CASE Document 1-1 Filed 08/28/18 Page 1 of 14 DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQI JAI. ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY Human Rights Division Jeffry Martin, Deputy Director CITY OF SAINT AUL 24a Cay Hall Yelephone: 266-8966 . 1.5 West Kellogg Boulevard Facsimile: 266-8962 Melvin Carter: dyer Saint Paul, MN 55102-l681 EXHIBIT Dennis A. Verrett, Jr. and olb/o minor child v. Independent School District #625 Case# A-5444 Pursuant to the provisions of the Saint Paul Human Rights Ordinance, a fall and impartial investigation of the allegations in the above-referenced charge was conducted by this Department. Based on the results of that investigation, which are stated below, this Department has made a determination that probable cause exists to believe that Respondent unlaug?dbi discriminated against Complainant: I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE There are two Complainants in this case, a father and his minor daughter. Complainant Daughter attended school at Respondent?s institution until June 9, 2017. The following school yean the Complainant transferred his daughter to another school due to the Respondent?s behavior. The Complainants allege that ReSpondent discriminated against them on account of their race (Black) by creating a hostile education environment. On June 8, 2017, Complainant Daughter states that the science teacher created a hostile environment when, in reSponse to the behavior of two Black students remarked that these students: behavior was why White students were academically ahead of Black students. Complainant Daughter was distraught by the Science Teacher?s comments, left the classroom crying, and was taken to the school of?ce by a concerned teacher. Complainant Daughter states that she was further discriminated against after when the Assistant Principal showed Complainant Daughter online statistics con?rming the education gap and had Complainant Daughter ?ll out a Behavior Re?ection Form. Complainant Father believes this form to be ?corrective action.? Complainant Father went to the school that aftemoon after hearing what had happened and caught the-Assistant Principal on her way out of the parking lot. Complainant Father alleges that the Assistant Principal began yelling at him when he told her that the actions she took with his daughter were based on poor judgment. Complainant Father alleges that the Assistant Principal angrily drove away from him. Complainants believe they were harassed and discriminated against because of their race (Black) when Respondent Created a hostile education environment where Complainant Daughter felt unable to learn. The Complainant Father felt discriminated against when the Respondent did not An Ailinnative Action Equal Opportunity Employer CASE Document 1-1 Filed 08/28/18 Page 2 of 14 Dennis A. Vcrrett, Jr. and c/b/o minor child v. Independent School District #625 Case# A-5444 July 5, 2013 Page 2 of l2- respond respectfully and appropriately to his concerns about a race discrimination to which his daughter was exposed. Therefore, the Complainants allege that the Respondent unlawfully discriminated against them because of their race (Black) in the area of education in violation of the Saint Paul Human Rights Ordinance 183.05. II. POSITION STATEMENT The Respondent denies discriminating against Complainant Father. Respondent believes that Complainant Father failed to show any ?rmequal treatment? on the basis of his race. At most, Respondent believes Complainant Father was treated rudely but that such conduct is not within the scope of the law. - The Respondent states that Complainant Daughter?s parents were contacted by the school on June 8, 2017 after the school administrative team had spoken to other witnesses to determine what had happened. The Respondent states that when Complainant Father spoke with the Assistant Principal at the end of the day, the conversation was brief because the Assistant Principal was hurrying to the hospital because she had learned that a family member was ill and being rushed to the hospital. The Respondent says that the Assistant Principal?s brief response was due to this family emergency and not due to the Complainants? race. The Respondent states that the school district responded to Complainant Father?s concerns as numerous meetings and conversations were bad. Respondent alleges that the Principal attempted to follow up with the Complainant Father to provide a status update on the investigation and offer restorative practices, but that the Complainant Father did not return his phone calls. Additionally, Respondent notes that the Principal emailed Complainant Daughter?s mother that he would be following up with staff in the fall. The Respondent believes that all proper procedures were followed to complete an investigation and it took appropriate measures to respond to the incident. The Respondent states that it is ?funclear what bene?t the Complainant claims that he was entitled to from the educational institution.? The Respondent ?rrther states that both Complainant Father and Complainant Daughter were not denied an educational bene?t to which they were entitled nor was any adverse action taken against them. The Respondent states that Complainant Daughter was not disciplined, as the Behavior Re?ection Form was not corrective action. Finally, the Respondent states that Complainant Father and Complainant Daughter were not treated worse than other parents or students not in a protected class. Thus, the Respondent claims that there was no differential treatment in the area of education on the basis of race. REBUTTAL Complainant Father states that neither he nor Complainant Daughter?s mother were alerted to what had transpired at school by any of the school?s administrative staff. An Af?rmative Action Equal Opportunity Employer CASE Document 1-1 Filed 08/28/18 Page 3 of 14 Dennis A. Veirett, Jr. and nib/o minor child v. independent School District #625 Case# A6444 July 5, 2018 Page 3 of 12 Complainant Daughter?s mother found out about the events from a parent of a child in the same class who texted her, guess that [Science Teacher] made some comment about an achievement gap. . .and immediately all of the children in the classroom got upset.? Complainant Father states that when he spoke with the Assistant Principal on June 8, 2017, she con?rmed what had happened with his daughter and stated that an investigation was under way. Complainant Father told the Assistant Principal that he was upset at the way the incident had been handled and that he had not been alerted to what was happening earlier. Complainant Father alleges that the Assistant Principal did not react well to this, becoming visibly upset and angry. Complainant Father states that she drove off still yelling at him out of her window. On June 9, 2017, Complainant Daughter?s mother met with the Principal. The Principal apologized for the incident and said there would be an investigation. In thefollowing weeks, complainant Daughter?s mother reached out to both the Principal and a the --Assistant - Superintendent seeking an update on the investigation and providing what she believed was an appropriate resolution. The resolution was not accepted nor were complete updates provided. Complainant Father states that he and Complainant Daughter?s mother were constantly told that the investigation was ?con?dential? and results could not be shared. At the beginning of the 2018 school year, the Complainants as well as Complainant Daughter?s mother met with the Science Teacher, the Principal, and the Assistant Superintendent. The Assistant Principal was sick, so she was phoned into the meeting. Complainant Daughter states that as the Assistant Principle was apologizing for what happened, she kept insisting that Complainant Daughter had asked the Assistant Principal to show her the information on the achievement gap. The Science Teacher gave Complainant Daughter a card and some candy. The card had nothing written in it and told the Complainant Daughter that he did not have time to write a message inside. Complainant Father states that he is fearful that a teacher will react in a racist manner again and that the school will not hold that teacher accountable. Complainant Father is worried about the effects of his daughter hearing at school that ?white kids are better than African kids.? He believes that teachers are the ones guiding children and that their behavior is extremely in?uential, and he does not want his children including Complainant Daughter being harmed by racist or bigoted beliefs. Because of the Science Teacher?s discriminatory cements as well as the administrative staffs overall response to Complainants? distress, Complainant Daughter no longer felt comfortable continuing to attend school at Respondent?s institution. The hostile education environment at Respondent?s institution forced Complainant Father to move so that Complainant Daughter as well as his other children could attend a different school where they did not feel targeted because of their race. IV. ISSUES 1. Did Respondent discriminate against Complainant Daughter and Complainant Father because of their race? An A?innative Action Equal Opportunity Employer CASE Document 1-1 Filed 08/28/18 Page 4 of 14 Dennis A. Venett, Jr. and olb/o minor child v. Independent School District #625 Caseii Ill-.5444 July 5, 2018 Page 4 of l2 2. Did the discrimination cause a hostile education enviromnent such that Complainant Daughter and Complainant Father were deprived of educational bene?ts? V. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Complainant Daughter was enrolled as a 5th grade student at Respondent?s institution, Expo Elementary School for Excellence, during the 2016-2017 school year. 2. Approximately 21% of the Expo Elementary ?fth-grade class is Black. 3. Complainant Father chose to send Complainant Daughter to Respondent?s educational institution because of its high academic ratings even though the school was not on the bus schedule and thus required a thirty-minute drive to and from the school each day. 4. Complainant Father was actively engaged in his children?s school life. He was regularly at the school, volunteering for ?eld trips and school activities. 5. On June 8, 2017, Complainant Father was on a ?eld trip with one of his children other than Complainant Daughter. 