A Lawsuit Pertaining To A Graduation In NCFowler v. Williamson, 39 N.C.App. 715 (1979) 251 S.E.2d 889


There is a lawsuit being passed on during this time comparing the SouthWest case to an out of state case. See this case here in NC.

Fowler v. Williamson, 39 N.C.App. 715 (1979) 251 S.E.2d 889
© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1
39 N.C.App. 715 Court of Appeals of North Carolina.
Joe C. FOWLER, Sr. and Mrs. Betty H. Fowler v. Henry WILLIAMSON, Individually and as Principal of Hickory High School, Charles Mason, Individually and as Assistant Principal of Hickory High School, Dr. Joseph Wishon, Individually and as Superintendent of Hickory City Schools, Board of Education of the Hickory Administrative School Unit, Harold K. Poovey, Individually, Sam Dula, Individually, Gene Smith, Individually, Mrs. Lois Young, Individually, Mrs. Martha Karslake, Individually, James H. Garrett, Individually, Harold K. Poovey, Sam Dula, Gene Smith, Mrs. Lois Young, Mrs. Martha Karslake, James H. Garrett and Dr. Donald G. Hayes, Members of the Board of Education of the Hickory Administrative School Unit.
No. 7825SC172. | Feb. 20, 1979.
Parents, whose son was prohibited from participating in high school graduation ceremony, brought suit against principal and assistant principal and other school officials for public embarrassment and severe mental and emotional distress which they allegedly suffered. The Superior Court, Catawba County, Forrest A. Ferrell, J., granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, entered judgment thereon and plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals, Clark, J., held that: (1) where plaintiffs’ brief containing extraneous matter was considered on motion to dismiss, dismissal motion was converted into summary judgment motion, and (2) actions of high school principal, who excluded parents’ son from graduation ceremony when son first appeared in attire which violated school’s dress code and actions of assistant principal who refused to allow son to enter and take his place with his classmates after he had returned from changing his clothes while ceremony was in progress, was not tortious.
Reversed and remanded for entry of summary judgment against plaintiffs in favor of all defendants.
West Headnotes (11)
[1] Pretrial Procedure Matters Deemed Admitted In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state claim, all allegations of complaint are taken as true. Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 12(b)(6), G.S. § 1A–1.
3 Cases that cite this headnote
[2] Pretrial Procedure Insufficiency in general Test in determining whether to grant motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is whether pleading is legally sufficient. Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 12(b)(6), G.S. § 1A–1.
3 Cases that cite this headnote
[3] Appeal and Error Scope and effect Statements of fact made in brief, and legitimate inferences therefrom, may be assumed as true as against party asserting them.
4 Cases that cite this headnote
[4] Judgment Motion or Other Application Where extraneous matter is received and considered on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the motion should then be treated as a motion for summary judgment and disposed of according to applicable rules. Rules of Civil Procedure, rules 12(b)(6), 56, G.S. § 1A–1.
8 Cases that cite this headnote
[5] Education Authority to make rules
Fowler v. Williamson, 39 N.C.App. 715 (1979) 251 S.E.2d 889
© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2
Right to attend school and claim benefits of public school system is subject to lawful rules prescribed for government thereof; Legislature has control over public schools and may delegate power to make rules to local administrative officers. G.S. § 115–35.
3 Cases that cite this headnote
[6] Education Authority to make rules Local school boards and school officials have implied right to adopt appropriate and reasonable rules and regulations concerning matters not provided and not inconsistent with rules provided by higher authority for purpose of carrying out their powers and duties.
1 Cases that cite this headnote
[7] Education Authority to make rules Principal of a local school may adopt reasonable rules and regulations in exercise of his powers and duties concerning matters not provided for and not inconsistent with rules provided by higher authority.
1 Cases that cite this headnote
[8] Education Grooming and dress Brushed denim pants did not fall within definition of “dress pants” as used in high school’s dress code for graduation ceremonies.
Cases that cite this headnote
[9] Education Violation of rules and offenses in general Discretion of the school principal should not be unduly restricted in determining violation of a rule or regulation.
Cases that cite this headnote
[10] Torts
Intent or malice Exercise of a legal right cannot constitute a tort even if there is a wrongful intent.
Cases that cite this headnote
[11] Education Ceremony Actions of high school principal, who excluded parents’ son from graduation ceremony when son first appeared in attire which violated school’s dress code and actions of assistant principal who refused to allow son to enter and take his place with his classmates after he had returned from changing his clothes while ceremony was in progress, was not tortious.
Cases that cite this headnote
**890 *716 It appears from the complaint that plaintiffs’ son, Joe C. Fowler, Jr., was eligible to graduate and was scheduled to participate in the graduation ceremony of Hickory High School on 2 June 1977. Plaintiffs were present in the school auditorium for the graduation ceremony. The defendant Williamson, school principal, aided and abetted by defendant Mason, assistant, would not permit plaintiffs’ son to participate in the graduation ceremony, claiming that he was not properly attired.
