C.T. attended Deerfield Academy from 2019 until early 2022, participating extensively in its dance program. In 2021, she was cast as the Sugar Plum Fairy soloist for The Nutcracker but was informed that she would need to wear a costume provided by the School’s Dance Department, as was the School’s longstanding policy. Despite being aware of this requirement, C.T. ordered a custom tutu from an outside vendor, believing it would improve her performance. She and her mother later requested permission for her to wear it, but the Dance Director, Jennifer Whitcomb, and the School’s Costume Designer, Karen St. Pierre, denied the request, emphasizing the importance of costume uniformity. C.T. continued with the purchase anyway.
As the performance neared, C.T. missed a scheduled fitting for her assigned costume and ultimately arrived at the technical rehearsal in her custom tutu. During this time, C.T. met with a school counselor, expressing stress and anxiety over the costume issue. She asked him to advocate on her behalf, but he declined, stating that while he could confirm her anxiety diagnosis, he could not say it was medically necessary for her to wear her own costume.
Although allowed to rehearse that day, C.T. was again instructed to wear the Deerfield-provided costume for the final show. C.T.’s mother spoke with Deerfield’s Head of School, arguing that the refusal to allow C.T. to wear her custom tutu was an undue burden and negatively affecting her daughter’s mental state. The Head of School declined to intervene in the costuming decision.
The day of the performance, after repeated refusals to commit to wearing the School’s costume, C.T. and her mother confronted Whitcomb. Whitcomb perceived the encounter as aggressive and called security. C.T. then left the studio. Based on her conduct, Whitcomb and her colleagues concluded that C.T. had opted out of the performance, and another dancer took her place. C.T. later claimed that she had changed her mind and attempted to rejoin the production, but she was denied participation.
C.T. and her mother sued, alleging that Deerfield Academy breached its contract by failing to protect C.T. from disability discrimination and retaliated against her for requesting an accommodation. She also brought claims against Whitcomb for negligent infliction of emotional distress and against Deerfield for negligently retaining Whitcomb.
On the breach of contract claim, the Court found that the Student Handbook, which C.T. cited as the source of Deerfield’s contractual obligations, expressly stated that it was not a legal contract. Massachusetts law recognizes that handbooks may create enforceable obligations under the “reasonable expectation” standard, but in this case, the Court held that the general commitments in the Handbook, such as providing a respectful educational environment, were too vague to be legally binding. Even if a contract had existed, the Court found no evidence that Deerfield had engaged in discrimination or retaliation. The School had consistently enforced its costuming policy, and there was no record that C.T. had submitted a formal request for a disability accommodation before the performance. A post-incident investigation by the School also concluded that no specific disability request had been made prior to the event.
Additionally, Deerfield argued that C.T.’s claims were barred by the Enrollment Agreement, which her parents had signed as a condition of her attendance. The Enrollment Agreement contained a broad waiver and release, stating that Deerfield was not liable for claims arising out of academic or disciplinary decisions. The Court found that even if C.T.’s removal from the performance was considered disciplinary, the Agreement provided Deerfield with broad discretion over such decisions.
On the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim, C.T. argued that Whitcomb had a duty to protect her emotional well-being and that her removal from the performance caused her severe distress. The Court rejected this argument, holding that private school administrators do not owe students a general duty to shield them from emotional harm absent special circumstances. Whitcomb’s enforcement of the School’s policies did not constitute negligence, and the Court noted that C.T.’s own mental health provider had declined to recommend that she be allowed to wear her custom tutu as a medical necessity. The Court emphasized that granting C.T. an exception could have disrupted the faculty’s authority and the experience of other students, particularly the dancer who had been reassigned to the Sugar Plum Fairy solo at the last minute.
On the negligent retention claim, C.T. alleged that Deerfield had improperly retained Whitcomb despite her reputation as a harsh instructor. She relied on anecdotal accounts from students who referred to Whitcomb as “Bitchcomb” and claimed she was inflexible. However, the Court found no evidence that Deerfield had received formal complaints about Whitcomb or that school administrators were aware of any misconduct that would make her unfit for her position. Mere assertions that a teacher is strict or unpopular do not support a claim for negligent retention.
Finding no triable issues, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Deerfield Academy and Whitcomb on all claims.
Thomas v. Whitcomb (D.Mass. Mar. 19, 2025) 2025 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 50732.
Note: This case illustrates the importance of consistently enforcing school policies.