Last week, the Guilderland Central School District announced its victory in a civil rights lawsuit brought against the district by former student Garrett Barmore.
In the July decision, which was announced Tuesday, Jan. 30, U.S. District Judge Thomas J. McAvoy dismissed all charges against the Guilderland Central School District and its administrators in and ordered that Barmore pay the district $9,500 in court fees.
Barmore filed the lawsuit in the wake of disciplinary actions taken against him as a result of an incident in October 2003. At that time, Barmore allegedly entered the Guilderland Central High School cafeteria and punched a student, breaking the student’s nose. A fight ensued, and Andrew Dillon, then 18, joined the brawl after the injured student, who was white, allegedly yelled racial slurs. Both Dillon and Barmore are black.
All three students received a five-day suspension from the principal at the time, Ismael Villafane.
Additionally, Barmore was suspended for one month by Superintendent Greg Aidala, a punishment that was later overturned by the school board and stricken from Barmore’s record.
In his lawsuit, Barmore claimed that school officials did not act equitably when administering disciplinary measures to students involved in the incident and that he received unfair treatment because of his race.
McAvoy determined that Barmore’s allegations of civil rights violations and negligence were without merit and ruled that district administrators followed district policies. Furthermore, the court ruled that administrators took proper action to discipline the students who violated those policies and meted out fair and appropriate disciplinary treat-ment to Barmore for his role in the fight.
The dismissal was the result of a motion by the district for a summary judgment a decision made by the judge based on the merits of the evidence presented in the case, and reliant on whether or not there is any actual issue for a jury to dispute.
In the lawsuit, Barmore sought judgment on several claims, including that he encountered race-based hostility at school, disparate treatment, negligence and that he did not receive due process when he was punished.
In regard to the school providing a hostile environment for Barmore, the judgment cites lack of evidence for its dismissal: Despite evidence that racial and religious epithets were regularly uttered in the halls and on the buses of the school district, there is no evidence that they were heard by the plaintiff.`
Barmore’s lawyer, Paul Wein, called the decision shocking and contradictory.
`It boggles my mind,` said Wein.
Wein said, in one instance, the ruling states the district claims they had no knowledge that Barmore was subject to racial taunts, and yet it also states that the principal was informed of slurs being directed toward Barmore.
`If the principal was aware, how could they say they did not know,` said Wein. `That’s ridiculous.`
`The level of evidence that the school district presented compared to the plaintiff is disproportionate,` said Gregg T. Johnson, the lawyer who represented the school district.
Wein disagreed and said there were affidavits submitted, not included in the final ruling, where Guilderland students claim they had heard `the ‘n’ word being used in the halls on a regular basis` and that two students submitted affidavits claiming they chose to attend another school because the problem was so prevalent.
Asked Wein, `What do you need to show, cross-burnings?`
In terms of disparate treatment, the court said that Barmore had to establish that he was treated differently than others in similar situations and that this treatment was motivated by an intent to discriminate on the basis of race.
The court ruled that the plaintiff provided no basis upon which a jury could conclude that any of the defendants involved in the disciplinary action `were motivated by a desire to punish or inhibit his exercise of constitutional rights, or by a malicious or bad faith intent to injure him.`
Furthermore, McAvoy determined that Barmore failed to establish that he was treated differently than other similarly situated students.
`The undisputed facts reveal that non-African-American students at GHS have received lengthier suspensions for conduct that was far less egregious then [sic] planning and commencing a fight in which another student received a broken nose,` read the decision.
As for the contention that Barmore’s right to due process was violated, the court found that he failed to identify any process he was denied that was sufficient enough to establish a due process claim.
Aidala said that disciplinary actions are dealt with on a case-by-case basis. A recommendation was made by Villafane that Barmore have a hearing before the superintendent, as is district policy.
`The purpose of a superintendent hearing is to review the case and see if a suspension of more than five days is warranted,` said Aidala.
Superintendent hearings are called for serious issues, said Aidala, including fighting, carrying weapons, drugs, and repeat offenders.
Finally, the claims of negligence were dismissed because the district did not know that Barmore was going to attack a student, therefore, had no duty to protect him. And since the attack was a `sudden, unprovoked act` that the district could not have prevented, Barmore cannot establish a link between lack of supervision and his injuries.
`We are extremely pleased with the decision,` said Aidala. `It confirms that district administrators treated every student fairly and appropriately in assigning consequences for their unacceptable behavior.`
Wein said there were sufficient grounds for an appeal but it was his client’s decision not to move forward because he `wanted to get on with his life.` Barmore is now a student at the University at Albany.
Aidala said the district will continue to evaluate actions in disciplinary proceedings fairly and accurately, on a case-by-case basis, and with everyone’s best interests in mind.
`It’s important for our high school to be a safe environment for the students and staff that are there on a daily basis,` said Aidala.“
