PHILADELPHIA – Valley Forge Military Academy & College denies a lawsuit’s allegations that it engaged in racial discrimination towards one of its cadets or that it disciplined Black cadets more severely than others at the institution.
Ricole Morgan (individually and as legal guardian of T.M., a minor) first 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 said.
“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 continued.
“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 alleged 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 stated.
“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.”
UPDATE
The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on Oct. 19, countering that the plaintiff had failed to illustrate how it violated equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, or that it committed breach of contract.
“Plaintiff Morgan has failed to state a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment against VFMA. Under well-settled Supreme Court and Third Circuit precedent, the actions of a private school do not rise to the level of state action necessary to state a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff Morgan has failed to allege any facts from which this Court could, conclude that there was any state action involved in the disciplinary proceedings at issue in the complaint. As such, Count I fails to state a claim against VFMA for alleged violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and should be dismissed as a matter of law,” the answer stated, in part.
“The complaint does not allege any facts upon which the Court could conclude that VFMA was acting under the color of state law in disciplining ‘T.M.’ Instead, plaintiff Morgan alleges that VFMA is a ‘private college preparatory boarding school.’ While Plaintiff Morgan also alleges that VFMA received some unidentified amount of federal financial assistance, as a matter of law, that allegation is insufficient to create the state action necessary for plaintiff Morgan to state a claim against VFMA under Section 1983. Moreover, the disciplinary proceedings and punishment alleged in the complaint involved no state action or regulation but, rather, are exclusively controlled by the contractual relationship between VFMA and its students under Pennsylvania law.”
Defense counsel added that the plaintiff cannot state a claim against VFMA for alleged due process violations under the Fourteenth Amendment, since plaintiff “alleges and admits that VFMA is a private educational institution…which applies only to state, not private, actors.”
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 is represented by George B. Randolph and David L. Black of Riley Riper Hollin & Colagreco, in Exton.
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