Davis v. Winston Preparatory School

Background

Dinean Davis sued Winston Preparatory School, its headmaster William DeHaven, and its dean Sandy Hagerty. She alleged that the defendants discriminated against her son, J.D., an African American student with anxiety and severe learning disabilities, and that they expelled him from Winston Prep in March 2020. The amended complaint asserted race-discrimination claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the New York State Human Rights Law, as well as claims against Winston Prep under Title VI, Title IX, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

The allegations included that J.D. was disciplined more harshly than white students for similar conduct, that school officials minimized racial slurs and other discriminatory behavior, and that white female students received no discipline for conduct that Davis contended was comparable to J.D.’s sexually coercive text messages. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether the complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The defendants also invoked Rule 12(b)(1), but did not develop a jurisdictional argument in their brief.

Section 1981 race-discrimination claim

The court held that the amended complaint plausibly alleged that race was a necessary cause of J.D.’s expulsion. It relied on allegations that Winston Prep and DeHaven treated J.D. more harshly than similarly situated non-African American students, including Jane Doe and two white girls who allegedly engaged in sex-related misconduct or cyberbullying without receiving comparable discipline. The court also considered allegations that DeHaven minimized racial slurs and failed to respond appropriately to racial discrimination at the school.

The court therefore denied the motion to dismiss the Section 1981 claim against Winston Prep and DeHaven. It granted the motion as to Hagerty because the amended complaint did not plausibly allege that Hagerty participated in the decision to expel J.D. or that race was a necessary cause of any action by Hagerty. The dismissal of this claim against Hagerty was without prejudice, and the court allowed Davis to seek permission to amend it.

Title VI, Title IX, and Section 504 claims

The court dismissed the Title VI, Title IX, and Rehabilitation Act claims because the amended complaint did not plausibly allege that Winston Prep was receiving qualifying federal financial assistance when the alleged discrimination occurred. The court found the cited materials insufficient to support the allegations concerning federal grants. It also concluded that Winston Prep’s later Paycheck Protection Program loan did not qualify for these claims because J.D.’s expulsion occurred before the loan program was created and before Winston Prep received the loan.

The court further held that Winston Prep’s tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) was not enough, by itself, to constitute federal financial assistance under these statutes. These claims were dismissed with prejudice because Davis had already received an opportunity to amend the deficient federal-funding allegations and did not identify additional allegations that would cure the problem.

Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act claims

The court granted the motion to dismiss the disability-discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. Davis did not respond to the defendants’ arguments that the amended complaint failed to identify a denied accommodation or another adverse action taken because of J.D.’s disability. The court treated these claims as abandoned and dismissed the Americans with Disabilities Act claim with prejudice. The conclusion states that the Rehabilitation Act claims were dismissed with prejudice as to all defendants as well.

New York State Human Rights Law claim

The court concluded that the allegations supporting the Section 1981 claim also plausibly supported a race-discrimination claim under the New York State Human Rights Law, which the court described as having a less demanding pleading standard. The court denied the motion to dismiss this claim as to Winston Prep and DeHaven, but granted the motion as to Hagerty because the amended complaint did not allege that he played a role in the expulsion decision.

The court noted that the New York statute appears not to impose liability on individual employees for the provision at issue. It directed Davis to show cause by July 11, 2025, why the claim against DeHaven should not be dismissed with prejudice. It also directed Davis to show cause by that date why the dismissal of the claim against Hagerty should not be with prejudice. Thus, the opinion’s conclusion records the claim as dismissed against Hagerty while leaving the final status of those individual-defendant dismissals subject to further submissions.

Disposition

Judge Paul G. Gardephe granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Section 1981 claim was dismissed without prejudice as to Hagerty, while the motion was otherwise denied as to the Section 1981 claims against Winston Prep and DeHaven. The Title VI, Title IX, Americans with Disabilities Act, and Rehabilitation Act claims were dismissed with prejudice as to all defendants. The New York State Human Rights Law claim was dismissed as to Hagerty, subject to the required showing concerning whether that dismissal should be with prejudice; Davis was also required to show cause concerning the possible final dismissal of the claim against DeHaven. Any motion for leave to file a second amended complaint was due July 11, 2025.