Haverford School identified concerns with a student James’ behavior and asked his parents to withdraw him from the school mid-year. While James’ parents, the Does, acknowledged their son’s behavioral issues, they nevertheless disputed the school’s narrative of his behavior during that period. They concluded that the school asked for James’ withdrawal because he reported racial discrimination.
Haverford objected to the admission of testimony from the Does’ proffered expert, Raymond De Sabato, claiming that he lacks the requisite expertise or comprehensible methods to opine on issues in this case.
Education Expert Witness
Raymond De Sabato holds a bachelor’s degree in reading education and psychology and a master’s degree in education, with a teaching certification in reading and language arts and a focus on administration. He worked in the education field from approximately 1977-2022 as a teacher, coach, assistant principal, principal, and assistant head of school at private schools at the middle-and-high-school levels.
In his report, De Sabato concluded that Haverford breached its duty and the professional standard of care with respect to James by failing to (1) “reasonably investigate and address the allegations of racial harassment and discrimination of James” and (2) “acting unreasonably in the manner in which it disciplined James by removing him from the School in the middle of the third grade year.”
According to Haverford, De Sabato’s purported expertise is based solely upon his career as an educator, rather than any specialized training or education.
Plaintiffs opposed Haverford’s motion, highlighting De Sabato’s discussion of best practices for dealing with struggling students, from the perspective of the private school experience.
Analysis
Despite De Sabato’s expertise as a teacher and administrator at private schools for 50 years, the Court held that De Sabato did not articulate a reliable method through which he reached his opinions in this case.
He described his expert methodology as “including the gathering, review, and analysis of all available and relevant documents, evidence, information, and testimony” based upon his “education, training, and professional experience in the field of education administration.” De Sabato further explained that his analysis focused on Haverford’s maintenance and implementation of racial harassment and abuse procedures, its investigation into such alleged harassment, and its disciplinary process for James.
This is not a methodology in the Rule 702 sense, but is rather a description of how thinking works: collect and assess the relevant information and use experience to reach a conclusion. The Court did not find any indication of how the jury will be able to follow along with that thought process if challenged – a critical safeguard of Rule 702.
Held
The Court granted the Defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of Raymond De Sabato.
Key Takeaway:
Sabato spoke in broad strokes about his focus on school procedures for racial harassment and abuse and investigations into such allegations, without providing any details as to what an effective or ineffective system looks like. Nor did he offer any insight into what an appropriate disciplinary process would be for a student exhibiting James’ behaviors.
It is simply not enough to say, “I reviewed the relevant documents, based upon my experience in this space, and reached my conclusions by focusing on the things I was asked to assess.”
Case Details:
Case Caption:
Doe V. Haverford School
Docket Number:
2:24cv618
Court Name:
United States District Court, Pennsylvania Eastern
Plaintiff, Rohan Peters, an African-American Pilot sued his former employer, International Paper Company (“International Paper” or “Defendant”), alleging claims of wrongful termination and retaliation arising out of Defendant’s discrimination pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgement on May 31, 2023. The Court granted summary judgement in favor of Defendant on Plaintiff’s racial discrimination claims and on Plaintiff’s entitlement to certain categories of damages on December 28, 2023.
International Paper filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s proffered opinion witness, sociology professor Dr. Matthew Hughey, pursuant to Daubert and Federal Rule of Evidence Rule 702. International Paper also renewed its motion to preclude Peters from mentioning or introducing evidence related to the expert opinion, testimony, and report of Matthew Hughey at any point during the proceedings.
