ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

Daury put a student in a stranglehold who was not walking on the crosswalk. These events
occurred between October 1982 and June 1983. Daury’s visited the psychiatrist, Dr. Richard
Culley, and Culley’s subsequent reports returned no negative information and were overall
favorable towards Daury.
Daury was reinstated in October 1983. In November, the school board met with Culley
without Daury and without notifying Daury. Daury filed suit in August 1984 under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 alleging a deprivation of his right to privacy (Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments), mental
and emotional anguish, and retaliation for his union involvement. The trial court found for the
defendants granting summary judgment on the claims. Daury’s appeal followed.
Issues: (1) Was Daury’s right to privacy violated by the school requirement to see a
psychiatrist? (2) Did the school system retaliate against Daury for his union activities?
Holding: The court held that the district court properly judged that Daury’s right to
privacy was not abridged by the school’s need to ensure safety and that his retaliation claim was
meritless.
Reasoning: The court determined that Daury’s right to privacy was not violated by
requiring him to see a psychiatrist. The schools are charged with providing a safe and secure
educational environment, and the courted deemed that Daury’s behaviors could reasonably be
seen as unsafe at times. Therefore, the court granted motion for summary judgment to the school
board on this claim.
As to Daury’s retaliation claim, the court could find no count of retaliatory practices in
his claim. The court further reasoned that the district court was “overly generous” in even
hearing the argument due to its undeveloped status.
Disposition: The district court’s ruling was affirmed.
120