Braintree hockey players get to compete after judge sides with students in lawsuit against high school
"They were very excited, that's for sure."
A Norfolk County Superior Court judge sided with students in a lawsuit against Braintree Public Schools that alleged a school alcohol policy was too vague to be enforced.
Judge Maynard Kirpalani issued a ruling Friday to allow motions for preliminary injunctive relief for five members of the high school’s varsity girls hockey team, allowing them to continue to play after administrators attempted to discipline them following a house party last month.
School officials are now prohibited from placing the students on “social probation” and athletic suspension until further notice from the court.
The decision came a day before the team took on Arlington, a game they ultimately won, 3-0, to advance to the semi-finals.
“They were very excited, that’s for sure,” their attorney, Dave Flanagan, told Boston.com Monday.
The lawsuit was filed after police broke up a Feb. 20 house party at an Albee Drive home, where officers found numerous open containers of alcohol and more than 50 minors and young adults, all under 21 years old. According to authorities, the homeowners were present at the time of the party.
The five girls were told at school they would be placed on “social probation,” barring them from participating in sports and other activities for three weeks.
The senior students have all said they did not drink that night, did not know alcohol would be at the home, and went under the belief the event was parent-supervised. They said they attempted to leave when they saw other party-goers drinking. They asked their parents to pick them up shortly before police arrived, according to court filings.
Administrators handed down the decision based off a school policy that allows them to discipline students “deemed to be ‘in possession'” of alcohol even if a student is only in the presence of alcohol.
Flanagan had called the policy “absolutely ridiculous,” arguing it would prevent students from attending weddings or going to restaurants because alcohol is present.
In his decision Friday, Kirpalani agreed that the policy is unclear.
He noted that “nothing suggests that they were drinking or had reason to believe there would be alcohol at the party,” adding that although a police report says the girls were found to be “in constructive possession of alcohol, nothing in the police report or before the court supports this conclusory legal conclusion.”
“Under these circumstances, persons of common intelligence would likely differ on whether the plaintiffs were in the presence of alcohol and, thus, in possession of alcohol within meaning of the policy,” Kirpalani wrote. “The policy is insufficiently clear as to what conduct is prohibited and invites arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.”
Kirpalani also shot down arguments made by school attorneys that the injunction would undermine administrators’ abilities to enforce school policies, be unfair to students who complied with the policy or accepted their punishment, and jeopardize the hockey team’s right to play in the tournament.
“The court discerns nothing unfair about the injunction to other students and finds it unlikely that the hockey team would be disqualified from the tournament if the plaintiffs were eligible to participate,” he wrote. “The injunction would not prevent the defendants from enforcing the policy if necessary and appropriate to do so.”
Last month, the court granted the students a temporary restraining order, essentially preventing the district from immediately placing the girls on probation and allowing the athletes to compete in the short term. The students said they would suffer damages if they didn’t play because they are currently being scouted by colleges and potential scholarships are on the line.
Kirpalani agreed.
“Although defendants are correct that there is no constitutional right to participate in interscholastic athletics and a student’s ineligibility to play in an athletic competition likely does not, in itself, rise to the level of irreparable harm, the likelihood of lost scholarship opportunities does,” he wrote.
Braintree Public Schools did not return a request for comment Monday.
Flanagan said he has already received calls from parents of other Braintree students and students in other districts.
Last month, he said other schools have used policies with similar wording, although some have opted to swap out the language over the years.
“I think a lot of different school districts are going to take a look at their policy, given the decision,” Flanagan said Monday.
The Braintree case could potentially play out in court for years, he said.
To comment, please create a screen name in your profile
To comment, please verify your email address
Conversation
This discussion has ended. Please join elsewhere on Boston.com