2. B.H. AND K.M. VS. EASTON AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 13, 2015 BRITTANY AUDE

3.  Plaintiff:  Brianna Hawk  Kayla Martinez  Defendant:  Easton Area School District BACKGROUND OF CASE

4. FACTORS OF THE CASE  Students at Easton Middle School wore “I ❤ Boobies!” (Keep a Breast), and “Check y ❤ urself” (Keep a Breast) bracelets.  Students started wearing these bracelets during Breast Cancer Awareness Month.  The Keep a Breast Foundation started making these bracelets as a way to raise awareness, reduce the taboo with young girls, and encourage women to perform self-examinations.  Brianna Hawk and Kayla Martinez were asked three days in a row at lunch to remove their bracelets. On the third time, the lunch room supervisor had the girls finish their lunch and report to the principals office.  The girls refused to remove their bracelets and were given a day and a half of ISS and forbidden from the Winter Ball.

5. DISTRICT COURT RULING Eastern District of Pennsylvania D.C. Civil Action No. 5-10-cv-06283 District Judge: Honorable Mary A. McLaughlin Ruling: Court confirmed district disciplinary action for the two girls.

6. CIRCUIT COURT RULING United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit No. 11-2067 Chief Judge: McKee Circuit Judges: Sloviter, Scirica, Rendell, Ambro, Fuentes, Smith, Fisher, Chagares, Jordan, Hardiman, Greenaway, Jr., Vanaskie, and Greenberg Ruling: Court reversed district disciplinary action for the two girls.

7. IMPLEMENTATIONS FOR SCHOOL LEADERS Where did the school district go wrong? The school district shifted their position between the district and circuit court rulings. Initially the students were disciplined for “defiance,” “disrespect,” and “disruption.” The district ultimately based the ban of the bracelets on its dress-code policy. The bracelets had an alleged sexual innuendo, which was a violation of the school dress-code policy. However, the district was unable to show that the bracelets caused a substantial disruption to the learning environment. It is sometimes difficult to declare whether the behavior of a student is protected by their Freedom of Speech, or if it is substantial enough to disrupt the learning environment and be grounds for disciplinary action by an administrator. In hindsight this was a situation where the administrators should have been reactive rather than proactive.

8. WORKS CITED B.H. and K.M. vs. Easton Area School District, 11-2067 (United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit February 20, 2013).