Withdrawn: Suit Alleging Boarding School Discriminated Against Conservative Student
Theodore and Sonia Mancini filed a withdrawal in the case that had pitted their counsel against Carlton Fields, one of the largest firms in the country, according to ALM's Am Law 200 ranking. Their May 3 lawsuit had alleged Cheshire Academy was intolerant of their son's political viewpoints, and had expelled him as a result.
November 14, 2019 at 05:28 PM
3 minute read
Parents of a former Cheshire Academy student, who claim the private boarding school expelled their son over his conservative political views, engaged in hard-fought litigation before withdrawing their lawsuit against the school and two officials.
Theodore and Sonia Mancini filed a withdrawal in the case that had pitted their counsel against Carlton Fields, one of the largest firms in the country, according to ALM's Am Law 200 ranking. Their May 3 lawsuit had alleged Cheshire Academy was intolerant of their son's political viewpoints, and had expelled him as a result.
"The parties have resolved their differences," plaintiffs counsel Jamie Sullivan said Thursday without elaboration.
The suit made national news.
The three-count lawsuit alleged breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation and defamation against the academy. It also sought unspecified monetary damages. It alleged students criticized and verbally attacked plaintiffs' son, Michael Mancini, who the school had recruited to play football.
Attorneys from both sides declined to say whether the case settled.
But court records show Carlton Fields had filed a motion asking the court to sanction the parents. The firm asked the court to award attorney fees after the parents allegedly filed a meritless motion to reargue the court's order that had granted the school a protective order preventing discovery while a special motion to dismiss was pending.
Cheshire Academy is about 225 years old. It charges about $62,000 annually for boarding and tuition, according to information on its website.
The school argued it was well within its rights to expel Michael Mancini, who is now a junior at Conard High School in West Hartford. Its lead counsel, Carlton Fields Hartford shareholder James Sconzo wrote in court pleadings that affidavits the academy submitted show Mancini engaged in a "string of inappropriate, disruptive and racist conduct."
Sconzo declined to comment on the case Thursday. And no one from the academy responded to a request for comment.
"The school's decisions had nothing to do with Michael supposedly espousing 'conservative' views," according to an Aug. 19 special motion to dismiss the Mancini lawsuit. "The family has not denied the numerous incidents attested to in Cheshire Academy's affidavits, including Michael slanting his eyes when an Asian student was speaking, his racial rant against the Middle East, his homophobic rhetoric, and his expressions about wanting to be violent."
But in objecting to the school's motion to dismiss, the parents' attorney, Jamie Sullivan of Howard, Kohn, Sprague & FitzGerald, argued otherwise.
"The plaintiff represents that he believes he can present, through affidavits, proof in support of his claims that he was discriminated against, punished and ultimately expelled for espousing conservative political views, not for legitimate violation of school policies as presented by the defendants," Sullivan argued for the plaintiff in an Aug. 23 pleading. "Such conduct by a commercial entity is not protected by a constitutional right of free association any more than an effort to discriminate against someone on the basis of other protected interests of a patron such as the plaintiff."
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRead the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readApple Asks Judge to 'Follow the Majority Practice' in Dismissing Patent Dispute Over Night Vision Technology
'Don't Be Afraid to Dumb It Down': Top Fed Magistrate Judge Gives Tips on Explaining Complex Discovery Disputes
State High Court Adopts Modern Standard for Who Keeps $70K Engagement Ring After Breakup
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Bankruptcy Judge to Step Down in 2025
- 2Justices Seek Solicitor General's Views on Music Industry's Copyright Case Against ISP
- 3Judge to hear arguments on whether Google's advertising tech constitutes a monopoly
- 4'Big Law Had Become Too Woke': Why Bill Barr Moved On
- 5Manhattan U.S. Attorney Damian Williams Announces Resignation from Office
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250