5

Kent Court Case

REQUA VS. KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT

ANDREW GLEIXNER
PROFESSOR MELTON
21ST CENTURY TECHNOLOGY LEADERSHIP
February 25, 2015
UNIVERSITY OF ST. FRANCIS

5
Kent Court Case
While it is true that technology can enhance and help education in a school or
district, there are also other things to consider when a school puts together a
technology plan. One of the biggest things that schools need to consider is putting
together a policy for appropriate technology use and consequences for violating this
policy. Clear guidelines need to be established for teachers and students who plan
on using technology in the classroom. There are many issues when technology is
misused or used inappropriately, which in turn could create a legal and public
relations nightmare for a school or a district.
One such case involved a high school senior in Kent, Washington who got
over creative with his technology and abused his privilege of having his cell phone
in school. In this case, a student by the name of Gregory Requa (name is in court
papers because he was 18 years old at time of trial) was a senior at Kentridge high
school in the Kent School district. Late in his senior year, Mr. Requa was accused of
filming a teacher in her classroom on his cell phone. He did this during class time
and without the teachers knowledge or consent. With the aid of another student,
labeled in court records as S.W. because he was underage, they filmed the teachers
messy desk and implied her lack of hygiene. Mr. Requa also recorded S.W.
standing behind the teacher making pelvic thrusts and giving the teacher bunny
ears without her knowledge. Also, there was video taken of the teachers backside
without her knowledge.
The accusations do not end there. It is then stated in court records that Mr.
Requa then took the video home to edit. The student cut images in of a sign that
says caution: booty ahead and had background music of a popular rap song
entitled Ms. New Booty. After the Plaintiff (Mr. Requa) was finished editing the
product, he then uploaded his completed video to youtube.com for anyone to view.

5
Kent Court Case
It was not until a local new station doing a report on students posting on websites
where they are critical of teachers that the school came across the video. After it
aired on the news channel, the principal of the school (and one of the defendants
named in court as Mr. Albrecht) began an investigation.
The investigation began with the student that was actually seen on video,
S.W. The administration then brought him in to question him about the tape. S.W.
claimed that Mr. Requa was behind the camera and was the one that edited it as
well. S.W. told the principal that he was only an actor in the film and that was it.
S.W. then gave a written statement that read: about the last 5 days of school Greg
Requa and I filmed (Ms. M) without her consent and posted it online. Greg did the
editing and posted it online. All I did was some filming. The principal in turn sent
letters home to participants who were involved informing them of the punishment of
a suspension of 40 days with 20 days held in abeyance if he completed a research
paper while on suspension. All students that were involved received the same
suspension, regardless of the amount of their participation. This is the point where
Mr. Requa brought the issue to court.
The court then heard arguments from both sides. First, it is stated that the
school board had conducted their own hearing, in which Mr. Requa, his parents, and
his lawyer were present. None of the witnesses that were questioned during the
principals investigation were present. The board held to the discipline that was
imposed by the school and the students were suspended for 40 days (with the 20
day option). At this point the student then filed a lawsuit based on his first
amendment rights. He also states that the punishment was geared more towards
his editing and posting, which were done away from school. He asked for his
suspension to be lifted. Also stated in the suit was the fact that Mr. Requa was a

5
Kent Court Case
part of an academic team and that his suspensions hindered his opportunity to
compete in the competitions during that time, which in turn hurt his chances at
awards and possible scholarships. Named as defendants in the suit were the Kent
School district, Superintendent Barbara Grohe, and Principal Michael Albrecht.
The courts decision was made on May 24th, 2007. The court ultimately sided
with the defendants and backed the discipline they imposed with the 40 day
suspension. The reasoning for their ruling is multi-faceted. The first reasoning was
the fact that the court claims that the defendant claimed the criticism of the
teacher in the video as just that, criticism, is unpersuasive. By law, the actions
contained and acted out in the video fell in the sexual harassment category. The
inclusion of the song and editing of the sign also warranted lewd and offensive and
devoid of political or critical content. Also, the student claims that it did not disrupt
a learning environment because it was the last week of school and there is no
actual learning taking place was insufficient because that is a claim that cannot be
proven in court. Finally, the court rejected the plaintiffs claim that writing the essay
to limit his suspension is not an admission of guilt, but simply an option for him to
return to school earlier so that he can go to graduation. The court rejected the
motion for a temporary restraining order against the school that the plaintiff filed in
his lawsuit.
This case was handled really well by the school district and administration. I
think that the due process that they showed the student(s) were fair and thorough.
While it does not state anything in the court case, I assume that the school has a no
tolerance policy for filming without someones consent. My school district put this
rule into place last year and now they have ground to stand on if that becomes an
issue. I think the biggest issue that went wrong for the school (although it is a minor

5
Kent Court Case
one) is that they could have been a little more thorough in their evidence of the
witnesses. One of the issues the court had was that the witnesses statements were
made to administration with little corroboration or evidence. However, this became
little matter since the other evidence presented strongly supported the districts
case. The student, however, had a lot of flaws in his case. First of all, his denial of
filming and having little to do with the production was not supported by evidence.
His best bet would have been to ask for leniency to the school board and adhered to
his suspension. With the evidence stacked against him, his cooperation with the
principal and school board would have seen a better outcome than his and his
parents insistence on suing the district.
This case has a lot of insight on fine tuning policy in schools. As far as
teachers, administrators, schools, and districts are concerned, it is always important
to have policies in place for all possible forms of inappropriate use of technology.
This case challenged a students first amendment rights in the idea of being able to
film in a classroom without consent or knowledge. If schools and districts look at
cases such as this one, they would be able to put stipulations into policy that would
deter or punish this behavior without a fight or lawsuit. Also, districts need to
establish rules and guidelines of when, where, and how students use technology in
schools. With my district, we have established a BYOT (bring your own technology)
policy and took time to map out and discuss any and all issues that this entails. One
of these was the issue of students filming others (teachers or students) without
their knowledge or consent. The punishment for this needs to be severe and
followed for students to consider whether or not they wish to proceed with the idea.
Also, schools need to set specific guidelines and outcomes of the rules when they
are violated. Some things that schools can consider is a complete loss of technology

5
Kent Court Case
privilege, suspension (in school or out), loss of extra-curricular privileges, and the
possibility of expulsion and permanent record implications.
After reading through this entire case, it is clear that this district did
everything it could to protect itself from losing a lawsuit. Throughout it all, the law
sided with the defendants and the Plaintiff (the student in this case) was proven to
be totally in the wrong. To me, this case makes a great point for schools and
districts to have a solid and well written technology policy for both students and
teaches. The more specific the guidelines are, the safer school districts and their
faculty and staff will become. The policy must be well thought out, cover all bases of
what can go wrong with technology, and have clear and precise measures to take
when the issue arises.