469 F.Supp.3d 1121
D. Kan.2020Background:
- Plaintiff Camille Sturdivant, an African‑American high‑school student and member of the school "Dazzlers" dance team, alleges race discrimination and retaliation by the school and team personnel during her junior–senior years.
- Assistant coach Carley Fine became head coach in early 2017; choreographer Kevin Murakami was an independent contractor. In July 2016 Murakami allegedly made a race‑based comment about Sturdivant (disputed).
- On May 1–2, 2018 plaintiff discovered texts on Fine’s phone showing Fine and Murakami using a racial slur about plaintiff; plaintiff’s mother sent the screenshot to principal Amy Pressly.
- The District promptly removed Fine from coaching (May 2, 2018) but did not terminate her contract; Fine sent a follow‑up “boycott” text to her sister and contacts with team parents/members followed, and plaintiff claims ensuing ostracism at school and off‑campus team events.
- Plaintiff sued under Title VI (against the District) and § 1983 Equal Protection (against the District, Pressly in her supervisory capacity, and Fine individually). Defendants moved for summary judgment.
- Court disposition: summary judgment granted to the School District and to Pressly; summary judgment denied as to Fine (factual disputes on state‑action and denial of qualified immunity). Murakami’s motion rendered moot.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Municipal liability (Title VI / § 1983) — deliberate indifference / failure to train | District failed to train/supervise coaches re: race discrimination, producing deliberate indifference | No pattern of similar constitutional violations; single incidents insufficient; discrimination law obvious so failure‑to‑train not deliberate indifference | Held for District: no deliberate indifference; summary judgment for District granted |
| 2. Supervisory liability (Pressly) — personal involvement / deliberate indifference | Pressly knew (or should have) and failed to intervene or train; her inaction caused harm | Pressly acted promptly when alerted (removed Fine), lacked notice Fine encouraged ostracism; no personal involvement | Held for Pressly: no evidence of personal involvement or deliberate indifference; summary judgment granted |
| 3. Equal Protection violation (Fine) — deprivation of educational benefit | Fine’s racist texts plus her “boycott” direction set in motion team ostracism that deprived plaintiff of educational benefits | Fine argues she did not exclude plaintiff from events and acted privately; exclusion by parents/members not attributable to her | Held: disputed material facts exist whether Fine’s conduct (texts and directive) caused deprivation; summary judgment denied on constitutional‑violation issue |
| 4. State‑action and qualified immunity (Fine) | Fine acted under color of state law by misusing apparent coach authority while still on contract; Tenth Circuit law clearly establishes unlawfulness of race‑based exclusion | Fine contends she was effectively relieved of duties and acted privately; qualified immunity shields her | Held: factual issues on nexus to state authority preclude summary judgment on state‑action; qualified immunity denied because Ramirez and related precedent clearly established illegality of such race‑based exclusion |
Key Cases Cited
- Bryant v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. I‑38, 334 F.3d 928 (10th Cir.) (applying deliberate‑indifference standard to Title VI claims in school context)
- Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (2011) (municipal failure‑to‑train liability requires a pattern unless need for training is plainly obvious)
- Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989) (single‑incident failure‑to‑train liability possible only in narrow, obvious circumstances)
- Ramirez v. Dep’t of Corrections, 222 F.3d 1238 (10th Cir. 2000) (public employers may not make adverse decisions based on race; supports clearly established prong of qualified immunity analysis)
- Jojola v. Chavez, 55 F.3d 488 (10th Cir. 1995) (state‑action analysis: need a real nexus between employee’s misuse of authority and the alleged wrong)
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (defining acting under color of state law)
- Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922 (1982) (conduct actionable under § 1983 must be fairly attributable to the State)
- Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397 (1997) (municipalities liable only where their deliberate conduct is the moving force behind constitutional injury)