Who won in the Raven Furbert case?

Answer 1

Grzywna ex rel. Doe v. Schenectady Central School District, 489 F.Supp. 2d 139, 2006 WL 659512 (N.D.N.Y, 2006)

Answer

According to her attorney, Bob Keach, Raven Furbert won.

Explanation

Raven Furbert was a twelve-year-old student at Mont Pleasant Middle School, in Schenectady, NY, who was threatened with suspension for wearing a red, white and blue beaded necklace the school claimed violated their "gang-related items" rule. Furbert, who made the necklace from a kit she received for Christmas, said she wore the beads to honor her uncle, who was serving in the military in Iraq.

After discussing the situation with Furbert's mother, Katie Grzywna, the school sent the child home for the day but later relented and said Furbert could wear the necklace under her clothes. At some point they rescinded the offer and ordered Furbert not to bring the necklace to school. In response, Grzywna filed charges of civil rights violations against the school district, as well as the principals and vice-principals of Mont Pleasant Middle School.

Grzywna filed on behalf of her daughter, a minor identified as Jane Doe, in US District Court for the Northern District of New York. The attorney for the school district filed a motion to dismiss with Judge Kahn, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) on the grounds that: "(1) the School District is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity; (2) the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because (a) Plaintiff does not possess any First Amendment rights; (b) the wearing of the beaded necklace does not convey a particularized message; and (c) there is not a great likelihood that the message will be understood by those viewing it; and (3) the dress code policy of the School District is neither overbroad nor vague. Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 5)."

Judge Kahn held that the school district was not a legal arm of the state protected from legal action under the Eleventh Amendment (the Eleventh Amendment protects states from being sued directly); the defendant (student) was entitled to certain First Amendment rights of symbolic expression, as determined in the US Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969); that the plaintiff demonstrated a reasonably plausible argument that she intended to convey a particularized message,"her support for country, for members of this country's armed forces in general, and for her family members serving in the Iraqi conflict"; and the context of the war in Iraq and her family's personal involvement, the message was likely to be understood by others. The court declined to make a firm decision on the issue of qualified immunity, but stated school officials should have been aware of the similarities between the present case and Tinker. Similarly, the court declined to rule on the Plaintiff's claim that the school policy was overbroad and vague, stating the question was better addressed in a motion for summary judgment or at trial.

On Marcy 7, 2006, Judge Kahn denied the school district's motion to dismiss on the grounds noted above and held the Plaintiff had a valid cause of action, allowing the case to proceed.

This is the only citation available for Grzywna, which may indicate the case was later settled out of court in Raven Furbert's favor.

Given the patriotic appearance of the necklace, the undisputed fact that Furbert did not behave in a disruptive manner, and the glaring similarities between this case and Tinker v. DeMoines, (1969) (see Related Questions), it seems likely Grzywna's attorney, Bob Keach, convinced the school district to settle the case. Settlement details would undoubtedly be covered by a non-disclosure agreement and not be available for public inspection.

Also note that Raven Furbert is still a minor (as of April 2010), and entitled to protection of her privacy. There appears to be no further information on this case.