T.B. v. Independent School District 112

Background

The court considered three motions to exclude expert testimony under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. That rule permits qualified experts to testify when their specialized knowledge will help the jury, their opinions are based on sufficient facts or data, their methods are reliable, and they reliably applied those methods to the case. Courts act as “gatekeepers” by deciding whether expert testimony is relevant and reliable.

Independent School District 112, also identified as Eastern Carver County Schools, moved to exclude the testimony of Mia Smith-Bynum and Naomi Khalil. The plaintiffs moved to exclude the testimony of David Wolowitz. The experts’ opinions concerned alleged racial harassment and bullying involving T.B. and J.F.R., the effects of those experiences, and the school district’s policies and responses.

Mia Smith-Bynum

Smith-Bynum is a professor of family science, a trained therapist, and a researcher whose work includes racial issues in families, the health effects of racism, and racial identity among children and adolescents. She interviewed T.B. and J.F.R. and reviewed medical and school records. She opined that racial harassment and the school district’s response were linked to mental-health struggles and other harms described in her reports.

The school district argued that Smith-Bynum relied on insufficient facts and data, lacked qualifications to diagnose the plaintiffs, failed to use a differential diagnosis, and used an unreliable method to address causation. The plaintiffs responded that she was not offering medical diagnoses but was explaining the relationship between racism and adolescent mental health based on research and professional experience.

The court found Smith-Bynum qualified and concluded that her testimony was relevant and helpful to the jury. It held that challenges to the factual basis of her opinions went to the weight the jury should give the testimony, rather than whether the testimony was admissible. The court therefore denied the school district’s motion to exclude her testimony.

Naomi Khalil

Khalil is an educational consultant who has worked in teaching and school administration and has experience with educational equity. The plaintiffs retained her to opine on whether the school district failed to provide a school climate free from racial discrimination and harassment. She concluded that the district’s policies, practices, and training did not meaningfully address racial bullying and that the district’s lack of implementation and enforcement contributed significantly to the harm alleged by the plaintiffs.

The school district argued that Khalil relied on an incorrect legal standard and an unreliable method. In particular, it objected to her references to the district’s “educational duty,” because the case involved whether the district acted with “deliberate indifference,” not whether it breached a negligence-based duty. The district also challenged her references to “best practices” and “perfection.”

The court agreed that references to an “educational duty” could confuse the jury because the applicable standard was deliberate indifference. It therefore precluded Khalil from testifying about a legal duty owed by the school district to students. The court treated her other challenges, including her use of “best practices” and “perfection,” as issues affecting the weight of her testimony rather than its admissibility. Because her opinions were not so fundamentally unsupported that they could provide no assistance to the jury, the court allowed her remaining testimony.

The order accordingly granted in part and denied in part the school district’s motion to exclude Khalil’s testimony.

David Wolowitz

Wolowitz is an attorney who has advised and trained schools on bullying, harassment, discrimination, student safeguarding, policies, and investigations. The school district retained him to evaluate its policies and practices and its responses to the allegations involving T.B. and J.F.R. He opined that the district’s policies, training, and responses were reasonable and appropriate and that it did not act with “deliberate indifference.”

The plaintiffs argued that Wolowitz’s opinions would not help the jury, contained analytical gaps, relied on an insufficient background, and improperly offered legal conclusions. The court agreed that using the phrase “deliberate indifference” created a serious risk of confusing the jury because that phrase states the governing legal standard. The court therefore precluded Wolowitz from using that phrase at trial.

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ remaining challenges. It found Wolowitz qualified to offer opinions about whether the district acted reasonably in responding to known acts of discrimination under its control. His testimony about the adequacy and reasonableness of the district’s policies and practices could help the jury understand how schools may address and respond to alleged bullying, harassment, and discrimination.

The order accordingly granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion to exclude Wolowitz’s testimony.

Order

Judge Michael J. Davis ordered the following: