PHILADELPHIA – A local woman alleges that her son, a cadet at Valley Forge Military Academy & College, was racially discriminated against during his tenure, and that Black cadets were disciplined more severely at the school than others.
(Ricole Morgan, individually and as legal guardian of T.M., a minor) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 3 versus Valley Forge Military Academy & College, of Wayne.
“T.M. enrolled at defendant on Aug. 15, 2019. He was an honor student, served in student leadership capacities at defendant, had received prestigious awards at defendant, and had an otherwise unblemished record,” the suit says.
“On Oct. 30, 2020, an altercation occurred among some cadets. Some cadets had a physical altercation with a non-Black cadet who had made a racist and derogatory post on social media. The non-Black cadet previously had engaged in racist and discriminatory behavior, and although the defendant was aware of his actions, it never took any action against him. T.M. was not involved in the altercation.”
The suit explained that in being consistent with its pattern and practice of discrimination against Black cadets, and without notifying Morgan, the defendant immediately solicited the involvement of local law enforcement, agents of which began to conduct interviews of Cadets outside of the presence of their parents.
And despite the fact that T.M. was not involved in the physical altercation, the defendant notified Morgan by email on the morning of Oct. 31, 2020, that he was, and that an investigation was underway. Later that night, the defendant notified Morgan by email that T.M. was suspended until Nov. 8, 2020, and that she should retrieve him from the campus.
“By letter dated Nov. 6, 2020, defendant dismissed T.M. allegedly for conduct unbecoming a Cadet and conspiracy. By letter dated Nov. 13, 2020, Morgan appealed T.M.’s dismissal,” the suit continues.
“By letter dated Nov. 20, 2020, defendant notified Morgan that T.M.’s dismissal had been overturned and that he would be allowed to return to defendant under a ‘Suspended Dismissal’ status, along with incurring certain non-negotiable penalties, including the loss of a Stein Scholarship, four months of restrictions and a $500 fine.”
Though the defendant conditionally offered to reinstate T.M, it did not allow him to attend classes virtually, which negatively affected his academic progress, but in contrast, a non-Black cadet involved in the incident was allowed to attend classes virtually.
The plaintiff alleges that the conditions the defendant sought to impose on T.M. were “oppressive, unfair, unjustified, and discriminatory and consistent with its history and pattern and practice of disciplining Black cadets more severely than non-Black cadets for comparable offenses.”
Due to such treatment, Morgan determined that T.M. would not return to defendant.
“Although defendant offered to reinstate T.M, with conditions, it did not allow him to attend classes virtually, which negatively affected his academic progress. In contrast, a non-Black cadet involved in the incident was allowed to attend classes virtually. Because of the discriminatory treatment defendant accorded to T.M., including the oppressive, unfair, unjustified, and discriminatory conditions imposed on his return, Morgan determined that T.M. would not return to defendant,” the suit states.
“Despite repeated requests from Morgan, consistent with its history and pattern and practice of discrimination against Black cadets, to date defendant has refused to provide Morgan an official transcript for T.M. At the same time, however, defendant has demanded that Morgan pay $9,720.67 in tuition, for time that T.M. was not enrolled at defendant.”
For counts of Fourteenth Amendment equal protection and due process violations plus a count for breach of contract, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages, attorney’s fees, expert witness fees, costs and disbursements, such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate, plus a trial by jury.
The plaintiff is represented by Robert T. Vance Jr. of the Law Offices of Robert T. Vance Jr., in Philadelphia.
The defendant has not yet obtained legal counsel.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:21-cv-03460
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com