Plaintiffs alleged that the named defendants acted intentionally, willfully and maliciously, causing plaintiffs to suffer public embarrassment and severe mental and emotional distress, which aggravated a pre-existing heart condition of the male plaintiff, and which were reasonably foreseeable by said defendants.
The plaintiffs appeal from orders dismissing the action pursuant to Rule 12(b) (6) motions made by all defendants.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Isenhower & Long by Samuel H. Long, III, Newton, for plaintiff appellants.
Fowler v. Williamson, 39 N.C.App. 715 (1979) 251 S.E.2d 889
© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3
A. Terry Wood and Patrick, Harper & Dixon by James T. Patrick, Hickory, for defendant appellees, Bd. of Ed. and Individual Bd. Members.
Golding, Crews, Meekins, Gordon & Gray by E. F. Parnell, III, and Chambers, Stein, Ferguson & Becton by James C. Fuller, Jr., Charlotte, for defendant appellees, Williamson, Mason and Wishon.
Opinion
CLARK, Judge.
[1] [2] In granting the G.S. 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6) motions of all defendants the trial court determined that plaintiffs failed to allege an actionable claim for mental and emotional distress resulting from defendant principal’s action in excluding their son from the graduation *717 ceremony. In considering a Rule 12(b) (6) motion all the allegations of the complaint are taken as true. Sutton v. Duke, 277 N.C. 94, 176 S.E.2d 161 (1970). The test is whether the pleading is legally sufficient. Alltop v. J. C. Penney Co., 10 N.C.App. 692, 179 S.E.2d 885, Cert. denied 279 N.C. 348, 182 S.E.2d 580 (1971).
[3] [4] But we do not decide whether the trial court erred in granting the motions, because the plaintiffs have filed a brief setting forth many facts other than those alleged in the complaint. Statements of fact made in briefs, and legitimate inferences therefrom, may be assumed as true as against the party asserting them. 5 C.J.S. Appeal and Error s 1343-45. See Garner v. Weston, 263 N.C. 487, 139 S.E.2d 642 (1965). In the interest of the prompt elimination of a factually unfounded claim, we elect to consider on appeal the facts asserted in plaintiffs’ brief, in addition to the allegations of the complaint. Where extraneous **891 matter is received and considered on a Rule 12(b) (6) motion to dismiss, the motion should then be treated as a motion for summary judgment and disposed of in the manner and on the conditions stated in G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56. Kessing v. National Mortgage Corp., 278 N.C. 523, 180 S.E.2d 823 (1971).
Having converted defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion into a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment, the question on appeal is whether there is a genuine issue as to any material fact. Extraneous matter apart from the allegations of the complaint considered in determining this question consists
of admitted facts in plaintiffs’ “Statement of Facts” in their brief as follows: “The Appellee Williamson, Principal of Hickory High School refused to allow the Appellants’ son to participate in the ceremonies, removing the young man from the processional line a few minutes before the scheduled beginning of the ceremonies. The Appellee Williamson approached the Appellants’ son, raised the gown he was wearing and informed the student that he was not properly attired according to a dress code for the ceremonies which had been promulgated by the Appellee Williamson. The code required that male graduates wear: ‘Dress pants as opposed to jeans, shirts and ties; shoes and socks.’ The graduation instructions also required that students attend a graduation practice on June 1, *718 1977, and an Awards Day ceremony on June 2 if they were to participate in the graduation ceremony the evening of June 2, 1977. The Appellants’ son, under his graduation gown, wore a pair of brushed denim pants such as is commonly worn for dress occasions as part of a brushed denim suit and a pair of brown leather dress boots and socks, as well as a white dress shirt and solid dark tie; he had complied with the attendance requirements at the previous events. Several students who were allowed to graduate had not attended the previous events. Appellants’ son was the only student not allowed to participate in the graduation ceremonies.
After being removed from the line of prospective graduates the Appellants’ son returned home and changed clothes, but by the time he returned to the auditorium most of the graduates had entered the hall and the Appellee Mason, an Assistant Principal, refused to allow young Fowler to enter and take his place with his classmates.
Although the Appellants were not physically present at the place where the Appellee removed their son from the line of graduates they were present in the Auditorium, and when the processional began, some ten to twelve minutes after the above-described incident, they immediately became aware that their son was not in the line of graduates. The Appellants sent their daughter to investigate their son’s absence and upon learning the reason therefor became extremely emotionally distressed and upset.“
It is clear from the statement of the facts that defendant school principal had adopted a dress code for the graduation ceremony which required that the male
Fowler v. Williamson, 39 N.C.App. 715 (1979) 251 S.E.2d 889
© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4
members of the graduating class, including plaintiffs’ son, wear “dress pants as opposed to jeans.” [5] The right to attend school and claim the benefits of the public school systems is subject to lawful rules prescribed for the government thereof. The legislature has control over the public schools and may delegate the power to make rules to local administrative officers. Coggins v. Board of Education, 223 N.C. 763, 28 S.E.2d 527 (1944). See G.S. 115-35 for delegation of powers and duties to local administrative units.
