Opinion
Case No. 2:02-CV-0219B
March 21, 2003
MEMORANDUM OPINION ORDER
I. Introduction
Before the Court is defendants' motion for summary judgment. Defendants argue this case should be dismissed because there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, entitling defendants to judgment as a matter of law. Having considered the parties' briefs, the relevant law, and the parties' positions at oral argument, the Court issues the following memorandum opinion and order.
II. Background
This case involves a school bus route of the Wayne County School District (the "District"). The District is a rural school district that encompasses all of Wayne County and has two elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school. The District serves 533 students and provides busing for 368 students to and from school each day. The District em seven bus drivers to drive eight different routes each day.
The Utah State Board of Education has general control and supervision of the state's public education system. UTAH CONST. art. X, § 3; UTAH CODE ANN. § 53A-1-401 (2000). As part of this general control and supervision, the State Board of Education has the power to establish rules and minimum standards for the state reimbursed bus routes of public schools. UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 53A-1-402(e), 53A-17a-126,-127. These rules and standards are contained in the "Student Transportation Standards and Procedures" (the "Administrative Rules"), which describes how districts may qualify for state transportation funds. UTAH ADMIN. CODE R277-600. Accordingly, districts must comply with the Administrative Rules in order to obtain approval of school bus routes and to receive state transportation funds.
Along with the Administrative Rules, Utah law also empowers a committee, which consists of members from the Utah State Office of Education and the Utah Transportation Commission, to establish additional standards for school buses and their operation. UTAH CODE ANN. § 41-6-115. The committee has set forth its rules regarding transportation and school bus routing in the "Standards for Utah School Buses and Operations 1999 Edition" (the "State Office Standards"). The State Office Standards are based primarily on the national minimum standards for school buses and operation. Together, the Administrative Rules and the State Office Standards provide the framework for Utah school districts to follow in their school bus operation in order to receive state transportation funds.
The Wayne County School Board (the "Board") has adopted as District policy portions of the State Office Standards, In turn, the District has established school bus routes that comply with the State Office Standards and the Administrative Rules. The District determines the school bus routes for each academic year when student rosters become available. The District recommends the school bus routes to the Board, who then seeks the approval of the State Office: of Education as specified in the State Office Standards and the Administrative Rules. Once approved, the school bus routes remain in effect until the following academic year regardless if any students move from the route.
Among other things, the State Office Standards and Administrative Rules require a minimum of ten eligible students to establish a route. They also encourage districts to utilize cost effective alternatives, such as reimbursement for mileage to and from the bus stop, when the alternative accomplishes the needed transportation at less cost.
Samantha and Stetson Labrum are minor children who attend Loa Elementary School in Loa, Utah. They live approximately fifteen miles from Loa Elementary School on Pine Creek Road in Bicknell, Utah. Along with Samantha and Stetson, only three other district students reside on Pine Creek Road. As a result, instead of establishing a route on Pine Creek Road, the District has elected to reimburse the families on Pine Creek Road for driving their children to and from the nearest bus stop. The current bus route provides a stop for Samantha and Stetson approximately three miles from their residence. Thus, Samantha and Stetson must arrange for their own transportation to and from the bus stop. Arranging such transportation, however, has been and continues to be difficult for the parents of Samantha and Stetson.
Dana Henshaw, the mother of Samantha and Stetson, filed this suit against the District, the Board, and the Board's members, alleging discrimination and a violation of her children's constitutional equal protection rights. In essence, plaintiffs claim their constitutional rights are being violated because the defendants have arbitrarily and capriciously applied the various busing standards in refusing to establish a new bus route that would provide plaintiffs with door to door busing.
Plaintiffs have filed a motion for preliminary injunction. However, plaintiffs' counsel agreed to first address defendants' motion for summary judgment.
III. Standard of Review
Summary judgment is proper if the movant shows "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). For purposes of this motion, the Court construes all facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to plaintiffs. See Simms v. Oklahoma, ex rel., Dep't of Mental Health Substance Abuse Servs., 165 F.3d 1321, 1326 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 120 S.Ct. 53 (1999).
