J.D. attended Winston Preparatory School’s Chelsea campus beginning in 2017. The School is a private school in New York that primarily serves students with learning differences such as dyslexia and executive function disorder, and the majority of students are white and from affluent families. According to the amended complaint, Dinean Davis, alleged that her son, J.D., an African American student with learning disabilities, was subjected to years of disparate disciplinary treatment and ultimately expelled on the basis of race.
In particular, Davis alleged that J.D. was frequently disciplined more harshly than white students for similar or less serious conduct. For example, he was chastised for talking during class or engaging in routine adolescent behavior, such as joking, speaking with peers, or roughhousing, while white students engaging in similar behavior received little to no discipline. He was also separated from sitting near a Black classmate during class for “distracting” one another, while white students who talked during class were not separated.
The complaint further alleged that the School’s headmaster, William DeHaven, regularly downplayed racial epithets used against Black students, justifying them as misunderstandings due to the students’ learning challenges. For example, when a student reported being called the N-word, DeHaven responded that “with their learning difficulties, they may not know what they are saying.” The complaint also described an incident in which DeHaven ordered the removal of a teacher’s “Black Lives Matter” sign while allowing signs expressing other social causes to remain.
In October 2019, J.D. was allegedly cyberbullied by two younger white girls who sent him sexually explicit messages and threats. After J.D.’s friend texted the girls in response, J.D. was disciplined, while the girls were not. The School reportedly dismissed their conduct as “younger girls having a crush.”
In March 2020, J.D. was expelled. The expulsion followed a sexual encounter between J.D. (then 15), another underclassman (14), and an 18-year-old student, Jane Doe. According to the complaint, the encounter was consensual and initiated by Jane Doe, who encouraged that the encounter be recorded. Over the next several months, Jane Doe and J.D. allegedly sent text messages to arrange for another sexual encounter, but they would cancel or change their minds at the last minute. Weeks later, J.D. sent Jane Doe the video after she withdrew interest in continuing their relationship. Jane Doe took the message as a threat, which led her to report the incident, and ultimately resulted in J.D.’s immediate expulsion. Davis alleged that J.D. was not provided with a hearing, investigation, or opportunity to present his account; that DeHaven did not review the text messages to Jane Doe or the video of the encounter; and that DeHaven made the decision to expel J.D. within one day. Davis’ complaint alleged that Jane Doe, despite having engaged in sexual conduct with two underage students, received no discipline from the School.
Davis filed suit, asserting several claims including under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (race discrimination), Title VI (race discrimination in federally funded programs), Title IX (sex discrimination), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (disability discrimination).
The Court first addressed Davis’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, which prohibits racial discrimination in contractual relationships, including those between private schools and students. To survive a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff is required to plausibly allege that J.D. was subjected to adverse treatment because of his race and that race was a “but-for” cause of the action taken against him.
The Court found that Davis had adequately pled such a claim. It noted that J.D. was expelled after sending a message that could be construed as coercive but that other students, including Jane Doe, who engaged in criminal sexual conduct with minors, and the white girls who cyberbullied J.D., received no comparable punishment. The Court emphasized that these other students’ conduct was arguably as serious or more serious than J.D.’s and that a “reasonably close resemblance of facts and circumstances” existed to support a claim of disparate treatment.
The Court also highlighted DeHaven’s alleged pattern of minimizing racial slurs and selectively invoking learning disabilities to excuse white students’ behavior. These allegations, combined with the specific examples of unequal discipline and the expulsion decision, were sufficient to support a plausible inference of discriminatory intent. As a result, the Court denied the motion to dismiss Davis’s Section 1981 claim against the School and DeHaven.
The Court dismissed Davis’s Title VI, Title IX, and Rehabilitation Act claims after concluding that Winston Prep did not receive federal financial assistance at the time of J.D.’s expulsion. Davis had argued that the School’s 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status constituted federal financial assistance, making it subject to these statutes, but the Court rejected this argument, explaining that while tax exemption may provide indirect financial benefits, it does not involve the transfer of federal funds or services, nor does it subject the recipient to the same obligations as direct funding would. By making this finding, the Court aligned with the majority view among federal courts holding that tax-exempt status alone is insufficient to trigger coverage under civil rights statutes that require receipt of federal financial assistance. The Court also found that the School’s Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan—while arguably a qualifying source of federal funds—had been received after the events giving rise to Davis’s claims and thus could not establish jurisdiction under the statutes at issue.
Davis’ claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act were also dismissed because Davis failed to plead that J.D. was denied a specific accommodation or was otherwise subjected to adverse action because of his disability.
Davis v. Winston Preparatory Sch. (S.D.N.Y. June 30, 2025) 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123630.
Note: This case highlights the legal risks private schools may face under state and federal anti-discrimination laws when disciplining students, and it underscores the importance of consistent enforcement practices, well-documented decision-making, and clarity about whether the school receives any federal funding that could trigger compliance with additional state and federal laws.