Doninger v.

Niehoff
Summary:
Threat Type: Disciplinary Action
Date: 07/16/2007
Status: Concluded
Location: Connecticut
Disposition: Dismissed (total)
Verdict or Settlement Amount: N/A
Legal Claims: None
Administrators barred a Connecticut high school student from running in a student election after
the student critized administrators online for their handling of a student festival. In the spring of
2007, Jamfest, a yearly music festival at a Connecticut high school, experienced... read full
description

Parties
Party Issuing Legal Threat: Karissa Niehoff; Paula Schwartz
Party Receiving Legal Threat: Avery Doninger; Lauren Doninger, on behalf of minor Avery
Doninger
Type of Party: Individual School
Type of Party: Individual
Location of Party: Connecticut
Location of Party: Connecticut
Legal Counsel: Thomas R. Gerarde, Katherine E. Rule
Legal Counsel: Jon L. Schoenhorn

Description:

Administrators barred a Connecticut high school student from running in a student

election after the student critized administrators online for their handling of a student
festival. In the spring of 2007, Jamfest, a yearly music festival at a Connecticut high
school, experienced a series of planning setbacks that threatened to postpone or cancel
the event. When Avery Doninger a junior and incumbent class secretary was unable to
meet with the school's principal, Karissa Niehoff, to talk about the event she and three
other students sent a mass e-mail asking members of the community to speak to
administrators about putting the event back on schedule. Doninger and Niehoff later had
a discussion in the hallway, during which she says Niehoff informed her that the event
had been cancelled.

That night, Doninger wrote a Livejournal blog post criticizing the school officials'
handling of the issue. In the post, she called the school officials douchebags and asked
her fellow students and their parents to complain to school superintendent Schwartz in
order to piss [Schwartz] off more than the mass e-mail had.

In response to her blog post, the school barred Doninger from running for reelection as
Class Secretary for her senior year. At the class election, school officials prevented a
group of students from wearing Team Avery t-shirts. According to school principal
Niehoff, the t-shirt ban was intended to prevent electioneering by candidates and
supporters who could afford such merchandise.

Avery's mother, Lauren Doninger, attempted to convince school officials to consider

alternative forms of punishment. She also tried to establish whether or not the incident
would appear in Avery's school record. When a resolution could not be reached on these
issues, the Doningers filed suit in Connecticut state court against Niehoff and Schwartz.
The defendants removed the case to the federal court in Connecticut.

The Doningers' complaint for injunctive relief alleged violations of Connecticut free
speech laws, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of Avery's
constitutional rights to free speech, due process, and equal protection under the Civil
Rights Act (Title 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1988). The complaint sought to enjoin the defendants
on seven different counts. All told, the complaint would prevent defendants from
installing anyone as Class Secretary until an election was held with Avery on the ballot;
from maintaining negative remarks related to this incident in Avery's school record; from
punishing students for wearing t-shirts bearing slogans related to the incident; from
preventing Avery from addressing her class in assemblies; and from punishing or
intimidating Avery, her mother, or any students who subsequently might vote for Avery in
the new election.

The district court found that Avery met the initial irreparable harm standard required
for a preliminary injunction through her showing that her speech may have been chilled
because she voluntarily chose not to wear a "Team Avery" t-shirt at school, limited her email and blog communications to prevent a similar incident, and restricted her
Livejournal account to private.

However, the court denied the Doningers' motion, finding that she had not demonstrated a
likelihood of success on the merits as to her constitutional claims. In addressing the
Doningers' claims, the court divided its discussion into First Amendment and Equal
Protection issues.

The court determined that Avery's blog post constituted on-campus speech for First
Amendment purposes, regardless of the fact that she wrote it off campus, because "the
blog was related to school issues, and it was reasonably foreseeable that other LMHS
students would view the blog and that school administrators would become aware of it."
Slip op. at 28. The court then noted that school administrators have the right, in certain
situations, to restrict on-campus speech to promote school-related goals. The court also
ruled that Avery does not have a First Amendment right to run for voluntary office.

Considering these two concepts together, the court determined that the defendants may
have had the right to prevent Avery from running for office as punishment for her

statements in order to promote civility in school functions, thus making an injunction

inappropriate. The court had more serious misgivings about the denial of the right to wear
Team Avery t-shirts, which it related to the black armbands in the famous Tinker school
speech case. However, it decided to reserve that issue until the parties have had a chance
to develop the record as the case goes forward.

The court denied the injunction as to the Doningers' Equal Protection claims because
Avery's blog post made her situation unique compared to the other students involved.