LEGAL ENTANGLEMENT PROJECT: PART 3 1
PART 3: CASE REVIEW ASSIGNMENT
Linda Marie Williams
School of Education, Liberty University
EDAS 747
Author Note
Linda Marie Williams. I have no known conflict of interest to disclose. Correspondence
concerning this article should be addressed to Linda Marie Williams. Email:
lmwilliams31@liberty.edu.
LEGAL ENTANGLEMENT PROJECT: PART 3 2
Introduction
The following cases have a direct impact on education. Cyberbullying can be more
damaging, if not more, than traditional forms of bullying (Fisher, 2021). Although (Kimmel,
2017) found that bullying needs to be treated as a severe problem and not a rite of passage to be
left alone and endured. Nonetheless, it is the duty of the school board, superintendent,
administrators, and teachers to protect the safety of our children in the educational setting.
Moreover, they are responsible for recognizing the signs of abuse and bullying, both inside and
outside of school. Subsequently, administrators should train their staff to recognize signs of such
abuse and what actions, if any, should take. However, a diverse culture should be in place to
make children feel safe and secure when speaking about issues or concerns about their safety and
the safety of others. These cases have set precedence in education today, involving both the
rights of students and teachers as they are not given up just because they entered the school
doors.
In this case law review, the following four cases related to my topic on bullying and
cyberbullying are being reviewed with court decisions and as evidence statements supporting the
spokesperson. Four cases are as follows: Zeno v. Pine Plains Central School District, J. S. v. Blue
Mountain School District, Nicole B. v. School District of Philadelphia, and State v. Bishop June
10, 2016.
Zeno v. Pine Plains Central School District
Analyzes Case Law
Anthony Zeno transferred from another school to Pine Plains from Long Island, New
York, during his first year of high school in January 2005. Over the next three and a half years,
LEGAL ENTANGLEMENT PROJECT: PART 3 3
he would be abused. Thus, shortly after a few weeks of attending this school, a student unknown
to Anthony came charging him and screaming violent bodily harm to him and racial comments,
such as the slang word nigger. Once Anthony's mother, Cathleen Zeno, spoke with his principal,
he told her that in a small town like this, you want to keep the peace and not start trouble. Later,
Mrs. Zeno sent a letter to school officials with her concerns about Anthony's harassment and
racial comments. To no avail, nothing was done about the matter at hand. Consequently, students
were warned about their behavior towards Anthony or threatened with suspension for their
conduct.
Furthermore, as the student harassment continued to spiral out of control, Anthony
continued to report the abuse. However, students continued to make fun of Anthony with such
acts as lynching, displaying a noose, or threatening to take a rope to the nearest tree. Because of
their actions, the students were suspended for five days, which led them to file for orders of
protection. One student is transferred to another school by the district. Not only does he tell
faculty and staff that he is tired of this and cannot take any more of it, but also it must stop
because it has been going on too long. Then Mrs. Zeno wrote another letter to the district
superintendent, describing the verbal abuse, racial slurs, and threats on their lives, not to mention
the physical attacks where police were called. Not only did the superintendent not reach out to
Mrs. Zeno except in writing, but reports of harassment continued to occur. Therefore, Zenos
hired a lawyer on Anthony's behalf about the incidents of harassment and verbal abuse.
Consequently, the administrators never discussed Anthony's racial harassment. Anthony
began this action against the district, alleging discrimination violating Title VI. The district
moved for summary judgment after discovery. The district court denied the motion. The ruling
LEGAL ENTANGLEMENT PROJECT: PART 3 4
from the court on March 12, 2010, the jury returned its verdict, finding that the district had
violated Anthony's civil rights under Title VI and awarding him $1.25 million in damages
J. S. v. Blue Mountain School District
Analyzes Case Law
A minor was suspended from school for creating a MySpace fake profile, making fun of
her principal, and using adult language and sexually explicit content. However, no substantial
disruption was created in school and could not reasonably have led school officials to predict
substantial disruption. J.S. had limited access to her and her friends. The MySpace profile did
have the principal's picture but did not show him by name, school, or location. It was never
viewable at school. J.S. was suspended due to this MySpace profile page. Subsequently, J.S. and
her parents, Terry and Steven Snyder, sued the school district, alleging that J.S.'s First
Amendment free speech rights were violated. They claimed the school district's policies were
unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. Later, the Snyders' Fourteenth Amendment due process
rights were violated. The profile created was considered a Level Four offense under the
Disciplinary Code of Blue Mountain Middle School, Student-Parent Handbook, as a false
accusation about a school staff member and copyright violation of the computer use policy
for using McGonigle's photograph.
