Jennings v. Wentzville R-IV School District
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
397 F.3d 1118 (2005)
- Written by Daniel Clark, JD
Facts
Rachel Jennings and Lauren Schwaigert (plaintiffs) were cheerleaders at Holt High School in the Wentzville School District (district) (defendant). One day after school—and off campus—Jennings and Schwaigert drank vodka. Later that evening, Jennings and Schwaigert returned to the school to perform with the rest of the cheerleading squad at a football jamboree. Other cheerleaders on the squad were upset that Jennings and Schwaigert were intoxicated and informed their faculty advisor, Diane Moran, that they were going to quit the squad. That night, Moran drove Jennings and Schwaigert to the home of another cheerleader where several squad members had gathered. Moran conducted a squad meeting at the cheerleader’s home until 2:00 a.m. Jennings and Schwaigert later admitted to their parents that they had drunk alcohol. Moran apprised school administrators of the incident. John Waters, the school principal, interviewed Jennings and Schwaigert, but the two refused to answer questions. Waters continued to gather evidence and eventually decided to issue 10-day suspensions to both Jennings and Schwaigert. When Waters telephoned Jennings’s mother about the suspension, the mother abruptly hung up and refused to communicate further with Waters. Waters was unable to reach Schwaigert’s parents but left a voicemail on their answering machine informing them of the suspension and asking them to contact him. The school also sent written notices to Jennings’s and Schwaigert’s houses confirming the suspensions and informing the families that they could seek review of the suspensions, but the families never responded. Jennings and Schwaigert sued the district, alleging that they had been denied the procedural due process owed to students facing suspension under the United States Constitution. The district court dismissed the claims, and Jennings and Schwaigert appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Riley, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.