Price v. Tamalpais Union High School District

Background

Kenneth Wayne Price sued Tamalpais Union High School District, Tamalpais High School Principal Kimberly Clissold, and TUHSD Superintendent Dr. Tara Taupier. Price alleged that he was injured while working as a Campus Supervisor at Tamalpais High School. His job included supervising the campus, managing student conflicts, responding to dangerous situations, and helping maintain a safe environment.

According to the amended complaint, white students made and shared a video repeatedly using a racial slur. Price alleged that school administrators and white staff members received information about the video and the resulting racial tensions, but Black staff members—including Price—did not. He alleged that, during a student fight on October 6, 2023, he was struck while trying to separate students and suffered serious left-arm and shoulder injuries. He also alleged that he would have taken steps to reduce the danger if he had been informed about the video and tensions.

The amended complaint asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of due process and equal protection against Clissold and Taupier. It also asserted California Fair Employment and Housing Act claims for discrimination and failure to prevent discrimination, plus a fraudulent-concealment claim, against TUHSD. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12.

Federal Due Process Claim

The court analyzed Price’s due-process theory as a state-created-danger claim. That doctrine can apply when a state actor affirmatively creates or exposes a person to a danger that the person otherwise would not have faced, and does so with deliberate indifference to a known or obvious danger.

The court held that Price did not allege the required affirmative conduct. Although Clissold sent a message to students’ families and Taupier informed the TUHSD Board, and although the defendants allegedly communicated with white staff, Price alleged that the defendants’ failure to inform him prevented him from responding safely. The court concluded that Price had not alleged that the defendants’ affirmative acts created or increased the danger. The court therefore dismissed the § 1983 due-process claim.

The court also ruled that Clissold and Taupier would be entitled to qualified immunity even if Price had plausibly alleged a constitutional violation. Qualified immunity generally protects government officials from damages liability unless their conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established in the specific circumstances. The court found that the cases Price cited involved officials who affirmatively made an employee’s job more dangerous, rather than officials who allegedly withheld information.

Federal Equal Protection Claim

For the equal-protection claim, the court explained that Price needed to allege, among other things, that the defendants acted for a discriminatory reason and that their conduct adversely affected him. In the employment context, an adverse employment action is one that materially affects the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.

The court held that Price had not plausibly alleged that withholding information alone was an adverse employment action. He did not allege facts showing that the withheld information was necessary for him to perform his job safely. The court also found that the student altercation, rather than the defendants’ failure to inform him, caused the harm that prevented him from working. The court dismissed the § 1983 equal-protection claim.

The court further held that Clissold and Taupier would be entitled to qualified immunity on this claim because Price cited no controlling law showing that every reasonable official would have understood that withholding this information based on race constituted an adverse employment action and violated the Constitution.

California Claims Against TUHSD

The court dismissed Price’s FEHA discrimination claim because he did not allege an adverse employment action. It also dismissed the FEHA claim for failure to prevent discrimination because that claim depends on a viable underlying discrimination claim. The court rejected defendants’ argument that the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act prevented Price from stating a FEHA claim, explaining that the statute might be relevant to a defense but did not determine whether Price had adequately pleaded discrimination.

The court dismissed the fraudulent-concealment claim because Price did not identify a statute creating a specific duty requiring TUHSD to disclose the information to him. The court considered statutes Price cited in his opposition, including California workplace-safety provisions and an education-law provision prohibiting racial discrimination, but concluded that Price had not explained how those provisions created the required duty for this claim.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss all of Price’s claims. Because this was the first order addressing the claims against the individual defendants, the court granted Price leave to amend. He could not add claims or defendants without further court permission, and the deadline for a second amended complaint was January 17, 2026. If Price did not amend by that date, the court stated that it would enter judgment for defendants on all federal claims and dismiss the state-law claims without prejudice to pursuing them in state court. The order disposed of Docket No. 30.