Sometimes, the problems are with the adults...
As our country grapples with a mental health crisis, schools are asked to do more with less. Not only are students’ needs putting a strain on school resources, but educators are spending more and more time responding to disruptive actions and ever-increasing communications from parents and patrons.
When a non-student’s behavior interferes with the orderly operation of the school, it's important that administrators understand their authority and limitations when setting boundaries. Administrators should feel empowered to set lawful boundaries and enforce them. Limiting or conditioning a disruptive individual’s access to school grounds, activities, and employees makes for a much more productive school environment. In fact, courts around the country regularly uphold schools’ decisions to set such boundaries.
Authority to Set Boundaries
While school grounds and school events are generally open to the public, schools can exclude anyone who is not suitable to be around students or who is disruptive to the orderly operation of the district. See, e.g., Embry v. Lewis, 215 F.3d 884 (8th Cir. 2000). No individual has a “right” to go upon the property of a public education institution. To the contrary, as their own gatekeepers, schools have a substantial interest in avoiding liability by preventing harm to any of their students, faculty, or staff by refusing to allow disruptive, disorderly, or dangerous individuals from entering school grounds or activities. See, e.g., A.W. v. Lancaster County Sch. Dist. 0001, 280 Neb. 205 (2010).
So, what do you do when you have a disruptive parent or patron, or someone poses a possible risk? Schools often issue a letter to the individual, prohibiting that individual from entering school grounds or activities without prior approval. If the recipient disregards this directive, they are trespassing and law enforcement should be notified. We like spelling that out clearly in the letter.
Similarly, schools generally have no legal obligation, outside of unique areas like parent input for special education, to consider or respond to parent or patron communications. Schools have a legitimate interest in limiting excessive, hostile, or intimidating communications so as to allow for efficient operations and to ensure school resources are appropriately expended towards the education of students. The old adage about spending 90% of your time on 10% of your problems always comes to mind.
Usually, when enforcing communications restrictions, it means that the district designates a single person as a point of contact to respond to communications from the individual at issue, and other school officials that receive communications will forward them to the contact person without responding.
Legal Considerations
While schools have the right to exclude individuals from property or limit their communications with staff, they should be mindful of potential claims of retaliation. This most often arises when a parent’s disruptive behavior or excessive communications related in some way to the services provided to a student with a disability.
However, a school will not be found liable when it can demonstrate legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for taking action. See, e.g., North Hills Sch. Dist., 118 LRP 12493 (SEA PA 2018) (no Section 504 violation when a school district limited a mother’s voluminous communications to a single point of contact); Spokane Int’l Acad., 118 LRP 45383 (OCR 2018) (parent’s aggressive, disrespectful conduct justified limitations on her access to campus and staff). This often requires sound documentation regarding the behavior at issue, why it was deemed disruptive, and how the school came to the decision that responsive action was necessary. A zealous parent advocate is different than a hostile or aggressive and threatening parent, and your documentation and reactions must respect this difference.
The Ninth Circuit Abides
An excellent example came just a few weeks ago, when the Ninth Circuit released its opinion in L.F. v. Lake Washington Sch. Dist. #414. In that case, L.F. and his spouse recently finalized a divorced. His daughters allegedly suffer from anxiety and behavioral disorders. Due to his conduct, discussed below, L.F. was placed on a communication plan by his children’s school. The plan prohibited L.F. from directly contacting school staff, and instead called for communication to take place during biweekly meetings between L.F. and building administrators. L.F. claimed the communication plan constituted retaliation against him for advocating for the Section 504 rights of his daughters. According to L.F., this also violated his First Amendment rights.
The Ninth Circuit disagreed. The district produced evidence that the plan was not imposed because of L.F.'s advocacy for his daughter’s rights. Instead, the plan was necessary because L.F. sent “incessant emails to staff accusing them of wrongdoing; making presumptuous demands; leveling demeaning insults,” and acted in an “aggressive, hostile, and intimidating manner” during face-to-face encounters. "[T]he Communication Plan addressed the manner in which L.F. communicated with the District -- not the content of his speech of any viewpoints he wished to convey," Judge Presnell wrote.
Further, the plan did not actually regulate L.F.'s conduct itself; L.F. continued to email staff members after the plan was imposed. Instead, the plan regulated how the district would respond to L.F.’s communications. As the Ninth Circuit noted, “[M]embers of the public do not have a constitutional right to force the government to listen to their views. And the First Amendment does not compel the government to respond to speech directed toward it.” L.F. ex rel. K.S.F. and K.S.F. v. Lake Washington Sch. Dist. #414, 120 LRP 1811 (9th Cir. 2020) (internal citations omitted).
Parent Participation and the IDEA
Schools can also impose limitations on a parent’s access to campus and staff without violating the IDEA’s requirement that parents participate in the IEP process. Under the IDEA, parent participation does not mean that a parent has a right to communicate at will with school staff, nor does it mean that a parent has a right to access school grounds at will.
Instead, the IDEA specifically guarantees parents the right to participate in and receive notice of meetings regarding the provision of FAPE to their child. A meeting does not include informal or unscheduled conversations. 34 C.F.R. § 300.501. So long as the district implements a plan that allows the parent meaningful participation in IEP meetings, it will not run afoul of the IDEA. See, e.g., Seattle School District, 114 LRP 32867 (SEA Wa. 2014) (holding that a communication plan only invokes the IDEA if it inhibits meaningful participation as an IEP team member, and that a communication plan limiting parent communication to a single point of contact did not do so).
Conclusion
It’s unfortunate when schools must take time away from education to deal with the inappropriate behavior of adults. Fortunately, courts recognize that schools must be able to take appropriate actions to address these situations. Schools have the authority to limit a disruptive individual’s access to school grounds, events, and employees. This may take the form of a stay-away letter and a prohibition from school grounds, or a communication plan limiting the time and manner that a school will respond to a parent or patron. In any case, schools should always document disruptive behavior to safeguard against any claims that its actions were unreasonable.
If your school needs help responding to a parent or patron’s disruptive actions or communications, we recommend you reach out to your school’s attorney or call Karen, Steve, Bobby, Coady, or Jordan.