## Facts

- Rachel Jennings and Lauren Schwaigert were varsity cheerleaders at Holt High School, a public school in Missouri.
- Before a cheerleading photo session and a football jamboree at the school, the students drank vodka off campus at another student’s house.
- At the jamboree, other cheerleaders suspected alcohol use; one later testified Rachel said, “Don’t tell anyone, me and Lauren are drunk.”
- Cheerleaders reported their concerns to the cheerleading advisor, Diane Moran, and later contacted her at home; Moran held a late-night meeting with squad members at a student’s home.
- The advisor informed school administration; Principal John Waters investigated whether the students violated the district’s alcohol policy.
- Waters interviewed Rachel and Lauren; both refused to answer questions during the investigation.
- Waters imposed ten-day out-of-school suspensions for being under the influence of alcohol in connection with a school event.
- The district provided written suspension notices stating the reasons and available review/appeal procedures; the parents did not pursue the offered procedures.
- The parents filed a federal civil rights suit alleging denial of procedural due process and municipal liability for failure to train under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

## Issues

1. Whether the ten-day suspensions satisfied procedural due process requirements for short-term student suspensions under Goss v. Lopez.
2. Whether the school district could be liable under § 1983 for failure to train employees on due process requirements.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the school district and individual defendants.
- The court held the students received constitutionally sufficient process for a ten-day suspension: notice of the accusations and an opportunity to respond during the investigation.
- The students’ refusal to answer questions did not convert otherwise adequate procedures into a due process violation.
- The failure-to-train claim failed because plaintiffs did not show an underlying constitutional violation and did not show deliberate indifference by the district.

## Legal Principles

- For suspensions of ten days or less, due process generally requires notice of the charges and, if denied, an explanation of the evidence and an opportunity to present the student’s side; the process may be informal and need not be a full adversarial hearing.
- When school officials provide notice and an opportunity to be heard, a student’s decision not to participate does not create a procedural due process violation.
- Post-discipline review procedures offered to parents may support the adequacy of process when the school provides clear notice of how to seek review and the family declines to use it.
- Municipal failure-to-train liability under § 1983 requires deliberate indifference and a causal link to a constitutional injury; absent a constitutional violation, the claim fails.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the ten-day suspensions because the school gave the students notice and an opportunity to respond consistent with Goss, and it rejected § 1983 failure-to-train liability where no constitutional deprivation and no deliberate indifference were shown.


Jennings v. Wentzville R-IV Sch. Dist., 397 F.3d 1118 (8th Cir. 2005)