6. On June 8, 2017, Complainant Daughter was in the filth-grade science class. She was one of a small number of Black students in the class. 7. In the past, when students were not paying attention in class because they were socializing, the Science Teacher would simply separate the talking students. 8. During the ?fth-grade science class on June 8, 2017, two Black students were off-task and socializing. 9. The Science Teacher attempted to get the two Black students to pay attention. When they did not, he brought up the achievement gap between White and Black _s__tuder_its, gesturing with his hands to one group and then another. 10. The Science Teacher had never discussed the achievement gap or the concepts relating to it in class before June 8, 2017. 11. The Science Teacher stated to the class that the achievement gap was based on skin color. He portrayed the achievement gap to be a result of Black student?s behavior: Black students? grades were lower than White students? grades because Black students don?t focus in class. 12. The Science Teacher did not explain the systemic causes of the achievement gap or discuss the achievement gap in the context of the historical racism and discrimination against people of color within the country. 13. Complainant Daughter left the Science Teacher classroom crying and was brought to the school of?ce by an unknown concerned teacher. An Af?rmative Action Equal Opportunity Employer CASE 0 Document 1-1 Filed 08/28/18 PageSof 14 Dennis A. Vern-en, Jr. and olb/o minor child v. Independent School District #625 Case# A6444 July 5, 2018 Page 5 of 12 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. The Assistant Principal came out to Complainant Daughter to see what was wrong. The Assistant Principal and Complainant Daughter knew each other. They had had lunch together on occasion. The Assistant Principal invited Complainant Daughter into her of?ce where she attempted to comfort her, touching her arm to try and calm her down. Complainant Daughter explained to the Assistant Principal what the Science Teacher had said in class. Complainant Daughter mentioned other students that had been involved in the incident to the Assistant Principal, and ?iese students were also brought into the of?ce. The Science Teacher came down to the of?ce to tell the Assistant Principal what had happened in class. While he also told Complainant Daughter that ?he didn?t mean to say that.? Complainant Daughter and the other students called down to the of?ce ?lled out Behavioral Re?ection forms at the request of the Assistant Principal. The Behavioral Re?ection form asked the following questions: a. What did I do? b. Who was involved? Why is the behavior unexpected? I felt: (emotions listed for student to circle) A better thing to do if this happens again is? Comments? H.099 Complainant Father felt the Behavioral Re?ection form was a type of corrective action as it suggested to Complainant Daughter when she ?lled it out that 1) she did something wrong, 2) her behavior was ?unexpected,? and 3) there would have been a better manner of reacting. The Assistant Principal showed Complainant Daughter online statistics of the achievement gap. Afterwards, Complainant Daughter returned to class. The Complainant Daughter did not ask to see these statistics. The Assistant Principal did not explain the systemic causes of the achievement gap or discuss the achievement gap in the context of the historical racism and discrimination against people of color within the country. The Assistant Principal gave the Behavioral Re?ection forms to the Principal. On June 8, 2017, the Principal contacted Human Resources after the Assistant Principal explained to him what had happened. An Af?rmative Action Equal Opportunity Employer CASE Document 1-1 Filed 08/28/18 Page 6 of 14 Dennis A. Ven'ett, Jr. and o/b/o minor child v. Independent School District #625 Case# A-5444 July 5, 2018 Page 6 of 12 25. 26. 27. 29. 30. 31. .32. 33. 34. 35. Complainant Daughter?s parents were not alerted when Complainant Daughter came into the of?ce. Expo Elementary School for Excellence does not have a formal policy on when student?s parents should be called and alerted of a situation. Instead, this is determined on a case by case basis. On June 8, 2017 around 3pm, Complainant Daughter?s mother received a series of text messages from another parent whose child was also in the ?fth-grade science class. The texts reference the Science Teacher making a comment about the achievement gap, all of the children in the classroom getting upset, and that several children being called to the Assistant Principal?s of?ce ?All about something racist that [the Science Teacher] said in class today.? These text messages were the ?rst that Complainant Daughter?s mother heard about what had happened to her daughter at school. She alerted Complainant?s Father about what had happened. Complainant Father drove to the school to speak with the administrative staff. When he got there, the school was already locked up. The janitor pointed Complainant Father towards the Assistant Principal?s car. The Assistant Principal was in her car when Complainant Father approached her. She rolled down her window to speak to him. Complainant Father asked the Assistant Principal