This case arises from the alleged constructive expulsion of a ten-year-old boy, John Doe, from Indian Mountain School, a private pre-K through 9th grade school in Lakeville, Connecticut. John, a white male student with diagnosed dyslexia and ADHD, was enrolled in the School’s specialized “Ascend” program for students with language-based learning differences. He had reportedly received positive academic progress reports and was on track to graduate from the program by the end of the 2023-2024 school year.
According to the complaint filed by John’s mother, Jane Doe, John was subjected to ongoing bullying by classmates during the school year, including being physically targeted through attempted biting, elbowing, and aggressive contact during recess. Rather than addressing the misconduct of the other students, the complaint alleges that School administrators, including the Head of School and the Lower School Head, disciplined John instead. Jane Doe contends that John was punished unfairly, targeted for exhibiting symptoms of his disability, and singled out in a way that created a hostile educational environment.
By February 2024, the School allegedly informed the Doe family that the School could no longer “support” John and that he would not be re-enrolled for the following school year. While not formally expelled, the family alleges they were effectively forced to withdraw him. Ms. Doe filed suit in federal court on John’s behalf, asserting claims under federal and state law. At issue in the current ruling was the School’s motion to dismiss the state law claims, which included breach of contract, negligence, negligent hiring and supervision, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and defamation.
The Court rejected the School’s motion to dismiss and allowed the claims to proceed.
On the breach of contract claim, the Court found that Connecticut law permits breach claims against educational institutions when based on specific contractual promises, as opposed to generalized grievances about academic quality or educational malpractice. Here, the complaint pointed to specific terms in the School’s enrollment contract and student handbook and alleged that the School acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and in bad faith when it denied re-enrollment and failed to provide promised accommodations. The Court determined that the complaint included enough detail for this claim to proceed.
Similarly, the Court allowed the negligence and negligent hiring/supervision claims to proceed. These were based on allegations that the School knew or should have known about the bullying, failed to supervise employees adequately, and retained staff with known histories of inappropriate conduct. While the School argued that such claims were barred under Connecticut’s Gupta doctrine (which limits suits based on educational malpractice), the Court found that these issues would be more appropriately resolved at the summary judgment stage.
The Court declined to dismiss claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The complaint alleged that the administrators exaggerated John’s behavior, created a false disciplinary narrative, disclosed private information to third parties, and ignored the warnings of John’s therapist about the consequences of school removal. While noting that these claims may ultimately be difficult to prove, particularly because expelling a student does not seem to amount to extreme or outrageous conduct, the Court concluded that they should not be dismissed at the pleading stage.
Finally, the Court declined to dismiss a defamation claim based on comments included in John’s winter progress report that was posted on the School’s electronic student records system. Although the Court was skeptical that such statements, which it characterized as likely opinion-based, could support a defamation claim, it determined that the question of whether the comments were protected opinion or actionable fact would be better addressed after discovery.
Doe v. Indian Mountain School (D. Conn. Sept. 30, 2025), 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192927.
Note: This case is in the early stages of litigation and LCW will continue to monitor it for further developments. This case illustrates that withdrawal decisions, particularly involving students with disabilities, can give rise to a variety of claims, even where the student was not formally expelled.