1. David Cummings
Jeffrey Taylor v. Enumclaw School District No. 216
No. 55704-1-I
Facts: Taylor is the father of Zachary Taylor and the Plaintiff, suing Enumclaw School District
No. 216 for violating Zachary’s fourteenth amendment right to due process, negligence, unlawful
search and seizure, negligent supervision, and defamation, libel, and slander. Zachary Taylor was
allegedly under the influence during a football game and was seen drinking at a dance after the
game. The Enumclaw High School Principal Terry Parker received phone calls from parents
telling him students and football players were engaging in underage drinking at a post-
homecoming dance. The school interviewed students and players asking about the allegations.
On Thursday of the same week the Sumner Head Football Coach Keith Ross attended the
Enumclaw football game to inform the Athletic Director Tim Tubb that one of his players felt
Zachary was under the influence during and after the game. On November 4, 2002, a security
staff member Cindy Turner notified Principal Parker that she saw an alcohol container in the car
parked in Zachary’s parking space. A security officer did a search of the car with Zachary and a
police officer present and Zachary consented to the search and opened the door of the car. A
Coors Light beer box, an empty package of Swisher Sweet cigars, and a closed clear plastic drink
bottle containing tobacco residue and spit. Zachary said he, “heard someone had put a beer box
in his car that morning.” On the next day Zachary received a 10-day suspension for violating the
school policy by drinking alcohol as a member of the football team at the November 1 game. On
November 6, Zachary met with the Athletic Board to determine appropriate athletic-related
sanctions and sent a letter to Zachary’s father summarizing its findings and Sanctions.

2. Procedural History: On November 5, a 10-day academic suspension was administered by the
school district. November 6 the athletic board reviewed for athletic sanctions. The suspension
was appealed. November 18, Zachary and Mr. Taylor met with Principal Parker for an informal
grievance conference. June 13, 2003 a complaint against the district was filed. On April 16, 2004
it reached the trial court. Now the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 is hearing the
case.
Issue: Is there a property or liberty interest at stake?
Holding: No, interscholastic sports do not provide a property or liberty interest in this situation.
Rule: Summary judgment was properly granted, and there is no basis on which to award attorney
fees to the Taylors. The court affirms.
Reasoning: According to the court, the District provided Zachary with more process than was
required under the circumstances when it applied the WAC 180-40-255 process for short-term
academic suspensions to the athletic sanction hearings. It was not required to provide him with
process equivalent to that provided for an expulsion simply because he received both an
academic suspension and athletic sanctions. Since participation in interscholastic sports is not a
protected interest, the process received was adequate. The Mathews test does not apply to the
process used by the District to impose athletic discipline upon Zachary.
Dissent: None