|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Sequoia Union High School District motion to separate from the joint claims that were made against the district and the town of Atherton in the lawsuit involving the arrest of two Menlo-Atherton High School students in April 2023, was denied by the United States District Court on March 11.
The claims of the lawsuit are made jointly toward the town of Atherton, police officers David Metzger, Diego Romero, Igor Davidowhich, Joshua Gatto, Dimitri Andruha, SUHSD and former M-A Vice Principals Stephen Emmi and Nick Muys.
If it had not been denied, the motion to sever would have separated the claims against the district from allegations made toward the town of Atherton and its police officers by the plaintiff referred to as K.C. in the suit. If it was granted, the lawsuit against the district would have been weaker, said John Burris, the plaintiff’s attorney.
In October, U.S. District Judge Rita Lin denied the majority of the Sequoia Union High School District’s motions to dismiss the claims made against it in the suit.
The lawsuit stems from an incident that occurred in the Menlo-Atherton office where K.C. was denied the return of a confiscated water toy by school administrators. That led to a series of events that escalated the situation.
K.C., who no longer attends Menlo-Atherton, is named as a student of the Successful Transition Achieved with Responsive Support program, which provides special education students with academic, behavioral and social-emotional support.
As a student with an intellectual disability, K.C. had an individualized education plan that outlines policies for de-escalation strategies and positive behavioral interventions. The lawsuit alleges that school staff violated his disability rights by not following procedures per his education plan by contacting the police. That allegedly caused an “emotional disturbance episode.”
After the incident in the school’s office, the lawsuit claims that K.C. and another student, D.B., were met by police officers at a nearby bus stop and were forcefully arrested and detained.
The motion by the district argues that “there is substantial risk of prejudice to the district defendants if K.C’s claims against the town and its police officers are tried together with the claims against the district defendants.”
The district claimed the plaintiff failed to meet the requirements of describing a single transaction or occurrence which is necessary to file a joint complaint. The motion states that K.C’s claims “are based on two separate and distinct incidents involving two sets of alleged actors.”
Plaintiffs disagree. “We think it’s one continuous act. Even though it’s two entities, one act caused the other act to occur,” said Burris. “ If it were not for the school district’s conduct, the police never would have been involved.”
Although the district did call the police on K.C., it argues that it had no control or influence over the police officers actions. The motion also mentions that D.B. was not mentioned in the call to law enforcement, therefore the allegations on the students’ arrests are not part of the same transaction, according to the motion.
The lawsuit also claims that the district violated K.C.’s rights by releasing confidential student records to the Atherton Police Department without a court order or his parent’s consent, said K.C’s attorney Evan Goldsen. The documents included the student’s disciplinary records.
“The information was actually used to support a narrative on behalf of Atherton police that K.C. is an aggressive student and he has a violent history, and that is what essentially supported their criminal action taken against him,” Goldsen added.
K.C. ‘s attorneys believe that local police officers and school district administrators collaborated in the release of his student files following the April incident.
Goldsen told this news organization that the district may have filed the motion to sever as an attempt to distance itself from the negative perceptions in relation to the incident involving the police, which was documented through videos and shared amongst the community.
“The worst part about this is that the district failed to do what the law required it to do to help someone like this. And in fact, made it worse by taking aggressive police action and school action,” Burris said.
K.C.’s attorneys said they are confident in the case and are planning to move forward with an amended complaint.
The law firm representing the Sequoia Union High School District did not respond for a comment to this news organization.
“The information was actually used to support a narrative on behalf of Atherton police that K.C. is an aggressive student and he has a violent history, and that is what essentially supported their criminal action taken against him,” Goldsen added.
“Violent” as in spitting in the face of and assaulting a school administrator???
I worked with K.C. daily and he was always excited to learn and very calm. He was one of the few students who would ask for more work after he was done and would try to challenge himself to do more than the bare minimum. Why didn’t I ever have a problem with K.C. or any other students who were in that same program? Why did they always treat me with respect despite whatever was going on with them emotionally? It is because I didn’t act like these administrators and I treated K.C. like a human being and not some kind of stereotype.
K.C. was failed by this administration because they developed and maintained a culture where students who had difficulties in various capacities were often treated as less than. Some of the administrators named in this lawsuit belittled them directly or indirectly, or engaged in power-tripping dynamics based on their own insecurities instead of de-escalating techniques and a sense of basic respect for the experience of those students.
By creating a false narrative of K.C. that day and running with it, they are also taking advantage of a culture where students of color are stereotyped and voices to combat those stereotypes are silenced. It is easy for many who believe in stereotypes and don’t know K.C. personally to quickly jump to conclusions and believe the school’s fake story of what happened that day.
These administrators took a simple situation and because of their lack of competency in how to interact with students of all backgrounds, and a culture of power-tripping and immaturity, blew it out of proportion and violated a student’s rights and also caused them great injury – and all of it was preventable. Then they lied to cover up their mistakes and shift blame when they should have stood up as responsible adults and looked at this as a wake up call for major improvement.
The only reason a student would have a reason to respond to them emotionally due to a disagreement is because of a history of events where students were consistently disrespected by certain staff and grew tired of it. It is up to adults and especially administrators to be trained and fully competent, understanding how to engage with students to prevent these situations from turning into what this has become. Now they will finally be held accountable for their lack of professionalism.
Just to clarify for those who may try to twist things (as we have seen the district do in the past): Everything I’ve said here is based on my personal firsthand experiences working with K.C., not private records. This situation has already been widely reported in news coverage and legal filings, so none of this is confidential information.
The district has been pushing a false narrative about K.C., and I’m speaking up against this harmful comment by MP Parent because I personally saw who he really was: a student who worked hard, challenged himself, and was far from the stereotype they’re trying to paint.
@JA I appreciate your comments. You can call my comment hurtful but I am just repeating what has been publicly reported. I am of an era where one takes responsibility for their actions and where there is no justification for spitting in a school administrator’s face and assaulting them, regardless of whether one works hard. And for what, not returning a water pistol? I am confident that all the facts will come to light so that a proper determination can be made.
@JA One adder: my original comment was not directed at K.C. who was already reprimanded but rather at the Burris’ team who given the facts to-date, appear to be attempting to exploit the situation at the expense of the thousands of other students at MA who are trying to get ahead. Again, let’s see what the facts show.