Gonzaga University Et Al. Vs. John Doe [536 U.S. 273], (2002)

CASE TITLE

GONZAGA UNIVERSITY et al. vs. JOHN DOE [536 U.S. 273], (2002)

CASE FACTS

John Doe (Plaintiff) and former student at Gonzaga University (Defendant) sued the Defendant for defamation.  The Plaintiff was looking to become a teacher in Washington State and it is a requirement of that state to receive an affidavit regarding moral character from prospective employee’s alma mater. The plaintiff’s teacher had overheard information regarding sexual misconduct involving the plaintiff.  The defendant then contacted appropriate personal to share the allegations with them.  As such, the plaintiff was denied the necessary certifications to become a teacher.  The plaintiff sued Gonzaga University in state court, claiming that the school violated the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, which prohibits the federal funding of schools that have a policy or practice of releasing students’ education records without their parents’ written consent.  A jury took favor with the plaintiff who was award compensatory and punitive damages.  Defendant appealed. The State Supreme Court that FERPA was not responsible regarding private action; however, the nondisclosure provision did create an enforceable right as applied to the federal funding issue. This case moved on to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES

Can a student sue a private university for damages to enforce provisions of FERPA?

HOLDING

(VOTE 7-2) The Court held that a student cannot sue private university under FERPA.

MAJORITY REASONING: Chief Justices Rehnquist, O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, and Breyer all agreed that the action was foreclosed because the relevant provisions of FERPA create no personal rights to enforce.

DISSENTING OPINION: Justices Stevens and Ginsberg argued that the Court's opinion "may be read as accepting the proposition that FERPA does indeed create both parental rights of access to student records and student rights of privacy in such records, but that those federal rights are of a lesser value because Congress did not intend them to be enforceable by their owners."