At some point in most people's education, they would recall that their school disallowed students to do things at certain times, for example not letting students go to the toilet at times during a lesson. This occurred at a school in California (US), where, as per a school policy, a teacher refused to allow a student to go to the toilet during a 25-minute class. However, the student urgently required to go to the toilet and the teacher, enforcing this policy, decided to resolve the issue by directing the student to go into a store-room and urinate into a bucket. This resulted in the local school district being sued and ordered to pay $1.25 million to the affected student.

The facts

On 22 February 2012, a 14-year-old student was forced to urinate into a bucket after being denied a toilet break. The student's request was made during a 25-minute class at the school. The teacher believed that a 'no-toilet break' rule applied due to the school policy of not allowing students to go to the toilet during class time. The teacher decided to strictly enforce the school policy and not allow the student to access the toilet. The teacher tried to resolve the problem by directing the student to use a nearby store-room closet where she could urinate into a bucket and then dispose of the contents into a sink.

After the event, the student was subject to other students ridiculing and bullying her, receiving lewd text messages from students and general gossip. This led to the student suffering anxiety, depression, having to transfer schools twice and attempting to commit suicide. The student, who is now 19-years-old, is still undergoing treatment due to those events which occurred in 2012.

The teacher was placed on administrative leave shortly after the incident and never returned to the school.

The fall out

Initially, the student's lawyer made a claim to the San Diego Unified School District for $25,000 USD ($33,000 AUD). However, the San Diego Unified School District denied the claim. The case then advanced to the Superior Court of California, where a jury ordered the San Diego Unified School District to pay $1.25 million USD ($1.6 million AUD) in damages and $41,000 USD ($54,000 AUD) to compensate for any medical expenses.

The student's lawyer said “[s]omething like this never should have happened to a 14-year-old girl just entering high school. She took the stand and told a really embarrassing story, she told the jury how this has affected her life and how she is still working through issues".

The school also made an apology to the student and her mother and clarified that teachers allowed students to use the bathroom during classes.

The San Diego Unified School District were disappointed with the verdict and will be deciding whether they will be appealing the decision.

The issue for teachers

The issue for teachers in this context is whether to uphold and strictly implement school policy or to exercise their own discretion based on circumstance and necessity. All teachers have had a situation where a student requests to go to the toilet and at certain times, when it is generally not permitted, such as within 10 minutes pre or post the recess or lunch break. However, it is important to use common sense in this type of situation. Teachers are trained not just to educate children but to care for the students in their charge. In situations where a student desperately needs to go to the toilet, it could be argued that it would be reasonable if a teacher decides to let the child go to the toilet, rather than let the student suffer or relieve themselves elsewhere.

Policies in schools are meant to ensure that risks are mitigated and that safety takes priority. They outline boundaries for teachers and students and maintain not only order but promote the culture of the school. However, school policies may not define or recognise certain risks, for example, a child who soils themselves in class and is then deeply embarrassed or worse (as the above case demonstrates). In this instance, it means the policy has not been properly thought out and therefore ineffective and possibly inherently flawed. Additionally, the United Nations Convention Rights of the Child (UNCROC), gives basic human rights to children such as protecting children against child labour and violence and securing their right for education and protecting them from abuse and neglect. Denying a child the ability to use the toilet may violate their human rights under the UNCROC. Therefore, going to the toilet could be considered a basic human right that schools should recognise.

However, if teachers have suspicions about the frequency of students going to the bathroom, teachers should monitor the student's requested toilet breaks for a few days and apply appropriate sanctions to the students if it is proved the toilet breaks were a ruse with the main intention of avoiding class.

If a teacher decides to breach a school policy, it can result in their dismissal. However, in a situation where a student requires to go to the toilet and school policy states they are not allowed to go at a particular time, and the teacher allows the student to use the toilet, a teacher may not legally be held accountable if the best interests of the child were considered and the teacher's duty of care for the child and the other students was not compromised. Teachers must be aware that in the event they decide to breach a policy they must document why the breach occurred and ensure they apply suitable strategies to maintain a high level of duty of care to the children for whom they are responsible and accountable. They should also discuss the issue with their immediate line manager to see if there is a problem associated with how a school policy is being applied in real life situations.

If the school's policy is unreasonable in this situation, schools could be liable for not allowing a student to go to the toilet. It is important to note that if a school policy or a section of school policy breaches the law or does not conform to certain legal requirements, that policy or section of the policy could be void.

Another common situation (especially where schools are in developing or new areas) is when water is shut off, thus rendering school toilets unusable. Then schools need to provide alternative strategies to solve the problem due to health and safety requirements. These alternatives could include but are not limited to:

• organising portable toilets;
• leaving a bucket of water in each cubicle in the toilets so water can be poured into toilets for flushing;
• having bottles of hand sanitiser available for 'dry' hand-cleaning after use of the toilet; and
• giving the option to parents to keep their child at home until the water supply is restored.

Teachers and staff may face a problem where their school policy is uncompromising and does not allow students to do certain activities at certain times, such as going to the toilet. If a school policy breaches legislation or a basic human right, then the policy could be invalid and should be reviewed. Additionally, if a policy does not support or reflect the culture of the school then it should be reviewed as a matter of some urgency.

Teachers who decide to breach school policy should document why they breached the policy and use strategies to maintain the expected high standard of duty of care for all of their students. In the case mentioned above, the teacher made the mistake of strictly enforcing a policy whilst failing to understand and deal with the specific needs of the student, which ultimately made the school liable for the damages suffered by the student.