PHILADELPHIA – A trio of lawsuits alleging that Black cadets at Valley Forge Military Academy & College were racially discriminated against during their tenure and that Black cadets were disciplined more severely at the school than others have been dismissed.
Ricole Morgan (individually and as legal guardian of T.M., a minor), Shantelle Comegys (individually and as legal guardian of K.F., a minor) and Marshelle Hightower (individually and as legal guardian of R.S., a minor) each initially filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in August 2021 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.”
Meanwhile, Valley Forge suspended K.F. until Nov. 8, 2020, and advised plaintiff Comegys that K.F. would face a Commandant’s Disciplinary Board after he returned. However, by letter dated Nov. 6, 2020, Valley Forge dismissed K.F. for assault, conduct unbecoming a Cadet, and conspiracy. Comegys’ appeal of the dismissal was denied.
Further, by letter dated Nov. 2, 2020, Valley Forge suspended R.S. until Nov. 8, 2020, and advised plaintiff Hightower that R.S. would face a Commandant’s Disciplinary Board after he returned. However, by letter dated Nov. 6, 2020, Valley Forge dismissed R.S. for assault, conduct unbecoming a Cadet, and conspiracy. Hightower’s appeal of the dismissal was denied.
Cadets K.F. and R.S. had been investigated in connection with the same altercation to which R.M. had been linked.
The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint from Morgan on Oct. 19, 2021, 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.”
The military academy brought similarly-worded dismissal motions in the actions against Comegys and Hightower on Oct. 29, 2021 and Nov. 16, 2021, respectively.
UPDATE
A trio of rulings from U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Nitza I. Quiñones Alejandro on Aug. 10 dismissed each case against Valley Forge Military Academy & College in its entirety, finding that the military academy did not qualify as a state actor.
“In her complaint, Morgan has not alleged any facts to support a conclusion that Valley Forge – in its role as a private college preparatory boarding school and military junior college – performs an exclusive state function. Morgan alleges only that Valley Forge receives federal funding, which, under Rendell-Baker, does not transform the education provided by a private school into an exclusive state function. Thus, Morgan has not met the ‘heavy burden’ of showing that Valley Forge is a state actor under the first test. Notably, Morgan has not identified a single case in which a private school was considered a state actor,” Quiñones Alejandro said.
“Indeed, courts have overwhelmingly held that private schools and colleges are not state actors, irrespective of whether they receive government funding. As for the second test, receipt of government funding is not sufficient to demonstrate that Valley Forge acted in concert with the state in connection with its disciplinary action against T.M. Morgan does not allege facts demonstrating that Valley Forge and the state jointly agreed to suspend, dismiss and offer to reinstate T.M., or that any of these decisions ‘resulted from the exercise of a right or privilege having its source in state authority.’ Thus, Valley Forge does not meet the definition of a state actor under the second test.”
In addition to dismissing all of the actions’ federal civil rights claims, Quiñones Alejandro added that the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the cases’ state-law breach of contract claims.
“Supplemental jurisdiction affords federal courts the power to decide state-law claims that derive from a common nucleus of operative fact with claims that arise under federal law. However, the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state- law claims if the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” Quiñones Alejandro said.
“For the reasons set forth, Valley Forge’s motion to dismiss Morgan’s federal claims – the only claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction – is granted. Therefore, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(c)(3) and the Third Circuit’s directive, and because there is no affirmative justification to do otherwise, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.”
The judge’s dismissal, for identical reasons, was also issued in the Comegys and Hightower actions.
The plaintiffs were represented by Robert T. Vance Jr. of the Law Offices of Robert T. Vance Jr., in Philadelphia.
The defendant was 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 cases 2:21-cv-03460, 2:21-cv-03687 & 2:21-cv-03848
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com