Denying Teacher Tenure for Relationship With Former Student Did Not Violate Right to Intimate Association

The Sixth Circuit recently held that a public school system did not violate a teacher’s constitutional rights by suspending her without pay and denying her application for tenure after becoming aware of her relationship with a former student. Flaskamp v. Dearborn Public Schools (6th Cir. 2004).

In 1997, Dearborn Public Schools hired Laura Flaskamp as a physical education teacher. Under Michigan law, Flaskamp had to serve a four-year probationary period before becoming eligible for tenure. During her third year of probation, Flaskamp developed a close relationship with one of her students, Jane Doe. Sometime during the semester, Doe’s mother intercepted an email from Flaskamp to Doe, which was filled with sexual innuendos. Doe’s mother immediately sent Flaskamp an email claiming that the email was offensive and demanding an apology.

As the semester continued, so did the relationship between the student and Flaskamp. During a private meeting at a park, Flaskamp told Doe she was gay and asked Doe about her sexual orientation. Flaskamp attended Doe’s graduation party, after which Doe sent Flaskamp a note revealing her strong affection for Flaskamp. After Doe enrolled in Eastern Michigan University, Doe traveled regularly to visit Flaskamp. Doe’s mother once again intervened by sending Flaskamp an email telling Flaskamp to stay away from Doe and threatening to file a civil suit and report Flaskamp to the school.

Thereafter, Flaskamp contacted the school’s principal, Paul Smith, and told him that Doe’s mother had intercepted an email between Doe and Flaskamp. Smith accepted Flaskamp’s explanation that her email had been mistakenly sent to everyone in her email address book and that Flaskamp had nothing more than a student-teacher relationship with Doe. Thereafter, on March 15, 2001, Smith recommended Flaskamp for tenure.

Doe’s mother subsequently met with Smith on two separate occasions to express her concern about Flaskamp’s relationship with her daughter. In addition to providing Smith with a copy of the email from Flaskamp, Doe’s mother informed Smith of a recent instant-messaging session between Flaskamp and Doe. During this session, Flaskamp and Doe discussed showering together and sharing a bed and ended the messages with “xoxo” and “sweet dreams.”

Smith immediately suspended Flaskamp with pay and revised his evaluation of Flaskamp to reflect unsatisfactory performance and recommended the board deny her tenure. The school board unanimously agreed to deny Flaskamp tenure.

Flaskamp filed a §1983 action against the Dearborn Public Schools and the individual members of its board for discharging her and for denying her tenure. In her complaint, Flaskamp claimed that the school violated her 14th Amendment rights to intimate association, to privacy, and to be free from arbitrary state action. The defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted by the district court and Flaskamp appealed.

While the Sixth Circuit recognized that the constitution does protect such fundamental rights as the right to intimate association free from state infringement, the School Board’s actions, according to the court, were not a direct and substantial interference with Flaskamp’s right to intimate association, as she was still able to date a wide range of adults of a wide range of ages, even if she couldn’t date Doe. Therefore, the court held that only a rational basis review was required. Under this standard, the Board was required only to provide a plausible reason for its decision to overcome the constitutional challenge. The court held the Board’s decision to deny Flaskamp tenure was justified because (1) she was less than candid with Smith about her relationship with Doe, (2) Flaskamp had engaged in an improper relationship with a student, and (3) relationships with students are to be discouraged.

With regard to Flaskamp’s privacy rights (the right to prevent sensitive information from becoming public), the court applied a two-part test: (1) the privacy interest at stake must implicate either a fundamental right or one implicit in the concept of ordered liberty; and (2) the government’s interest in disseminating the information must be balanced against the individual’s interest in keeping the information private. Flaskamp argued that Smith’s questioning about her postgraduation relationship with Doe impermissibly pried into her personal life. The court disagreed. Because the court found the Board’s limited questioning of Flaskamp with regard to her relationship with Doe was justified and the Board did not publicly disseminate the information, no violation was found.

The court also held that the Board had not made an arbitrary decision to deny Flaskamp’s tenure and therefore no violation of due process could be found.

Employer Notes: While it is recognized that investigations that are necessary to maintain order may impinge upon some privacy rights of employees without constitutional violation, employers conducting internal investigations must be as discreet as possible and maintain all information as confidentially as possible in order to avoid charges of privacy violations.

Submitted by Beth Hinsdale, Principal, Grotta, Glassman & Hoffman P.A. You can contact Ms. Hinsdale at hinsdaleb@gghlaw.com.

Reprinted from Council’s Public Sector Personnel Law Update newsletter. To subscribe or order a free trial subscription, click here.

Council offers a number of programs to help you conduct investigations that comply with the law, including How to Conduct a Public Sector Workplace Investigation, How to Conduct an Internal Investigation, and Council’s Internal Investigations Certificate Program. For HR professionals with experience in conducting internal investigations, Council now offers an Advanced Certificate in Conducting Workplace Investigations program, which will prepare you with critical strategies to address the most complicated issues you confront in your workplace investigations. Click on the links above for more information, including detailed agendas, dates, and locations.