Education Law

Michigan Supreme Court sides with teacher safety in student assault cases

On July 31, 2010 the Michigan Supreme Court in Lansing Schools Education Association v. Lansing Board of Education addressed an important safety issue for educators.  Michigan law requires that students who physically assault an educator be expelled.   In the lawsuit, four teachers, along with the local, state, and national education association alleged that in several instances students who physically assaulted teachers were suspended but not expelled.  The plaintiffs were seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Lansing School Board to expel the students.  The defendant Lansing Board of Education won the lawsuit at the Court of Appeals level, where plaintiffs were found to lack standing to pursue this claim.  In a decision last this week, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed, saying that plaintiffs did indeed have standing.

This decision overturned an earlier Supreme Court decision, Lee/Cleveland Cliffs, that had adopted the federal view of standing and its case-or-controversy doctrine.  The court explained that it was returning to Michigan's historical view on standing that is a limited, prudential approach.  This approach was one that gave courts discretion and granted standing to individuals who had a special interest in the case, not an interest in common with every other citizen in the state, in order to ensure sincere and vigorous advocacy. Thus, the court reasoned in this case that teachers have a special interest in enforcing the expulsion law MCL 380.1311a(1), that will be detrimentally affected in a manner different from the citizenry at large if the statute is not enforced.  In order words, since these teachers were injured by students they, and the labor organizations that represent them, have a unique interest in making sure that the students were actually expelled (not just suspended).  This is especially true in light of the fact that the law was passed to make schools a safer, more effective working environment for teachers.

Under Michigan's new approach, a litigant has standing whenever there is a legal cause of action.  Where a cause of action isn't provided by law, the court may determine that a litigant has standing if that party has a special injury or right or substantial interest that will be detrimentally affected in a manner different than the citizenry at large or if the statute conveys standing.

This case interests me because in one of the first school law classes I taught, one of my students, a high school teacher, was assaulted and injured by a student as she attempted to break up a fight.  The whole class was shocked by the lack of recourse she had.  The student immediately left the district, so the school board took no action against the student and the teacher did not press criminal charges.  For teachers who are assaulted by students, this decision will be a welcome relief. 

Interestingly, earlier in my career I served as an Assistant Attorney General for the State of Michigan representing the State in various matters, including purchasing.  We had numerous disappointed bidders, i.e. companies who were unsuccessful in their attempts to secure contracts with the State, attempt to sue to enforce statutes that required the State to follow certain bidding procedures.  The courts in those cases routinely ruled that these bidders lacked standing.  The bidders' arguments were essentially the same as the educators in these cases—we have a special interest in pursuing these claims so you should let us.  Under the reasoning of the Lansing Schools Education Association case, these bidders may be able to be granted standing to pursue these claims.  I do not think that would be a good thing because most of the claims that were brought by the disappointed bidders were based more on their disgruntled status than any significant variance from the law.  Of course, public school teachers are public servants and the law in this situation is more straightforward than the state bidding procedures, so educators are more likely to bring a lawsuit to enforce the expulsion law in a manner that would benefit the public as a whole rather than attempt to pursue a personal vendetta against a student.

Full post as published by Edjurist on August 09, 2010 (boomark / email).