealed the case through their mothers to the common pleas court, which reversed the school board’s decision due to “the lack of clarity in the school’s exception to the code of conduct,” according to the ruling.
“The problem is that schools have – with substantial justification – been given a lot of discretion in establishing and enforcing conduct,” Mr. Ward explained. “And rare is the situation where their (the school’s) conduct will be successfully challenged.”
The school board then appealed the case to the Ohio First District Court of Appeals, but it upheld the lower court’s decision because of the exception discussed by school officials and parents.
State law gives school boards the authority to establish codes of conduct, but “requires a school district to specify the types of misconduct that will result in discipline. There was undisputed evidence that the school district, through its employees, had engrafted an exception [to the code]”, the decision states.
“The trial court held that the school had not clearly delineated the exception and that, accordingly, the disciplinary actions were invalid. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s holding.”
The appellate court ruling also noted that a number of witnesses presented evidence that the school had not imposed disciplinary actions in the past for alcohol consumption by students in similar circumstances on past trips.
“The rules promulgated by schools must be communicated in a clear fashion: when a school opens the door to the modification of established policies, it must implement the modification with clarity and specificity,” the appellate court ruling states.
Mr. Ward, who studied abroad while in high school and college, said he is an advocate of foreign exchange educational programs, but he also believes that parental rights and responsibilities must be respected.
“Schools need to watch how and when they infringe on the rights of students and also when they interfere with the parent/child relationship,” Mr. Ward said. “The parent/child relationship is one of the most fundamental in our world, and there are rights that belong to it that are natural as well as constitutionally protected.”
Following the appellate court decision, Mr. Ward said he was pleased to see the school give all the students credit for the 30 hours of community service they completed in the spring of 2004, which was applied toward the 40 hours of service required of all seniors.
“I applaud the school for stepping up and giving the students the credit,” Mr. Ward said. “It was the right thing to do and shows their respect for the rule of law. Their response turned the court of appeals ruling into a positive for everyone.”
Drew & Ward Co., LPA this year celebrates its 48th anniversary, enjoying a history of nearly five decades of service: service to clients, service to the law, and service to the community. Ray Drew and Dick Ward opened their office in the Central Trust Tower (now the Fourth & Vine Tower) in Cincinnati, Ohio in 1958. Both were pilots during World War II and returned to pursue legal careers after admiring attorneys in their own families. The two founded the firm based on the ideals of serving clients with good counsel, cost effective solutions and hard work.
For more information, call 513-621-8210.
|
