Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

10-2290 Jackson v. Indian Prairie School District 204

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//August 11, 2011//

10-2290 Jackson v. Indian Prairie School District 204

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//August 11, 2011//

Listen to this article

Constitutional Law
Due process; state-created danger

A school principal did not violate the due process rights of a special education support teacher by sending her into a room alone with a violent student.

“[T]he factors falling in favor of finding that the defendants’ actions do not shock the conscience are the following: the record shows that many of W.K.’s acts of violence were not against other people, but were against himself, by, for example, intentionally running into walls. The IEP evaluation reports describe the staff members as expressing concern that they were not meeting W.K.’s needs, that he was incredibly needy and disrespectful, and that he was failing to advance, but not that they were in fear of his harming them. The district held regular evaluations of W.K. where it was noted that his total incidents were down, and that he was showing a trend towards verbal, rather than physical, outbursts. Principal Zeman went to W.K.’s room before he asked Jackson to talk to W.K. about his outburst, and Principal Zeman did not leave the room until after he felt that W.K. had calmed down. And every IEP evaluation report, except for the report created after the March 13 incident where W.K. injured Jackson, recommended that the educational setting that best met W.K.’s needs was supported education in a general educational classroom. Without these critical factors, the district’s decision not to transfer W.K. could be seen as an implicit acceptance of, and a deliberate indifference to, violence towards its teachers and staff, which could satisfy the standard for finding a constitutional violation. King ex rel. King, 496 F.3d at 819. But see Walker v. Rowe, 791 F.2d 507, 510-11 (7th Cir. 1986) (due process clause does not assure safe working conditions for public employees). As the unique facts of this case stand, although the defendants’ actions may well have been short-sighted, flawed, negligent, and tortious, they do not satisfy the standard for finding a constitutional violation. County of Sacramento, 523 U.S. at 848; Collins v. City of Harker Heights, Tex., 503 U.S. 115, 129 (1992) (the due process clause is not a guarantee against incorrect or ill-advised personnel decisions by state actors).”

Affirmed.

10-2290 Jackson v. Indian Prairie School District 204

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, St. Eve, J., Williams, J.

Full Text

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests