Jaketra Bryant sued Calvary Christian School of Columbus, Georgia, on behalf of her minor son, C.B., after the School declined to allow him to return to in-person instruction following repeated behavioral incidents.
C.B., a Black student, enrolled at Calvary as a sixth grader in 2019. Shortly after enrollment, he was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder and ADHD. Based on recommendations from a clinical psychologist, Calvary placed C.B. in its Discovery Program, designed for students with learning differences, and implemented a Student Support Plan providing classroom accommodations.
During seventh grade, C.B. began engaging in disruptive behavior, including slamming a laptop, throwing a pencil, and later throwing a calculator into a wall, breaking it. After the calculator incident, Calvary suspended C.B. and required him to complete the semester virtually. The headmaster later informed Bryant that before C.B. could return to in-person instruction, he would need to complete ABA therapy in another classroom setting and demonstrate progress. Bryant pursued ABA therapy and proposed that a behavioral specialist accompany C.B. in the classroom to provide one-on-one support and train school staff. Calvary declined, stating that it would not permit C.B. to return without evidence of improvement outside the Calvary environment. C.B. did not return and later enrolled elsewhere.
Bryant filed suit asserting three primary claims: (1) racial discrimination under Title VI; (2) racial discrimination in contracting under 42 U.S.C. § 1981; and (3) disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act. The trial court granted summary judgment to Calvary on all claims. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Title VI: Racial Hostile Educational Environment
Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race in programs receiving federal financial assistance. In the school context, courts apply a “deliberate indifference” standard when a plaintiff alleges a hostile educational environment based on peer harassment. Under this standard, a school may be liable only if it had actual knowledge of harassment that was “severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive” enough to deny a student equal access to education and responded with deliberate indifference.
Bryant relied on two instances in which other students made offensive comments, including statements that “God hates Black people.” She also cited comments by school staff that she interpreted as racially coded, including a remark that C.B. needed to be careful or he might “end up with his hands behind his back.” The Eleventh Circuit held that, while offensive, the student comments were isolated, not directed as threats toward C.B., and not sufficiently frequent or severe to constitute actionable harassment. The staff comments were made to Bryant rather than in the classroom and were reasonably tied to concerns about C.B.’s conduct. Therefore, the Court concluded there was no Title VI violation.
Section 1981: Racial Discrimination in Contracting
Section 1981 prohibits racial discrimination in making and enforcing contracts, including private school enrollment contracts. To survive summary judgment, Bryant needed to show either that similarly situated non-Black students were treated more favorably after comparable misconduct or that there was other circumstantial evidence creating an inference of intentional discrimination.
The Court found Bryant failed to identify a valid comparator. Students who allegedly made racist comments were not similarly situated because they did not engage in the same type of property-destructive misconduct as C.B. Bryant also failed to present evidence showing Calvary’s disciplinary reasons were false or a pretext for racial bias. The undisputed evidence showed that C.B. engaged in multiple incidents of misconduct, and Bryant did not dispute that those incidents occurred. Without evidence of intentional racial discrimination, the § 1981 claim failed.
Rehabilitation Act: Disability Discrimination
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibits disability discrimination by institutions receiving federal funds. To prevail, a plaintiff must show: (1) a disability; (2) that the student is “otherwise qualified” to participate; and (3) that the student was excluded solely because of the disability.
The Eleventh Circuit agreed that C.B.’s autism and ADHD could qualify as disabilities. However, the Court held that C.B. was not “otherwise qualified” to attend Calvary without the substantial modifications Bryant requested. The proposed accommodation of allowing a one-on-one ABA specialist to accompany C.B. in class and modify behavioral expectations would have significantly altered Calvary’s classroom structure and discipline standards. The Court emphasized that schools are not required to fundamentally change their programs or lower conduct standards as accommodations. Because C.B. could not meet Calvary’s behavioral expectations without those substantial changes, the Rehabilitation Act claim failed.
The Eleventh Circuit therefore affirmed summary judgment in full.
Bryant v. Calvary Christian Sch. of Columbus Ga. Inc. (11th Cir. Feb. 12, 2026) 2026 LX 99647.
Note: Although parts of this case arise under federal laws that only apply to private schools receiving federal funds, it provides useful guidance for all private school administrators. The decision underscores the importance of clearly documenting behavioral incidents, applying discipline consistently, and engaging thoughtfully in the accommodation process. It also reinforces that schools are not required to fundamentally alter their programs or lower conduct standards as part of an accommodation, particularly where safety or classroom management concerns are at issue.