The principal contacted MySpace by giving the URL for the profile and requesting its
removal, which was eventually done. However, the superintendent was contacted to inform
her of the decision regarding J.S. and K.L.'s punishment. Although the superintendent could
have denied McGonigle's decision, she ultimately agreed with the punishment. On Friday,
March 23, 2007, McGonigle sent J.S.'s and K.L.'s parents a disciplinary notice, saying they
LEGAL ENTANGLEMENT PROJECT: PART 3 5
were given a ten-day suspension. However, the superintendent declined Mrs. Snyder's
attempt to overrule the suspension the following week. Thus, the First Amendment free speech
rights were violated when J.S. was suspended for an indisputable off-campus speech that did not
cause a substantial disruption at school. Therefore, the school officials could not reasonably have
led administrators to predict substantial disruption at school (LexisNexis). Moreover, schools
have not been able to punish students for off-campus speech that is not school-sponsored or at a
school-sponsored event, and that caused no substantial disruption at school by either the U.S.
Supreme Court or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ever been allowed
(LexisNexis).
Because the district court did not acknowledge that Tinker v. Des Moines Independent
Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969), does not govern this case and no
substantial and material disruption occurred, the School District's punishment was
permissible constitutionally because the profile was both vulgar and offensive; therefore,
because both Fraser and J.S.'s off-campus conduct did have an effect at the school (Justia U.
S. Law, 2011). Furthermore, J.S.'s parents were not mandated to reach their own disciplinary
decision, and they were not coerced to approve or not approve of the conduct. Therefore, the
Fourteenth Amendment claim was denied because the student handbook precisely limited in-
school speech. The policies were not unconstitutional. However, the policies clearly defined
when and where they were applied, with specific examples, and an understandable normative
standard was articulated. Therefore, they were not found unconstitutional for being vague (Justia
U. S. Law, 2011).
Nicole B. v. School District of Philadelphia
LEGAL ENTANGLEMENT PROJECT: PART 3 6
Analyzes Case Law
As a fourth grader, N.B. began attending Bryant on or around September 14, 2011.
N.B. had never attended public school, and his mother expressed concern about her son's
integration into the student population. The principal assured her the child would be safe;
therefore, his mother decided to keep N.B. enrolled at Bryant. As he began to experience
harassing name-calling related to race and sex, he was sexually assaulted at school in the
boy's bathroom on October 25, 2001. However, N.B. did not tell anyone about the incident
until November 4, 2011. According to the Appellant, N.B. had endured two months of
physical and verbal harassment at school leading up to the sexual assault. However, when
N.B.'s mother learned of the assault, she called the authorities, the school principal, and his
teacher. Subsequently, she withdrew N.B. from his school, claiming the administrator and
teacher were both aware of the risk to N.B. but did not protect him from the harm of the
abuse he suffered. These peers caused bodily harm to N.B. on several occasions, and they
forced him to commit humiliating and violent acts under threats of violence. Mom accused
the School District of trying to cover up the sexual assault and made attempts to persuade a
police officer to lie about what happened. Subsequently, N.B. suffered significant
psychological problems from the abuse and needed intensive psychological therapy after the
incident.
Furthermore, an administrative complaint was filed with the Human Relations
Commission against the Philadelphia School District on behalf of N.B., asserting his claims
of discrimination based on gender and race under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act
(P.H.R.A.) two years later, in 2014. Subsequently, the Human Relations Commission rejected
LEGAL ENTANGLEMENT PROJECT: PART 3 7
the Appellant's complaint because it was filed beyond the 180-day time limit. On April 29,
2014, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County,
Philadelphia, PA. Additionally, the court rejected the Appellant's contention that Section 962(e)
of the P.H.R.A. effectively tolls the time requirement for complaints filed by minors and by
explaining that administrative complaints filed beyond the 180-day window have been permitted
in the past based on the doctrine of equitable tolling only in instances where the defendant
actively misleads the Plaintiff regarding the cause of action, and where extraordinary
circumstances prevent the Plaintiff from asserting his rights, and where a plaintiff has asserted
his rights in a timely fashion, but in the wrong forum. However, the court noted that the
Appellant did not advance those justifications. Later they found that her supposition of N.B.'s
status as a minor should trigger justice. Although, through no fault of his own, the court
explained that the doctrine of fairness typically applies where a plaintiff was unaware of or
unable to discover his tort claim promptly. Finally, denying minors the right to be heard by the
Human Relations Commission, and to recover for wrongful discriminatory conduct through
an overly restrictive interpretation of fairness, would defeat the very purpose upon which the
P.H.R.A. is based and prevent the protections of this humanitarian statute. Thus, finding that
justice does not encompass minority tolling would forever bar many minors' discrimination
claims. Dismissing minors' claims before they have the legal ability to bring actions with
protection is at the forefront of protecting children's rights. This conflict is partially resolved
by allowing minors to bring claims through an adult representative. However, minors with a
parent or guardian to stand for them do not have to wait until reaching the age of majority to
seek a remedy in court.
