doevstoughton

**Doe v. Superintendent of Schools of Stoughton**

 * (437 Mass. 1, 2002)**

Plaintiff (Peter Doe, student) a fifteen-year-old freshman student at Stoughton High School was charged with the felony of sexually assaulting a six-year-old child. The police reports provided evidence that Doe engaged in deviant sexual conduct with a young child. After written notification and a hearing, Doe was suspended. Doe’s parents filed for preliminary injunctive relief in Superior Court challenging the superintendent’s decision to uphold Doe’s suspension as arbitrary and capricious. Defendant (Superintendent) upheld the Principal’s decision to suspend Doe after learning that he had been charged with indecent assault and battery on a child under the age of fourteen years, and rape and abuse of a child. This decision was based on these felony charges and his determination that Doe’s attendance at school posed a threat to the safety, security and welfare of the students at Stoughton High School.
 * Facts:**

Did the superintendent act within his rights by suspending Doe because his presence in school had a substantial detrimental effect on the general welfare of the school?
 * Issues:**

Yes. Because of the felony charge against Doe (and evidence in the police report), the superintendent acted within his discretion in suspending Doe.
 * Answers:**


 * Legal Basis/Rationale:**
 * **Mass General Law c. 71, 37H ½** states that upon the issuance of a criminal complaint charging a student with a felony, the principal may suspend the student if said principal determines that the student’s continued presence in school would have a substantial detrimental effect on the general welfare of the school.
 * **Leonard v. School Community of Attleboro**, 349 Mass. 704, 709 (1965) states that students have an important interest in public education but that “educational opportunities can be lost by students as a result of their actions.”
 * **Doe v. Superintendent of Schools of Worcester**, supra at 130-131 states that school officials have a duty “to provide a safe and secure environment in which all children can learn.”


 * Notes:**
 * Because the superintendent acted within his discretion in suspending Doe, the Supreme Judicial Court reversed the judgment of the Superior Court.
 * Ultimately, the principal suspended Doe rather than expel him.