Student sues district, claiming discrimination and retaliation

A white male high school student sued a school district, alleging that he had been discriminated against based on race and was the victim of retaliation. The lawsuit was dismissed and the student appealed to the court of appeals.

The basis of the claim for racial discrimination was an assignment in which the teacher instructed the class "to research and write about 'diverse' atomic theory scientists." When asked to clarify what she meant by "diverse," the teacher told the students to "pick any scientist other than an 'old dead white guy.'" Two months later, the student complained to the district about the assignment, but never received a response. He then transferred schools.

The basis of the retaliation claim was that shortly after the student transferred to his new school, the assistant principal at the student's former school received a report that the student posted a threat to kill his teacher on social media. Local law enforcement interviewed the student and his parents and filed a written report about the incident. The student admitted to posting the comments "out of frustration." Later that day, the district removed the student to a disciplinary placement. The student claimed in the lawsuit that the reason for the disciplinary placement was to retaliate against him for bringing his complaint of racial discrimination.

The court of appeals determined that the student did not establish a claim for discrimination because he failed to show that the district had treated him differently because of his race. The basis of this conclusion was that the entire class was given the same assignment, regardless of race. 

Similarly, the court found that the student had also failed to establish a claim for retaliation. To prove retaliation, the student had to show that: 

1. he engaged in a protected activity when he complained about the assignment, and 
2. that the district took action against him because of that. 

In this case, the student failed to show that there is a connection between the protected activity (his complaint) and the adverse action (placement in the disciplinary setting). The court noted that the district disciplined the student only after he threatened to kill his teacher. The district's code of conduct explicitly prohibits making such threats. The logical inference, according to the court, was that the student's threat, not his race, caused the district to take disciplinary action against him.