State v. Bishop June 10, 2016
LEGAL ENTANGLEMENT PROJECT: PART 3 8
Analyze the Case
The underlying circumstances involved in this case include Bishop, a Southern Alamance
High School student, and Price, who sent out a sexually explicit text message. Another student
posted a screenshot of Price's message on Facebook (F.B.). Students began to comment on the
post alleging Price was homosexual and homoerotic, and the defendant's comment, "never got to
slap Price down before the Christmas break. When Price's mother discovered him in his room
punching his pillow and banging on his bed, she went to console him. Subsequently, once she
was told about the incident, she telephoned Alamance County Police Department. Later, Bishop
was arrested and charged with one count of Cyberbullying violating N.C.G.S. § 14-458.1. The
warrant reported that the defendant unlawfully, intentionally, and willfully used a computer
network to intimidate and torment Price.
Furthermore, the defendant was convicted in a jury trial. Nonetheless, the North Carolina
Circuit of Appeals upheld the conviction. However, on June 10, 2016, the court, in a unanimous
decision, reversed their decision, finding that cyberbullying was unconstitutionally restricting the
First Amendment freedoms of speech. The court rejected the states' position of prescribed
conduct and not speech. Thus, it noted that the cyberbullying statute made it a crime to post or
encourage others to post certain information online. Consequently, the speech was punished
based on viewpoints and subject to rigorous investigation. Therefore, the state did, however, did
not define torment and personality, which meant cyberbullying could not survive such
scandalous language.
Finally, after investigating the emerging trends and practices of these four court cases in
the various school districts across the U.S., I would be qualified as a spokesperson in support of
LEGAL ENTANGLEMENT PROJECT: PART 3 9
students, parents, and communities regarding their rights and responsibilities in public and
private schools for any violations of the Establishment Clause and their First Amendment rights.
Conclusion
One commonality these four cases have is the First Amendment, freedom of speech.
Because of the challenges schools face in these cases, states must revisit and amend their
bullying and anti-bullying campaigns to include cyberbullying. Consequently, administrators and
school officials punish students for an off-campus-related speech about others. Hudson (2009)
relays substantial disruption standards in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School
District (1969) even in off-campus online speech as long as there is a rationale relation to school
activities. Hudson (2009) recognizes that one part of Tinker often out of mind is when school
officials punish students if their speech invades the rights of other students.
References
Education Law Center. (2019). Nicole B. v School District of Philadelphia. https://www.elc-
pa.org/cases/nicole-b-v-school-district-of-philadelphia-et-al-pa-superior-court-2018/
Fisher, E. (2021). Cyberbullying Laws. FindLaw. https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-
charges/cyber-bullying.html
LEGAL ENTANGLEMENT PROJECT: PART 3 10
Gul, S., Slipsky, M., & Spruill, P. (2016). North Carolina Supreme Court strikes down
cyberbullying statute on free speech grounds. Casetext
https://casetext.com/analysis/north-carolina-supreme-court-strikes-down-cyberbullying-
statute-on-free-speech-grounds?sort=relevance&resultsNav=false&q=
Hudson, D. L. (2009). Cyberbullying. The First Amendment Encyclopedia.
Justia U. S. Law (Case Law). (2011). J. S. v Blue Mountain School District. 08-4138.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca3/08-4138/084138p1-2011-06-
13.html
Justia U. S. Law (Case Law). (2019). Nicole B. v Philadelphia School District. U.S. Supreme
Court J-4-2020. https://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/supreme-court/2020/16-eap-
2019.html
Justia U. S. Law (Case Law). (2012). Zeno v Pine Plains Central School District.10-3604.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/10-3605/10-3604-2012-12-
03.html
Kellman, Bonnie A. (2009). "Tinkering with Tinker: protecting the First Amendment in public
schools. "Notre Dame Law Review, 85(1). 367. Gale Business: Insights,
link.gale.com/apps/doc/A215481546/GBIB?
u=vic_liberty&sid=summon&xid=1bc1e236. Accessed May 24, 2023.
Kimmel, A. (2017). Litigating bullying cases: holding school districts and officials accountable.
https://www.publicjustice.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Bullying-Litigation-Primer-
Fall-2017-Update-FINAL.pdf
