Judge rejects bid to raise burden of proof in NYC school suspension hearings

"In a lawsuit filed in May, Legal Services NYC argued that the standard of proof at those hearings - "substantial and competent" evidence - requires less than a 50% chance a student did what they were accused of and violates their due process rights. The suit pushed for a "preponderance of the evidence" standard, which would require slightly more than 50% certainty."

"In his decision dismissing the lawsuit on Monday, U.S. District Judge J. Paul Oetken wrote that the "substantial and competent" evidence standard is constitutionally sufficient. He noted that the lawsuit cites no cases in which a court required the higher standard for student suspensions and contended that the current system already has some safeguards, such as giving families the chance to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses during suspension hearings."

A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit seeking to require New York City to use a higher standard of proof before issuing suspensions longer than five days. Families facing removals over five days have the right to a hearing where a hearing officer weighs evidence and makes discipline recommendations. Legal Services NYC argued the "substantial and competent" evidence standard requires less than a 50% chance a student committed the alleged act and sought a "preponderance of the evidence" standard. The judge found the existing standard constitutionally sufficient, noting procedural safeguards and warning a higher standard could burden the discipline process. Advocates remain concerned about flimsy evidence and disproportionate removals of Black students and students with disabilities. Suspensions can knock students off track and deprive them of school meals.

Read at Brooklyn Eagle