The parent filed suit claiming, among other things, that the teacher’s conduct “shocked the conscious” and violated his right to substantive due process. The court explained that government actors violate an individual’s right to substantive due process when the actor’s “conduct is arbitrary or conscious shocking.” In order to rise to the level of conscious shocking, the actor must intend to injure the individual in a manner that cannot be justified by a legitimate government interest. Here, the court found that the teacher’s conduct was justified by the state’s legitimate interest in classroom control. Considering all of the factors, including that the student had been kicking, sat in the chair voluntarily, and did not sustain any injury, the court determined that the teacher’s conduct was not excessive, but was appropriate in light of the student’s behavior. The full decision can be found by clicking here.
