Plaintiff Lyndsey Byrd, individually and on behalf of her minor son L.R.W., sued Independent School District No. 8 of Tulsa County (Sperry Public Schools), school officials, board members, Sperry Booster Club, Inc., and officers of the Booster Club in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, raising claims of racial and sex discrimination under Title VI, Title IX, § 1983, and state law. The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims under Rule 12(b)(6).
Factual Overview
L.R.W., a Black student at Sperry Public Schools, was excluded from the third- and fourth-grade boys’ football team in the fall of 2022 after a white male student falsely accused him of sexually assaulting a white female student. The Booster Club officers informed Byrd and L.R.W. about the accusation and decision to remove L.R.W. from the team in a confrontational manner at the practice field. Despite attempts to appeal the decision and requests for information about the complaint, L.R.W. was not provided with an opportunity to seek reinstatement and continued to be excluded from the team. The plaintiffs allege that L.R.W. was treated more harshly than white and female students, subjected to bullying and retaliation, and denied educational opportunities based on his race and sex.
Legal Analysis
Title VI Claims
The court found that the plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to support a Title VI claim against both the School District and the Booster Club. The SAC did not identify similarly situated students who were treated differently or allege facts showing that the harassment was based on race and sufficiently severe to deprive L.R.W. of educational opportunities.
Title IX Claims
The court dismissed the Title IX claims based on direct discrimination and hostile environment against both the School District and the Booster Club. However, the court found that the SAC plausibly alleged retaliation in violation of Title IX against the School District.
Section 1983 Claims
Equal Protection: The court dismissed the equal protection claims against all defendants, finding that the SAC failed to allege sufficient facts to state a “class-of-one” equal protection claim or to connect historical events to any current custom or policy of the School District.
Due Process: The court dismissed the due process claims, concluding that participation in interscholastic athletics is not a constitutionally protected right and that the SAC failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim under the danger-creation theory.
State Law Claims: The court dismissed the breach of contract claim against the School District but allowed it to proceed against the Booster Club. The court dismissed the intentional infliction of emotional distress claims against all defendants. The negligence and Oklahoma constitutional tort claims were allowed to proceed against the School District but dismissed as to the individual defendants based on immunity under the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act.
The court granted the motions to dismiss in part and denied them in part, dismissing all federal claims against the Booster Club and individual defendants, while allowing some claims to proceed against the School District, and granted the plaintiff leave to file a third amended complaint to address the deficiencies identified in the court’s analysis.
Schrag on Law 