 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Malone v. Special School District No. 112/6/2005
d 713, 718 (Minn. 1988). If a decision involves the type of political, social, and economic considerations that lie at the center of discretionary action, including consideration of safety issues, financial burdens, and possible legal consequences, it is not the role of the courts to second-guess such policy decisions. Steinke v. City of Andover, 525 N.W.2d 173, 176 (Minn. 1994).
A court reviewing immunity issues must examine with particularity the nature of the conduct the plaintiff alleges as the basis of a negligence claim. Watson v. Metro. Transit Comm'n, 553 N.W.2d 406, 411 (Minn. 1996). Appellant alleges in his negligence claim that the school district failed to investigate harassment by students and to enforce the harassment policy. Appellant does not allege negligent creation of the policies.
Specifically, appellant cites incident reports of "harassing conduct of the students to Administration" to support his claims. In one report, he noted that a student called him a "faggot" which he considered "sexual harassment." Out of the various recommendations for action on the form, appellant circled that he recommended that the student "see administrator." The report also indicates that a counselor spoke with the student, contacted his parents, and suspended the student for two days. In the second report, appellant wrote "sexual harassment" followed by inappropriate comments a student had made about another student's mother. The report indicates that the student was counseled by the assistant principal at Franklin Middle School; his parents were contacted; and he spent the rest of the period in the equivalent of detention. In a third report, appellant noted that another student was defiant and disrespectful, and a third party had told appellant that the student had said appellant was "gay." That student was counseled, his parents were contacted, and he received detention.
These specific reports do not reflect the administration's failure to investigate or enforce harassment policy. The report forms and the policies from which they were developed reveal a multi-level approach to address the multitude of possible disruptive student behaviors. Some form of investigation by the administration is evident from the reports themselves, ranging from an administrator's interview of the student, phone call to parents, and sometimes involvement of additional staff, such as social workers and counselors. Each incident form also reflects the multi-level approach to discipline and the discretion allowed at each level. Enforcement of the disciplinary policies did not involve execution of specific duties arising from fixed and designated facts. Johnson v. State, 553 N.W.2d 40, 46 (Minn. 1996). Furthermore, appellant does not identify a particular type of investigation required by the policies, but not performed, or a specific enforcement method that was required, but not implemented. Therefore, we see no merit to appellant's claim that the decisions made by the administrators were merely "operational."
Insofar as appellant suggests that he reported to the administration ongoing general harassment by the students, he fails to identify the ministerial act that the school district failed to perform. It is impossible to evaluate appellant's general allegations of negligence for their ministerial or discretionary function.
Because the policies at issue are general and their application and enforcement are dependent on three school representatives choosing among various alternatives at each step in behavior management, the policies require discretionary decision-making. E.g., Larson v. Independent Sch. Dist. No. 314, 289 N.W.2d 112, 121 (Minn. 1979) (describing discretionary dec
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Minnesota Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|