Human Resources Expert Witness
Matthew Hughey specializes in race and ethnicity, bias, discrimination, racism, culture, media, organizations, religion, and science. He hold a B.A. (Bachelor of Arts) in sociology from the University of North Carolina, Greensboro; a certificate of advanced graduate study in “women’s studies” from Ohio University; an M.Ed. (Master of Education) in cultural studies from Ohio University; a graduate certificate in “religions of the world” from Harvard University; an A.L.M. (Artibus Liberalibus Magistri | Master of Liberal Arts) in religion from Harvard University, and a Ph.D. (Doctor of Philosophy) in sociology (with a specialization in race and culture) from the University of Virginia. He has been on the faculty of the University of Connecticut since 2013. He is full Professor of Sociology (2020-present) and was previously Associate Professor of Sociology (2013-2020). Before then he was Assistant Professor of Sociology at Mississippi State University (2009-2013). He also serves as adjunct faculty at the University of Connecticut in (1) the Sustainable Global Cities Initiative program, (2) for the Graduate Certificate and Masters in Race, Ethnicity, & Politics (REP) program, (3) the Institute for Collaboration on Health, Intervention, & Policy (InCHIP), (4) the American Studies Program, and (5) the Africana Studies Institute.
Discussion by the Court
Defendant contended that Hughey’s testimony improperly substituted his own judgment in place of that of the jury, effectively instructing them on the legal conclusions they should draw. They argued that Hughey lacked adequate qualifications in workplace discrimination and retaliation, with minimal relevant experience. Additionally, Defendant claimed that Hughey’s opinions lacked a solid factual basis, relied on unreliable methodologies, and failed to apply his principles effectively to the specifics of the case. Defendant pointed out that Hughey’s CV lacked relevant sources relating to retaliation, and they criticized his analysis for typographical errors revealing copy-and-paste analysis from prior cases, suggesting a lack of meaningful application to the case’s facts. Furthermore, Defendant argued that Hughey’s references to the Ku Klux Klan and incidents of police brutality were unfairly prejudicial.
Plaintiff refuted the Defendant’s claims and found fault with Defendant’s alleged mischaracterization of Hughey’s report, especially its conclusion that racial prejudice likely influenced the Plaintiff’s treatment by Defendant. They asserted that Hughey’s CV qualified him to offer opinions on race-related issues. Additionally, Plaintiff argued that the case’s complexity necessitated expert opinion witnesses, as laypeople might not grasp all the intricate details.
The Court noted the underlying emphasis on Hughey’s proffered testimony about racial discrimination which provided historical context, analysis, and conclusions applicable to the racial discrimination claim in this case. Indeed, retaliation was only discussed as a basis for Hughey’s ultimate conclusion that Plaintiff experienced racial discrimination. The Court had previously granted Defendant’s summary judgment motion with respect to Plaintiff’s race discrimination claim. Henceforth, Plaintiff’s claims for racial discrimination were not before the jury, having been dismissed at the summary judgment stage. As a result, the sole remaining claim in this case was Plaintiff’s retaliation claim.
Hughey’s fifty-nine (59) page report mentioned retaliation a total of four (4) times. Among these, two instances were merely recitations of the plaintiff’s claims, while the other two a section and a phrase, respectively, were used to support the conclusion regarding racial discrimination. The four-page section labeled “Racial Gaslighting and Retaliation” comprised one and a half pages of block quotes, one page summarizing the concept of gaslighting, one and a half pages providing a summary of alleged facts, and concluded with sentences stating:
“A company wishing to avoid conflict of interest and to engage in fair, equitable, and transparent employment practices would not have a subject of the complaint oversee disciplinary measures over the complainant. The action likely sent a message of intimidation with the implicit meaning to drop past, and/or avoid future, complaints.”
The Court citing Curtis v. Oklahoma City Public Schools Bd. of Educ., 147 F.3d 1200 (10th Cir. 1998), held that Hughey’s failure to address matters beyond common knowledge or experience of the average layperson was highlighted in his section on retaliation, which offered only a single, limited conclusion without supporting citations or analysis regarding the bases, methods, or principles applied to reach that conclusion.
Held
Matthew Hughey’s opinion on retaliation, to the extent it existed, did not involve analysis or application of any methodology which led the Court to exclude it. Defendant’s renewed motion to preclude Peters from mentioning or introducing evidence related to the expert opinion, testimony, and report of Hughey was deemed moot.
The Court has not arrived on an outcome for this case since the remaining issues involved in this case still await resolution.
Key Takeaways:
Defendant disputed the qualifications and methodology of Hughey, alleging that his testimony improperly substituted his judgment for that of the jury and lacked a solid factual basis. In response, the Plaintiffs argued that Hughey was indeed qualified to offer opinions on race-related issues, asserting the relevance of his expertise to the case’s complexities. They emphasized the need for expert opinion witnesses to help comprehend intricate details beyond laypeople’s grasp. While Hughey’s testimony primarily focused on racial discrimination, it briefly addressed retaliation, albeit in a limited manner, which became a point of contention. The Court criticized Hughey’s report for lacking detailed analysis and support regarding retaliation, citing legal precedent to underscore the importance of thorough expert testimony, especially in complex matters like retaliation in employment discrimination cases.
In this case, Plaintiff Jaketra Bryant is representing her minor son, C.B., who has Autism Spectrum Disorder (autism) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). They are asserting claims of unlawful racial and disability-based discrimination against Calvary Christian School of Columbus, Georgia. The school is a private elementary school affiliated with Calvary Baptist Church, receiving state and federal funding. C.B. was enrolled in the Discovery School Program, a small instruction-based program for students with learning difficulties which had a 5:1 student-teacher ratio. To qualify, students needed an Individual Education Plan (IEP), a 504 Plan, or a psychological evaluation. C.B.’s evaluation diagnosed autism and ADHD, recommending specific accommodations.
At first, C.B. performed well academically. However, during his seventh year, he exhibited certain behavioral issues, including temper outbursts, class disruption, throwing objects and misusing his laptop. The school recommended Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) therapy and medication evaluation, which the Plaintiff did not pursue initially. C.B. and another student reported racial comments, but no action was taken.
After more such incidents, C.B. was suspended, and the school decided to shift him to virtual instruction due to his behavioral challenges. The school required completion of ABA therapy in a classroom setting for him to return to in-person classes. A therapy plan was devised by Kya Grier Williams involving in-person instruction and shadowing. The therapy plan included fifteen hours of in-person instruction at Calvary where an assistant would shadow C.B. during class to support implementation of the plan. Alternatively, Williams offered to train Calvary staff on ABA behavioral therapy techniques for free to help ensure that the therapy plan was implemented correctly.
Shortly after being briefed on the therapy plan, Headmaster Koan was reluctant to go through with the execution of the plan because it required C.B.’s return to campus in person without proof of his satisfactory progress. Since the headmaster was hesitant to implement it, it led to an impasse. The school eventually considered C.B. withdrawn as a student.
Overall, the case involves allegations of discrimination, inadequate support for C.B.’s special needs, racial comments, and disputes over the implementation of therapy and accommodations.
Calvary also moved to exclude the expert testimony of Bryant’s expert Kya Grier Williams M.S., BCBA, LBA on individualized behavioral interventions alleging that her recommendations were wrong.
Williams is a licensed behavioral therapist, dedicated to and specializing in the treatment of behavioral issues in children and adolescent diagnosed with Autism and related Developmental Disorder, and Addiction and Compulsion in teens and adults.
Discussion by the Court
The Court held that based on the facts of the case, though C.B did have a disability within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act, Bryant does not seriously dispute that C.B. violated Calvary’s behavioral standards by throwing objects in class and misusing his laptop or contend that Calvary’s progressive disciplinary responses to each incident were atypical punishments when Bryant asserts that Calvary denied C.B. the following accommodations: enforcement of the positive reinforcement behavior plan in Ms. Cameron’s class, transferring C.B. to a teacher other than Ms. Cameron, and allowing C.B. to return to in-person classes at Calvary in the spring 2021 semester under the conditions of C.B.’s ABA behavioral therapy plan.
The Court noted that Calvary incorporated sufficient adjustments such as:
Implementing all of C.B.’s psychologist’s recommendations, including his recommendation that C.B. be put on a behavior plan that incorporated positive rewards,
Adjusting the conditions of his dismissal to enable C.B. to return in person by fall 2021 without having to enroll in another school,
Allowing C.B. to continue attending Calvary through its virtual learning program for the rest of fall 2020 and
Even granted Bryant’s request to allow C.B. to continue learning virtually in spring 2021 in an effort to accommodate C.B.
Based on the above, the Court granted Calvary’s summary judgment motion on Bryant’s Rehabilitation Act claims.
The Court also held that to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, Bryant must show that:
C.B. is a member of a protected class
He suffered an adverse action
He was qualified to attend Calvary under Section 1981 of the U.S. Code and
Calvary “treated ‘similarly situated’ [students] outside his class more favorably.”
The parties do not dispute that C.B., a black male, is a member of a protected class, that he was qualified under Section 1981 of the U.S. Code or that he suffered an adverse action when Calvary dismissed him. The Court noted that to establish discrimination, Bryant must show that Calvary treated similarly situated individuals more favorably. A “similarly situated” comparator is typically someone who engaged in the same misconduct and had a similar disciplinary history as C.B.
Bryant contended that the increasingly racially hostile environment at Calvary exacerbated C.B.’s disability manifestations, which led to his outbursts in class.The Court noted that this argument did not show that Calvary’s asserted reasons for dismissing C.B. were excessive or unjustified based on Calvary’s progressive discipline of C.B. after each behavioral incident (first checkmark, then suspension, then removal from in-person classes).
The Court also granted summary judgment on Bryant’s section 1981 claim.
Bryant further contends the following conduct is actionable racial harassment:
Student comments in a virtual meeting about “God hating blacks and gays;”
Director Jones’s comment to Bryant that C.B. needs to be careful or he “would end up with his hands behind his back;”
Calvary’s repeated encouragement that Bryant have C.B. evaluated for medication; and
Calvary forcing another black male student to withdraw from the school.
The Court found that this conduct did not rise to the level of actionable racial harassment. Although the comments made by the students were offensive and unacceptable and the Court understood how Director Jones’s comments could have been interpreted as insensitive, the Court found that these isolated comments were not sufficiently pervasive such that they effectively denied C.B. equal access to education.
Calvary School’s repeated insistence on evaluating C.B. could not be construed as objectively offensive or race-related conduct considering Calvary School wanted to effectively manage C.B.’s repeated classroom disruptions and also because Dr. Kevin Weis, C.B.’s treating doctor, had also recommended a physician’s evaluation for potential evaluation.
Moreover, when Bryant contended that Calvary forced another black male Discovery School student to withdraw from Calvary around the same time C.B. withdrew, she failed to back-up her claim with adequate evidence. Also, Bryant did not dispute that Calvary also expelled at least four white students and barred two others from in-person classes during C.B.’s time at the school.
The Court concluded that Calvary School was entitled to summary judgment on Bryant’s Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 claims.
Calvary School challenged the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert Kya Grier Williams arguing that Ms. Williams lacked adequate behavioral data to base her initial hypothesis on and to add to that she never tested her initial hypothesis. Moreover, Williams recommended that C.B. receive twenty hours of intensive, one-on-one behavioral services every week, for a six-month period. Essentially, she wanted CB to have a one-on-one shadow for half the school day in case he acted out again without taking into account the possibility that more intensive interventions can even have negative consequences as far as behavioral services or accommodations are concerned.
Held
The Court granted Calvary’s summary judgment motion on Bryant’s claims under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, under Section 1981 of the U.S. Code and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act as a consequence of which it terminated Calvary’s motion to exclude Bryant’s expert Kya Grier Williams as moot. The Court entered the judgment in Defendant Calvary School’s favor stating that Plaintiff shall recover nothing of Defendant and Defendant shall also recover costs of this action.
Key Takeaway:
In this case, the Court ruled in the Defendant’s favor and held that even though comments made by the students were offensive and the school’s conduct can possibly come across as insensitive in more than one instance, it does not constitute actionable harassment considering the school had made necessary adjustments in accordance with the psychological evaluation to accommodate C.B. and henceforth Williams’ testimony on individualized behavioral interventions submitted by the Plaintiff to substantiate its claims against the Defendant was no longer relevant for the Court to decide the issues involved in this case based on which the Court declared the Defendant’s motion to exclude Williams’ testimony moot.
