Legal writing
Sara-us
Casefactsandrules.docxFacts for Fall 2018 Appellate Brief Assignment –
Appeal of Motion for Summary Judgment
Background
The school board held a hearing and upheld Principal Meaney’s decision to suspend Sarah and further refused to expunge her record of that suspension. Sarah LeRoy exhausted her administrative remedies and commenced an action in federal court, seeking injunctive relief by way of expunging Sarah’s suspension from her record; declaratory relief to the effect that the school board acted unconstitutionally under color of state law in regard to her suspension; and damages in the form of out-of-pocket expenses for tuition for the private school where she finished her high school degree, for the scholarship she lost from Ivy University attributable to her suspension record; other nominal or punitive damages; and attorney’s fees and costs.
Plaintiff Sarah LeRoy moved for summary judgment in the case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 56, seeking a judgment from the Northern District of New York (trial court) that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The trial court DENIED Plaintiff Sarah LeRoy’s motion for summary judgment. Sarah LeRoy disagrees with the Court’s decision, and so she has filed an appeal with the Second Circuit.
Assignment:
Write an appellate brief to the appellate court (Court of Appeals, Second Circuit) convincing it why the law and facts support your client’s point of view and relief sought (YOU ARE COUNSEL FOR EITHER THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OR SARAH).
Sarah LeRoy is the APPELLANT.
The School District is the APPELLEE.
Attached for your review is the text of Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 56 (see page 3). Furthermore, the parties have agreed to use a stipulated record, attached beginning at page 4, as part of its exhibits. DO NOT ATTACH ANY EXHIBITS TO YOUR BRIEF.
The brief should follow standard format, including the following sections:
Cover sheet (provided, including online)
Table of Contents
Table of Authorities
Question Presented
Facts
Argument (including point headings/sub-headings)
Conclusion
The brief should be in 12-point Times New Roman or Century Schoolbook font, and shall be double (2.0) line spaced, and shall not exceed 12 pages in length; however, the cover sheet, table of contents, and table of authorities do NOT count towards the 12-page limit.
The brief is due by 10:00 p.m. on Tuesday .
Thank you.
Rule 56. Summary Judgment
(a) By a Claiming Party. A party claiming relief may move, with or without supporting affidavits, for summary judgment on all or part of the claim. The motion may be filed at any time after:
(1) 20 days have passed from commencement of the action; or
(2) the opposing party serves a motion for summary judgment.
(b) By a Defending Party. A party against whom relief is sought may move at any time, with or without supporting affidavits, for summary judgment on all or part of the claim. (c) Serving the Motion; Proceedings. The motion must be served at least 10 days before the day set for the hearing. An opposing party may serve opposing affidavits before the hearing day. The judgment sought should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (d) Case Not Fully Adjudicated on the Motion.
(1) Establishing Facts. If summary judgment is not rendered on the whole action, the court should, to the extent practicable, determine what material facts are not genuinely at issue. The court should so determine by examining the pleadings and evidence before it and by interrogating the attorneys. It should then issue an order specifying what facts--including items of damages or other relief--are not genuinely at issue. The facts so specified must be treated as established in the action.
(2) Establishing Liability. An interlocutory summary judgment may be rendered on liability alone, even if there is a genuine issue on the amount of damages.
(e) Affidavits; Further Testimony.
(1) In General. A supporting or opposing affidavit must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant is competent to testify on the matters stated. If a paper or part of a paper is referred to in an affidavit, a sworn or certified copy must be attached to or served with the affidavit. The court may permit an affidavit to be supplemented or opposed by depositions, answers to interrogatories, or additional affidavits.
(2) Opposing Party's Obligation to Respond. When a motion for summary judgment is properly made and supported, an opposing party may not rely merely on allegations or denials in its own pleading; rather, its response must--by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule--set out specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. If the opposing party does not so respond, summary judgment should, if appropriate, be entered against that party.
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
___________________________________________
Sarah LeRoy, an infant under the age of 18 years,
by her parents, Oscar Leroy and Nina LeRoy,
Plaintiff
vs.