what had happened at school earlier that day with Complainant Daughter. The Assistant Principal explained that Complainant Daughter had been offended by something said in class and had come to the of?ce crying. The Assistant Principal explained that the Science Teacher had brought up the achievement gap and that she had shown Complainant Daughter statistics on it online in her?o?ice. ?Assistant Principal, that she had made a.?poor decision? regarding how she responded to Complainant Daughter being upset. The Assistant Principal disagreed on this, getting upset and raised her voice. Complainant Father told the Complainant Father expressed frustration that he had not been contacted immediately while the incident was occurring and Complainant Daughter was still in the of?ce. The Assistant Principal responded that they were investigating the incident. The Assistant Principal felt unsure of what she was able to share as she knew that human resources had been contacted and that an investigation was underway. Additionally, she had not Spoken to the Science Teacher and did not know his complete story. Complainant Father questioned what the investigative protocol is and how it does not include contacting parents immediately. An Af?rmative Action Equal Opportunity Employer CASE 0: Document 1-1 Filed 08/28/18 Page7of 14 Dennis A. Vern-en, Jr. and W0 minor child v. Independent School District #625 CaseilI A6444 July 5, 2018 Page 7 of l2 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. The Assistant Principal drove away from Complainant Father, informing him that she had to go because a family member was in the hospital. On June 9, 2017, the Principal met with the Complainants and the Complainant Daughter?s mother to discuss what had occurred the previous day. The Principal informed the Complainants that there would be an investigation. At an unknown date in June, Complainant Father spoke with the Assistant- Superintendent regarding the incident. The Assistant Superintendent assured Complainant Father that the school would follow proper procedures and conduct an investigation. The Assistant Superintendent said that the school was not allowed to disclose exactly what disciplinary actions were taken but that they would notify the Complainants i??when action was taken at all. At an unknown date in June, the Principal left a detail?d""voiCema?il' ?fOr Complainant Father. The Principal said that he would do everything in his power to make sure the incidents like this didn?t happen again. On June 19, 2017, an investigatory meeting was held with administrative staff and The Science Teacher where the June 8'll incident was discussed. On June 22, 2017 at 4:22pm, Complainant Daughter?s mother sent an email to the Principal. She stated that she was concerned that the Assistant Principal had been unable to meet with them. She asked for the status of the investigation as well a copy of Complainant Daughter?s written statement. On June 23, 2017 at 10:1 lam, the Principal emailed Complainant Daughter?s mother with a copy of the Behavioral Re?ection form completed by Complainant Daughter. He stated that he was unable to share any updates on the investigation due to its con?dential but assured her that he would train staff for situations such as this. On June 26, 2017 at 12:55pm, Complainant Daughter?s mother emailed-the Principal. She stated that was ?under the impression that an actual statement of events were taken ?'om the students. I feel misled by this discovery.? She also stated that she was looking for real follow-up with human resources and was concemed that other parents did not yet have knowledge of the incident that occurred on June She expressed cOncern that the Science Teacher had not yet apologized to the class for his actions. On- July 3, 2017 at 4:02pm, Complainant Daughter?s mother sent an email to the Principal in which she enclosed a proposed resolution to make amends. The resolution called for: l) a formal noti?cation and apology to the parents of witnessing children for the discriminatory comments made by the Science Teacher; 2) a rea?irmation to maintaining a positive learning environment ?ee from discriminatory comments based on race, or color, etc; 3) a reaf?rrnation of best practices including parent noti?cations; and 4) a letter of apology to Complainant Father and Complainant Daughter?s mother for disclosing information about the An Af?rmative Action Equal Opportunity Employer CASE Document 1-1 'Filed 08/28/18 Page 8 of 14 Dennis A. Venett, Jr: and ofblo minor child v. Independent School District #625 Case# A-5444 July 5, 2018 Page 8 of 12 achievement gap to their daughter without their consent. The school did not provide these requests. 45. On July 6, 2017 at 12:49pm, the Principal emailed Complainant Daughter's mother advising that the school would ?continue to provide the best educational opportunities for all of our students.? The email said that they would be adapting the ways in which they notify parents in order to be more communicative and that the school would be working with staff when they returned in the fall. 46. On July 6, 2017 at 4:12pm, Complainant Daughter?s mother sent an email to the Principal informing him that she was concerned that the issue wasn?t being resolved and that she believed he didn?t intend on accepting responsibility or making amends. She advised that she would be pursuing ?other alternatives.? 