The movant bears the initial burden of making a prima facie demonstration of the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. See Whitesel v. Sengenberger, 222 F.3d 861, 867 (10th Cir. 2000); Mitchell v. City of Moore, Oklahoma, 218 F.3d 1190, 1197 (10th Cir. 2000). If the movant carries this initial burden, the burden shifts to the nomnovant to go beyond the pleadings and set forth specific facts so as to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case in order to survive summary judgment. See McKnight v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 149 F.3d 1125, 1128 (10th Cir, 1998).
IV. Analysis
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, which is essentially a mandate that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike. U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1; see City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985). A determination of whether governmental action violates the Equal Protection Clause is a question of law, and may, therefore, be decided by this Court. See Oklahoma Educ. Ass'n v. Alcoholic Beverage Laws Enforcement Comm'n, 889 F.2d 929, 931-32 (10th Cir. 1989); White v. State of Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1232 (10th Cir. 1998); see also Kadrmas at 487 U.S. 450, 455-56 (affirming the decision of the state court that legislation was rationally related to a legitimate government purpose). The level of scrutiny applied by the court under the Equal Protection Clause is determined by the governmental classification or the right involved in the case. See Save Palisade FruitLands v. Todd, 279 F.3d 1204, 1210 (10th Cir. 2002).
In the present case, both parties agree that plaintiffs do not belong to a suspect class and that plaintiffs' claims do not implicate a fundamental right. See West v. Derby Unified Sch. Dist. No. 260, 206 F.3d 1358, 1365 (10th Cir. 2000) ("public school students are not a suspect class under the Equal Protection Clause"); San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriquez, 411 U.S. 1, 17-44 (1973) (holding that education is not a fundamental right protected by the federal Constitution). Therefore, to satisfy the Equal Protection Clause, the challenged classification need only be rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose. Kadrmas v. Dickinson Pub. Schs., 487 U.S. 450, 457-58 (1988); see Kinnell v. Graves, 265 F.3d 1125, 1128 (10th Cir. 2001).
The rational basis test requires the Court to identify the class created by the governmental action and then determine whether the classification is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. See Edwards v. Valdez, 789 F.2d 1477, 1483 (10th Cir. 1986). Furthermore, the governmental action is presumed valid. See City of Cleburne at 473 U.S. 432, 439.
In the present case, plaintiffs do not assert that the Administrative Rules, the State Office Standards, or any other related statute violates the Equal Protection Clause. Rather the plaintiffs contend that the defendants have arbitrarily and capriciously applied the various busing standards in refusing to establish a new bus route that would provide plaintiffs with door to door busing. Plaintiffs argue that the governmental action of the District, the Board, and the Board's members, have violated the equal protection rights of Samantha and Stetson Labrum.
Defendants contend that their actions in establishing a school bus route system comport with all applicable laws and further several legitimate governmental interests. Specifically, defendants argue that the District's bus route system saves taxpayer money and school children time. They also assert that the bus route system is efficient and alleviates discipline problems with school children,
The Administrative Rules, the State Office Standards, and other applicable laws provide districts with guidance in accomplishing the difficult task of providing school bus service to students who are in need of a ride to school. It is unrealistic to expect any school district, especially one in a large rural area, to have the resources to provide door to door school bus service to every student in need. In such circumstances, it is a legitimate interest of school districts to implement school bus routes in accordance with applicable laws to maximize efficiency and to do so in a cost-effective manner.
The governmental actions of defendants in establishing and administering the school bus routes for the District have created the classification of students not receiving door to door busing. However, the Court finds this classification is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. The District's bus route system was made and is carried out in accordance with state laws and regulations and is economical and efficient. Defendants appear to be doing the best they can to provide school bus service with limited resources.
V. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS defendants' motion for summary judgment and DISMISSES this case with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED.