A North Carolina couple whose son was expelled amid concerns about the “woke” direction of his education can sue the school for defamation and breach of contract, the state’s highest court ruled.
Doug and Nicole Turpin’s child attended Charlotte Latin School.
After the controversial death of George Floyd in the summer of 2020, the Turpins claimed that “the school began to change its curriculum to focus on politicized issues of race and gender identity.”
They said their sixth-grade son was taught that Republicans were white supremacists and that he was exposed to inappropriate books about sexuality and gender identity.
The Turpins joined other concerned parents in a group called Refocus Latin. They delivered a presentation to the board of trustees about their concerns. School officials asked the parents to follow up with individual meetings.
The Turpins wanted to make sure their son did not experience “any possible blowback because of what we are bringing to your attention.”
A school administrator responded that “there will be no blowback, I assure you.”
The Turpins met defendant Charles Baldecchi, who held the “Head of School” position. He said that Refocus Latin had displayed a Powerpoint presentation that stated that non-white students and faculty were “not up to the merit of the school.”
He then told the Turpins that their child was expelled.
According to the Turpins, Charlotte Latin emailed the school community and accused Refocus Latin of stating that “diverse students and faculty have not earned their positions and honors at Latin.”
The Turpins assert that both of these statements are not true. They sued the school and 25 individual defendants for breach of contract, fraud, defamation, and unfair or deceptive trade practices.
The trial court dismissed the Turpins’ complaint, and the North Carolina Court of Appeals upheld the decision in a split opinion.
However, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the Turpins could proceed with their lawsuit.
Despite the hot-button issues at play, Justice Richard Dietz wrote that the key issue was whether the Turpins had met the notice pleading requirements to avoid dismissal. He stated that they did on the following claims.
BREACH OF CONTRACT
“The Turpins support it with specific factual allegations about their respectful conduct, the school’s history and values, its more recent embrace of what the complaint labels ‘cancel culture,’ and various other facts from which the possible wrongful motives of school leadership can be inferred,” Dietz wrote.
FRAUD
Dietz stated “that promise of ‘no blowback’ plainly included a promise not to terminate the Turpins’ enrollment contract and kick the child out of school.”
UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES
“Because the Turpins properly pleaded a fraud claim, they have pleaded this element of the unfair and deceptive trade practices claim as well,” Dietz wrote.
DEFAMATION
“Criticizing so-called ‘DEI goals’ or other race-conscious criteria in hiring and admissions, and urging a return to a “meritocracy,” is not the equivalent of claiming that minority students and faculty have not earned their positions and honors or are not up to the merit of other students,” Dietz stated.
In a partially dissenting opinion, Justice Allison Riggs wrote that the Turpins’ case should be dismissed.
On breach of contract claim, she stated that “Charlotte Latin retained the unilateral discretion to terminate the children’s enrollment whenever it decided the relationship was untenable—including if it believed the Turpins’ political beliefs were inconsistent with the school’s values.”
Riggs added that the Turpins also did not state an adequate claim for defamation.
“As protected speech, a subjective opinion that another person expressed a racist viewpoint cannot form the basis of a defamation claim,” she wrote. “Without an allegation whose truth or falsity is capable of proof, the Turpins have not alleged defamation, and the claim should have been dismissed.”
