C.N. v. Wolf, No. 05-868 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2005)
A California federal district court has declined to dismiss a student's claim that a high school principal violated the student's right to privacy when the principal informed the student's mother that the student was gay. The court rejected the school district's argument that the student had surrendered her right to privacy because she was openly gay at school. Charlene Nguon, a student at Santiago High School (SHS) in Garden Grove, California, contends that Principal Ben Wolf singled her out for discipline because of her sexual orientation. She claims that Principal Wolf suspended her for engaging in public acts of affection with her girlfriend,
i.e., hugging and kissing, while ignoring similar behavior by heterosexual students. Charlene alleges that neither SHS nor Garden Grove Unified School District (GGUSD) has a written policy governing inappropriate public displays of affection, or have they provided school administrators and staff with nondiscriminatory guidelines for disciplining students who engage in such behavior. She also claims that the principal revealed her sexual identity to her parents without her knowledge or consent. In addition, Charlene contends that Principal Wolf ordered her or her girlfriend to transfer, resulting in her attending another school her junior year. Her suit is seeking injunctive and declaratory relief and damages. Charlene's suit raises three federal claims: (1) violation of her freedom of expression rights; (2) violation of her equal protection rights; and (3) violation of her privacy rights. Turning to GGUSD's motion to dismiss, the district court first addressed its Eleventh Amendment immunity claim. It concluded that under California law, school districts are an arm of the state and, thus, entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. The court rejected Charlene's argument, based on the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), that such immunity does not extend to claims against the state for injunctive or declaratory relief. However, the court did conclude that such immunity does not extend to SHS and GGUSD officials in their official and personal capacities. It concluded that Charlene had alleged sufficient facts to show that officials had violated clearly established constitutional rights and that there was no objectively reasonable basis for the officials to believe that their conduct was lawful. Regarding the liability of the assistant superintendents and the superintendent, the district court found that Charlene had pled sufficient facts to allege that they had failed to take steps to remedy Principal Wolf's unconstitutional acts. As to Principal Wolf, the court found Charlene had pled sufficient facts to allege he had engaged in disparate treatment of her based on her sexual orientation. Regarding the privacy claim, the district court rejected GGUSD's argument that Charlene has no "legally-protectable privacy interest because she is openly gay at school." GGUSD's motion contended that her "conduct is not private and a reasonable person could not expect that their actions on school grounds, in front of everyone else on the school grounds, would remain private." Citing
U.S. Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989), the court concluded "the fact that an event is not wholly private does not mean that an individual has no interest in limiting disclosure or dissemination of information."
C.N. v. Wolf, No. 05-868 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2005)
[Link to full opinion][
Editor's Note: In a report in the New York Times
, Christine Sun, a lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), who brought the suit, said, "This is the first court ruling we're aware of where a judge has recognized that a student has a right not to have her sexual orientation disclosed to her parents, even if she is out of the closet at school." While a GGUSD spokesperson declined to comment on the court's ruling, some other organizations expressed displeasure with the district's court's decision. Carrie Gordon Earll, a spokeswoman for Focus on the Family, said, "This court ruling is so unrealistic that it borders on ridiculous," She added, "In a disciplinary action by the school, you can't expect them to lie to the parents and not give details of what happened. It seems ironic to raise privacy as an issue in a public display of affection. She'd already outed herself." To view the complete New York Times
article and the ACLU's complaint filed on behalf of Charlene, access the links below.]
New York TimesBy Tamar Lewin
[Link to full story][Charlene Nguon's complaint]