[6] Local school boards and school officials have the implied right to adopt appropriate and reasonable rules and regulations *719 for the purpose of carrying out their powers and duties. G.S. 115-146 imposes upon principals and teachers the duty to maintain good order and discipline and may use reasonable force in so doing. This statute was held to be constitutional on its face in Baker v. Owen, 395 F.Supp. 294 (M.D.N.C.1975), Aff’d 423 U.S. 907, 46 L.Ed.2d 137, 96 S.Ct. 210 (1975).
**892 [7] The principal of a local school may adopt reasonable rules and regulations in the exercise of his powers and duties concerning matters not provided for and not inconsistent with the rules provided by higher authority. 79 C.J.S. Schools and School Districts s 494.
It has been established that a school may adopt a dress code and may exclude a student from participating in certain school programs, including graduation ceremonies, if the student does not comply with the dress code. Hill v. Lewis, 323 F.Supp. 55 (E.D.N.C.1971); Valentine v. Independent School District, 191 Iowa 1100, 183 N.W. 434 (1921); Christmas v. El Reno Board of Educ., 313 F.Supp. 618 (W.D.Okla.1970), Aff’d 449 F.2d 153 (1971); Corley v. Daunhauer, 312 F.Supp. 811 (E.D.Ark.1970).
The complaint alleges that the defendant school principal “wrongfully claimed and alleged that plaintiffs’ son was not properly attired so as to be permitted to participate in said ceremonies . . . .” The complaint does not allege, but the stated facts establish, that there was a dress code for the graduation ceremony. There is no claim that the dress code was unreasonable or in violation of due process or any other right of plaintiffs or their son. The complaint does allege that the school principal Wrongfully claimed that plaintiffs’ son was not properly attired but this allegation is negated by the admitted facts in plaintiffs’ brief.
[8] The dress code required that plaintiffs’ son wear “dress pants as opposed to jeans” for the graduation ceremony. The son wore, according to the stated facts, “a pair of brushed denim pants.” Most words have recognized variations of meaning, but we are unable to find any authority in law or semantics which recognizes “denim pants”, brushed or unbrushed, to mean “dress pants as opposed to jeans.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1968) defines “jean” as “pants usually made of jean or denim and worn for work or sports”, and defines “denim” as *720 “overalls or trousers usually of dark blue denim for work or rough use.” Admittedly these definitions have been somewhat eroded by the widespread wear of denim jeans during the last decade by young people for purposes other than work or sports, but they have yet to achieve the status of “dress pants as opposed to jeans,” which are commonly worn to formal or ceremonial functions.
[9] We find that defendant Williamson, as principal of Hickory High School, established a lawful and valid dress code for eligible graduates participating in the graduation ceremony. Neither his right to do so nor the legality of the dress code as adopted is attacked by the complaint. The plaintiffs’ son appeared for the graduation ceremony attired in violation of the code in that he did not wear dress pants as required but instead wore denim jeans. The defendant principal had the legal right to exclude plaintiffs’ son from the graduation ceremony for violation of the dress code, and in doing so he did not Wrongfully claim that the son was not properly attired, as alleged in the complaint. The discretion of a school principal should not be unduly restricted in determining the violation of a rule or regulation.
[10] The exercise of a legal right cannot constitute a tort even if there is a wrongful intent. Childress v. Abeles, 240 N.C. 667, 84 S.E.2d 176 (1954), Petition for rehearing dismissed 242 N.C. 123, 86 S.E.2d 916 (1955); Evans v. Morrow, 234 N.C. 600, 68 S.E.2d 258 (1951).
We note that plaintiffs’ claim is based on the allegation of tortious conduct by defendant Williamson, the school principal, in excluding plaintiffs’ son from the graduation ceremony when the son first appeared in brushed denim pants, and not in excluding him when he, after changing to dress pants, reappeared as the ceremony was in progress. [11] We conclude that the facts admitted by the plaintiffs in their brief negate the allegations of the complaint
Fowler v. Williamson, 39 N.C.App. 715 (1979) 251 S.E.2d 889
© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 5
that the defendant school principal acted wrongfully in excluding plaintiffs’ son from the graduation ceremony, and since the admitted facts established a factually unfounded **893 claim without a genuine issue of fact this action should be summarily and finally determined by this Court.
*721 In electing to consider the facts admitted in plaintiffs’ brief, we do not infer that the complaint states a cause of action. We do not find it necessary in this case to determine whether plaintiffs could recover for emotional distress as a result of intentional wrong to their son when they were not present at the time the act occurred.
Finally, it is noted that plaintiffs’ son sued the defendants under a civil right statute seeking compensatory damages
in the United States District Court. The action was dismissed for failure to state a claim. Fowler v. Williamson, 448 F.Supp. 497 (W.D.N.C.1978).
The orders dismissing the action pursuant to Rule 12(b) (6) as to all defendants are vacated, and this cause is remanded for entry of summary judgment against plaintiffs in favor of all defendants.
Reversed and remanded.
MITCHELL and WEBB, JJ., concur.
All Citations
39 N.C.App. 715, 251 S.E.2d 889
End of Document © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s