The Board of Education of the City of Syracuse, New York,
The City of Syracuse School District, George Meaney, as
Principal, City of Syracuse School District, Loni Necht,
and Jerome Roberts, Alex Jupiter, Henry Stern, Alicia Gorman
and Haley Farrow, members of The Board of Education of
the City of Syracuse, New York
Defendants
___________________________________________
RECORD ON APPEAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
___________________________________________
Sarah LeRoy, an infant under the age of 18 years,
by her parents, Oscar Leroy and Nina LeRoy,
Plaintiff ORDER AND JUDGMENT
vs.
The Board of Education of the City of Syracuse, New York,
The City of Syracuse School District, George Meaney, as
Principal, City of Syracuse School District, Loni Necht,
and Jerome Roberts, Alex Jupiter, Henry Stern, Alicia Gorman
and Haley Farrow, members of The Board of Education of
the City of Syracuse, New York
Defendants
___________________________________________
Upon the motion brought before the Court and upon the record and further upon the memoranda of law presented to this court, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, opining that there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether the School District properly suspended plaintiff for behavior that was lewd, vulgar, or offensive or substantially interfered with and/or disrupted the School District’s educational mission. See Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
ENTER: _________________
________________________________________
James Johnson, U.S. District Court Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
___________________________________________
Sarah LeRoy, an infant under the age of 18 years,
by her parents, Oscar Leroy and Nina LeRoy,
Plaintiff Notice of Appeal
vs.
The Board of Education of the City of Syracuse, New York,
The City of Syracuse School District, George Meaney, as
Principal, City of Syracuse School District, Loni Necht,
and Jerome Roberts, Alex Jupiter, Henry Stern, Alicia Gorman
and Haley Farrow, members of The Board of Education of
the City of Syracuse, New York
Defendants
___________________________________________
The Plaintiffs hereby appeal from the lower district court’s judgment and order and each and every part thereof.
Dated: ____________
Hanson J. Hanson
Hanson J. Hanson, Esq.
Hanson & Hanson, P.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Six Hanover Towers
Syracuse, New York 13244
Tel. 315 555-1900
Fax: (315) 555-1977
To: Semansky and Semansky, LL.P.
Attorneys for Defendant City of Syracuse School District
Office and Post Office Address
Two Hanover Towers
Syracuse, New York 13244
Tel. (315) 555-1167
Fax: (315) 555-1668
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
___________________________________________
Sarah LeRoy, an infant under the age of 18 years,
by her parents, Oscar Leroy and Nina LeRoy,
Plaintiff
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
vs. SUMMARY JUDGMENT
PURSUANT TO RULE 56
The Board of Education of the City of Syracuse, New York,
The City of Syracuse School District, George Meaney, as
Principal, City of Syracuse School District, Loni Necht,
and Jerome Roberts, Alex Jupiter, Henry Stern, Alicia Gorman
and Haley Farrow, members of The Board of Education of
the City of Syracuse, New York
Defendants
___________________________________________
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: That Plaintiff will move this court on November x, 2018 at 10:00 in the forenoon of that day for an order granting summary judgment to Plaintiff pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure granting the following relief:
a. a judgment declaring Rule 220 of the Syracuse School District unconstitutional on its face as overbroad and a violation of plaintiff’s rights and the rights of those similarly situated as granted to citizens of the United States under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution;
b. a judgment declaring the manner of enforcement and application of Rule 220 of the Syracuse School District against plaintiff Sarah LeRoy unconstitutional and a violation of civil rights afforded to her under the Fifth and Fourteen Amendments to the United States Constitution;
c. an order permanently enjoining Defendants from further enforcement of Rule 220 of the Syracuse School District;
d. an order compelling Defendants to expunge plaintiff’s disciplinary record of all punishments or sanctions imposed against her pursuant to Defendants’ conduct;
e. an order setting this matter down for a trial on the issue of damages.
f. an award of reasonable attorneys fees and costs for this action;
g. the granting of such further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
DATED: October --, 2018
Hanson J. Hanson
Hanson J. Hanson, Esq.
