Quantcast

Butler Wesleyan students update: School denies girls faced racism at institution

PENNSYLVANIA RECORD

Sunday, December 22, 2024

Butler Wesleyan students update: School denies girls faced racism at institution

Federal Court
K12 schools stock 01

PITTSBURGH – Butler Wesleyan Academy denies that two of its former students were subjected to racist and discriminatory treatment based upon their multi-racial heritage, countering that their misconduct is what led to their suspension from the institution.

Gail S. (in her individual capacity and as parent and legal guardian of minor plaintiffs, Jo. S. and Je. S.) of Butler County filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Sept. 9 versus Butler Wesleyan Academy and Butler Wesleyan Methodist Church of Butler, Allegheny Wesleyan Methodist Connection of Salem, Ohio, plus Paul Fish, Teddy Zeigler, Sally Zeigler, Dennis J. Ballock, Dave Patterson, Curt Field, Kimberly Fish and John/Jane Does, also all of Butler County.

According to the lawsuit, Jo. S. and Je. S. have both East Indian and Jewish heritage and were the only minority students at Butler Wesleyan Academy, and as such, were made to endure a racially hostile environment during their time there.

“Throughout the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 academic school years, teachers and students at defendant Academy made ethnic and racially hostile statements, slurs and/or threats to and/or about plaintiffs Jo. S. and Je. S. including, but not limited to, statements such as: “What are you?”, “Are you Black?”, “We hate you”, “We hate that you’re here”, “You don’t belong here” and “You’re black trash,” the suit says.

“Teachers, students and administrators at defendant Academy, including defendants T. Zeigler, S. Zeigler, P. Fish and/or K. Fish, on multiple occasions, also referred to plaintiffs Jo. S. and Je. S as “Black” in a way that was intended to embarrass, degrade and/or humiliate the plaintiffs for not being “White.”

Meanwhile, the plaintiffs’ behavior included but was not limited to, minor issues such as not playing with other children at recess and asking a question about the school’s security cameras.

The plaintiff continued that Jo. S. and Je. S. were later indefinitely suspended from the school.

UPDATE

The defendants answered the complaint on Nov. 20, arguing it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and the decision to indefinitely suspend Jo. S. and Je. S. was due to their “respective conduct which repeatedly violated the School Handbook.”

“The Academy was within its rights to discipline Jo. S. and Je. S. for said conduct in the form of an indefinite suspension. Jo. S. and Je. S. were not expelled from the Academy. Gail S. withdrew Jo. S. and Je. S. from the Academy and placed them in a different school,” the answer read, in part.

The school flatly denied that the girls were subject to a racially and/or ethnically hostile educational environment, were denied equal access to education while enrolled at the Academy or that it breached the tuition contract with Gail S.

“The Academy refunded to Gail S. the balance of the tuition, minus the cost of PACES completed and purchased, including PACES purchased to finish to school year, for the benefit of Jo. S. and Je. S. Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries and/or damages, if any, were not the direct and proximate result of any act or omission by these defendant. Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their alleged injuries and/or damages, if any,” the answer stated.

For counts of race discrimination, hostile educational environment, retaliation, denial of equal educational opportunity, failure to adequately train, supervise and oversee, breach of contract and unjust enrichment, the plaintiffs are seeking compensatory general damages against the defendants, and each of them, in the amount proven at trial, compensatory special damages including, but not limited to, costs of suit, reasonable attorney’s fees as permitted by law, pre- and post-judgment interest as permitted by law and such other relief, including injunctive and/or declaratory relief, as this Court may deem proper.

The plaintiffs are represented by Joel S. Sansone, Elizabeth Tuttle and Massimo A. Terzigni of the Law Offices of Joel Sansone, in Pittsburgh.

The defendants are represented by Adam M. Barnes of Walsh Barnes Collis & Zumpella, also in Pittsburgh, plus David R. Dye of Ball Murren & Connell, in Camp Hill.

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-01353

From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com

More News