Leroy v. Livingston Manor Central School District

Background

Case Leroy was a 12th-grade student at Livingston Manor Central School District and participated in a public-safety program offered by Sullivan BOCES. On April 19, 2021, a friend photographed Leroy lying on the ground while another student knelt over him. Leroy posted the photograph to his Snapchat story with the caption “Cops got another.” The photograph was visible to approximately 60 to 100 Snapchat friends, including many students at the high school. Another student posted the photograph with the caption “Another one down.”

The posts appeared the day before the jury verdict in Derek Chauvin’s trial for murdering George Floyd. Community members and school personnel viewed the photograph as racist and complained to District administrators. Leroy received threatening messages, including death threats. The next day, students and staff discussed the posts, administrators held an assembly, students conducted a demonstration honoring George Floyd, counselors were made available, law-enforcement officers remained on school grounds, and the District received media requests.

The District suspended Leroy for five school days. After an investigation and a superintendent’s hearing, a hearing officer found that Leroy violated provisions of the District’s Code of Conduct concerning disruption of the school community and off-campus misconduct that substantially disrupted the educational process. Superintendent John P. Evans suspended Leroy from instruction through May 21, 2021, and from extracurricular activities for the rest of the school year, including graduation. The school board upheld the discipline. Leroy later returned from the instructional suspension after signing a conduct contract and attended graduation after obtaining a preliminary injunction in state court.

Leroy’s amended complaint asserted defamation and civil-rights claims under the New York Constitution, the First Amendment, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal law allowing certain civil-rights claims against state actors. He sought damages, a declaration that the defendants’ actions were unconstitutional, removal of suspension references from his records, and changes to District policies. The defendants moved for summary judgment, and Leroy filed a partial cross-motion for summary judgment and asked the court to strike the defendants’ affirmative defenses.

Rulings on abandoned claims and evidence

The court held that Leroy abandoned his claims for violations of the New York State Constitution, permanent injunctive relief, and punitive damages because he did not substantively respond to the defendants’ arguments seeking dismissal of those claims.

The defendants asked the court to strike portions of attorney Jerome T. Dorfman’s declaration. The court declined to strike some portions but disregarded legal arguments and conclusions in the declaration. It stated that this issue was ultimately inconsequential because Leroy’s claims were dismissed and his motion to strike the defendants’ affirmative defenses was denied as moot.

The court also rejected Leroy’s argument that a preliminary injunction issued by the state court prevented the defendants from litigating the First Amendment claim. The court explained that a preliminary-injunction ruling does not decide the case’s merits or prevent a later court from considering them.

First Amendment claim

The court applied the rule from Tinker v. Des Moines that student speech may be restricted when it materially disrupts schoolwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of others’ rights. It also considered the Supreme Court’s decision in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., which recognizes that schools generally have less authority over off-campus speech but may still regulate such speech in some circumstances.

The court found no genuine dispute about the relevant events. It held that District officials reasonably predicted substantial disruption based on the barrage of complaints and demands for action received the night of the posts. It also found that actual disruption occurred at school the next day, including classroom discussions, staff concerns, the assembly, counseling efforts, a student demonstration, continuing student discussions, law-enforcement presence, and media attention.

The court rejected Leroy’s argument that the post had no sufficient connection to the school because it was made off campus and was not posted on a District website. The court held that when the impact of off-campus student speech reaches school grounds in an immediate and significant way, the speech may fall outside the First Amendment’s ordinary protection for student expression. The court therefore held that the defendants did not violate Leroy’s First Amendment free-speech rights by disciplining him.

Defamation claim

The defendants argued that Leroy’s state-law defamation claim was barred because he had not filed a required notice of claim. Leroy did not dispute that the requirement applied or that he had not filed the notice. The court determined that the claim accrued on April 20, 2021, making the 90-day notice deadline July 19, 2021.

The court also found that Leroy did not timely seek permission to file a late notice of claim. The deadline for doing so was July 19, 2022, but Leroy first requested permission in a reply memorandum filed in June 2023. The court denied his request for leave to file a late notice of claim and dismissed the defamation claim.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denied Leroy’s partial cross-motion for summary judgment. It dismissed all of Leroy’s causes of action, denied his motion to strike the defendants’ affirmative defenses as moot, directed entry of judgment for the defendants, and terminated the action.