Hanson & Hanson, P.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Six Hanover Towers
Syracuse, New York 13244
Tel. 315 555-1900
Fax: (315) 555-1977
To: Semansky and Semansky, LL.P.
Attorneys for Defendant City of Syracuse School District
Office and Post Office Address
Two Hanover Towers
Syracuse, New York 13244
Tel. (315) 555-1167
Fax: (315) 555-1668
EXHIBITS EXHIBIT “A”
Plaintiff’s Complaint
[omitted]
EXHIBIT “B”
Defendants’ Answer
[omitted]
EXHIBIT “C”
Rule 220 – Syracuse School District
Rule 220.
(A) Prohibition. Students are prohibited from wearing any clothing or other banners, buttons, clothing accessories, or any other articles of clothing that contain words, acronyms, or symbols that are obscene or that would substantially disrupt legitimate school functions, nor may they wear any clothing. Violation of this rule may result in discipline of the student(s) who violate it. Sanctions may include but are not limited to detention, suspension, or expulsion for school.
(B) Hearings and Procedure. Whenever a student is sanctions under this rule, the student shall have an absolute right to appeal the decision of the school officials who make the preliminary determination as to its applicability and sanctions that may have accompanied such a preliminary determination.
EXHIBIT “D”
STIPULATION OF FACTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
___________________________________________
Sarah LeRoy, an infant under the age of 18 years,
by her parents, Oscar Leroy and Nina LeRoy,
Plaintiffs
STIPULATION OF FACTS
vs.
The Board of Education of the City of Syracuse, New York,
The City of Syracuse School District, George Meaney, as
Principal, City of Syracuse School District, Loni Necht,
and Jerome Roberts, Alex Jupiter, Henry Stern, Alicia Gorman
and Haley Farrow, members of The Board of Education of
the City of Syracuse, New York
Defendants
___________________________________________
1. In May 2018, Sarah wore a t-shirt to a public high school in the City of Syracuse, New York. The president of her class and editor of the school newspaper, Sarah wore the t-shirt to express her political views concerning the current involvement and terrorist deaths of United States personnel in Afghanistan. She had expressed her views in two school editorials weeks before.
2. The first editorial resulted in little more than some welcome student debate in the hallway, and school officials did nothing at the time. The second article prompted more reaction; some student gave her the “high-five” in the hallways and expressed strong agreement with her anti-U.S. involvement views with noticeable enthusiasm. Other students jeered at her and called her “unpatriotic” and a “traitor,” also in loud tones. A few teachers witnessed this, as did Principal Meaney. Meaney simply pulled Sarah aside and asked her to “tone it down in the hallways and in future articles.”
3. The t-shirt Sarah wore on May 25th reiterated her strong anti-involvement views, focused on the Afghanistan war, and included a relief of a black map of Afghanistan on the front with a red circle and slash (similar to a “No Parking” sign) superimposed over it. The shirt also contained words. The front read “Obama is a murderer! He is slaughtering your brothers and sisters!” On the reverse side, it read “No more immoral involvement in Afghanistan!” These appeared in large, bold letters about up to four inches tall.
4. Although some students occasionally jeered at Sarah in the hall or gave her a thumbs-up in response to her shirt, most did nothing. One student threw a pen at her in class and called her a traitor, but Sarah did not react, and her teacher simply told the offending student to leave Sarah alone.
5. When Principal Meaney saw the shirt, he expressed concern over the pen throwing incident, and asked Sarah to replace her shirt with a t-shirt from her locker or to wear a jacket over it. She complied, explaining that her brother had just been killed in a terrorist attack on a military facility in Afghanistan, and agreeing to put over the controversial shirt a white, long-sleeved shirt.
6. Later that day, Sarah opened a school assembly on “current events” by speaking critically about United States and coalition involvement in Afghanistan. A total of 250 students attended, as well as several faculty members and Principal Meaney. Sarah spoke loudly and waved her hand in the air to emphasize her points.
7. She then took out a container of red paint and smeared red paint across the front of her white shirt. In response to the controversial subject matter of her speech and her grotesque and shocking act, students and faculty sat silent. They remained silent for 30 seconds, and no disturbance was present.
