In a recent case, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has made it clear that a school district can impose limits on a parent when the parent acts in a manner that is abusive or inappropriate towards school staff.
Facts in the Case
In Grim v Pennsbury School District, (- 2015 WL 1312482; Civil Action No. 14-04217 (E.D.Pa., Mar. 24, 2015), a parent who was in the midst of a difficult divorce with his spouse alleged that district staff were denying him access to information about his children’s education and denying him access to the school.
The parent in Grim had a long history of issues with respect to his ex-spouse, including convictions for stalking and harassing. Following an incident in which a school employee and the parent got into a verbal altercation, the district sent the parent a letter advising that he was banned from school grounds. The limitation was later modified to allow the parent to pick up his children at school on days in which he had custody of them. The parent alleged that the district had restricted his access to his children’s teachers. The Court found that the parent did not have a valid claim against the district, even if the allegations were true, and dismissed the case.
The Court first found that while the parent in the Grim case was admittedly treated differently than other parents in the district, he was not similarly situated as other parents in that he had a criminal history of convictions for harassment, had a history of conflict with the district, and had to be given multiple chances to act in a civil manner before the district took the steps it did.
In addition, the Court found that the district had a rational reason for taking the steps it took, namely to maintain order in the school setting.
Lastly, the Court found that parents do not have a constitutionally-protected right to enter school property and, as a result, the district could legally impose limits on the parent’s ability to enter school property.
While it appears that the level of behavior engaged in by the parent in the Grim matter was likely, and thankfully, something most school districts do not have to address on a regular basis, a fact that may have influenced the Court’s ruling in the matter, the rationale used by the Court to reach its conclusion is instructive in showing how districts should address situations with difficult parents.
Bottom Line
The Grim case is helpful in that it reminds school districts that there are limits on what a parent can and cannot do when it comes to interacting with school staff and also provides guidance to districts when they can create limits upon parents and how they can do so within the bounds of the law.
First, a district cannot simply create across the board limits on a parent, but rather should do so only in the face of inappropriate conduct by a parent and the district should warn the parent that their conduct is not appropriate, that action will be taken if it continues, and give the parent the opportunity to act in a civil manner.
Second, the district should in an objective a manner as possible document the specific actions of the parent that are unreasonable or inappropriate and the district’s response to the same.
Lastly, in most circumstances the district should provide some opportunity for the parent to communicate with school staff, even with the limitations that are imposed.
If you have any questions, contact your legal counsel or one of the education law attorneys at KingSpry.
School Law Bullets are a publication of the KingSpry Education Law Practice Group. John E. Freund, III, is our editor. The article is meant to be informational and does not constitute legal advice.