8. Sarah then removed her white, stained shirt and displayed her anti-United States involvement shirt she wore to school that morning. The shirt, and all of its print and graphics, were visible for all to see in the assembly. About 10 students rose and booed her, waving their fists in the air. A few shouted “traitor,” or “sit down and shut up!” or words to that effect. At the same time, approximately 20 students stood up and applauded.
9. The school had intended that the assembly should include a student panel discussion on current events and expected that students would discuss the war in Afghanistan as it appeared regularly in news headlines. However, it feared that Sarah’s expressions had generated unrest within the student body which might get out of hand and result in fights, even though no such disruptions actually occurred. The principal called Sarah into his office and suspended her because of her conduct and manner of dress and told her she could not return wearing her t-shirt or any clothing with a similarly inappropriate messages, and that she could not speak or write about such matters as she had in the past.
10. Sarah returned to school the next day wearing the same t-shirt, refused to change her shirt or remove it, and was suspended. The school board, following proper procedures, held a hearing and affirmed the principal’s decision. Sarah’s parents threatened litigation and hired a lawyer. Two weeks of negotiations to allow Sarah to return and have her record expunged failed. With graduation approaching, neither side gave in. Sarah did not graduate on time when ceremonies were held in June 2018.
EXHIBIT “E”
Notice of Decision and Disposition,
Syracuse School District REVIEW PANEL
TO: Mr. and Mrs. Oscar LeRoy
123 State Street
Syracuse, New York 13244
Re: Sarah LeRoy, Syracuse High School
This panel held a hearing to determine the validity of the Spring 2018 suspension imposed upon Sarah LeRoy, then a senior attending Beatrice High School within the Syracuse School District by that school's principal, George Meaney. This panel also reviewed all documents and records related to this case.
It is the decision of this panel that the suspension was proper, and that the letter of suspension that was placed into Sarah LeRoy's Beatrice High School academic transcript remain permanent.
DATED: June 5, 2018
__Hela Hopper_____________________________
Hela Hopper
__ Guy Lombardo_____________________________
Guy Lombardo
___Graden Minskey ____________________________
Graden Minskey
EXHIBIT “F”
Parson School
One Parson Place
Syracuse, New York 13244
OFFICE OF THE DEAN
August 25, 2018
Mr. and Mrs. Oscar LeRoy
123 State Street
Syracuse, New York 13244
Re: Sarah LeRoy
Dear Mr. and Mrs. LeRoy:
We write to you at the behest of both yourselves and your attorney to outline our involvement with the education of your daughter, Sarah LeRoy. We understand your circumstances and we are happy to have issued a high school diploma after accepting transfer credit of your daughter, Sarah LeRoy from the Syracuse School District.
At your request, we state here for the record that the cost of Sarah’s tuition for the additional courses required to complete her education was $8,500.00, which has been paid in full by you.
Thank you for sending Sarah to our school. It has been a pleasure to have her here.
Sincerely,
Arthur H. White
Arthur White, Dean
AHW:cb
Ivy University
Framingham, Massachusetts 01701
Tel: (508) 555-8866
Fax: (508) 555-8867
OFFICE OF ADMISSIONS AND FINANCIAL AID
September 22, 2018
Ms. Sarah LeRoy
123 State Street
Syracuse, New York 13244
Re: Ivy University Dean’s Merit Scholarship
Dear Sarah:
We write to you at your request to confirm some of the particulars of your situation here at Ivy University. First, our registrar’s records show that you are a student in good standing here at Ivy University, having matriculated during the beginning of our fall 2018 semester. Second, your application for admission was accepted in February 2018 and included a four-year Ivy University Dean’s merit Scholarship of $25,000.00 per academic year. Finally, for the record, our rules prohibit the issuance of a scholarship to students who have a suspension or other record of discipline on their high school transcripts and that, regrettably, we were unable to honor our original scholarship commitment to you.
If you have any additional questions, please let us know.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Laura Hudson Karnaby
Laura Hudson Karnaby
Associate Dean for Admissions and Financial Aid
LHK: db
1 | Page