47. On July 7, 2017, the Principal replied to Complainant Daughter?s mother?s email. He said that he had ?every intention of following up with my staff; but they are currently not under contract.? 48. A week before the 2017-2018 school year started, Complainant Father withdrew his children including Complainant Daughter from Expo Elementary for Excellence. 49. Complainant Father and his family including Complainant Daughter moved to a town approximately one hour away from Saint Paul. Complainant Daughter and her siblings attend school in that town. 50. In the fall of 2017, the Complainant Daughter and her mother met with the school administration including the Principal, the Assistant Superintendent, and the Science Teacher. The Assistant President was sick and was not there in person but was on the telephone for the meeting. 51. The Assistant Principal repeated to Complainant Daughter that Complainant Daughter had asked to see the data on the achievement gap. 52. Complainant Daughter?s mother became upset and attempted to leave the meeting because of what the Assistant Principal was saying. However, she returned to the meeting. 53. The Science Teacher gave Complainant Daughter candy and a card as apology. He did not write anything in the card as he ?didn?t have time." VI. APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS Section 183.02 (S) of the Saint Paul Human Rights Ordinance (?The Ordinance?) de?nes discrimination to include ?all unequal treatment of any person by reason of race, creed, religion, color, sex, sexual or a?'ectional orientation, national origin, ancestry, familial status, age, disability, marital status or status with regard to public assistance.? The Ordinance provides that it is unlawful practice in education ?to discriminate in any manner with respect to access to, use of or bene?t from any institution of education or services and facilities in connection An Af?rmative Action Equal Opportunity Employer CASE Document 1-1 Filed 08/28/18 Page 9 of 14 Dennis A. Verrett, Jr. and o/b/o minor child v. Independent School District #625 Caseti A-5444 July 5, 2018 Page 9 of 12 therewith? and ?to discriminate against a person enrolled as a student by excluding, expelling or taking other actions against them.? Saint Paul, Minn. Code 183.05 (1-2) (2008). Nothing in the Ordinance restricts or limits the rights, procedures, and remedies available under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its implementing regulations, ?No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, In denied the bene?ts of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal ?nancial assistance.? The Department of Education Of?ce for Civil Rights? notice entitled ?Racial Incidents and Harassment Against Students at Educational Institutions: Investigative Guide? explains that a racially hostile environment is considered discrimination under Title VI: ?The existence of a racially hostile environment that is created, encouraged, accepted, tolerated or left uncorrected by? recipient constitutes different neatmenr-on The bask?ofrace in"violation of Title Notice: Racial Incidents and Harassment Against Students at Educational Institutions; Investigative Guidance, Federal Register. Vol. 59, No. 47 (1994). 94.html The Human Rights Division interprets the Ordinance to be consistent with applicable federal laws. Complainants allege that the ReSpondent created and allowed a hostile education environment which interfered with their right to full and equal use and bene?t of the services provided by Expo Elementary School for Excellence. A. Complainant?s Prima Facie Case A violation based on a racially hostile education environment exists when (1) Complainant is a member of a protected class; (2) Respondent subjected Complainant to unwelcome harassing conduct based upon members 'p in that protected class; (3) the harassment is suf?ciently severe, pervasive, or persistent; (4) the harassment creates an environment that is both subjectively and objectively hostile; ?and (5) the hostile environment interferes with or limits the ability of the Complainant to participate in or bene?t ?om the services, activities, or privileges provided by the Respondent. Id. Whether conduct constitutes a hostile environment is determined from the totality of the circumstances. See Harris v. Forkli? Systems, Inc, 114 S. Ct. 367 (I 993). 1. Complainants are Members of a Protected Class Both Complainants are Black. Race is a class protected by the Ordinance and Title VI. 2. Respondent is Responsible for Harassing Conduct Based on Race The Science Teacher is an employee of Reapondent, and he was responsible for unwelcome conduct based on race within the scope of his of?cial duties as a teacher. Thus, constructive notice is established. Notice: Racial Incidents and Harassment Against Students at Educational Institutions; Investigative Guidance, Federal Register. Vol. 59, No. 47 (1994). The Science Teacher An Af?rmative Action Equal Opportunity Employer CASE Document 1-1 Filed 08/28/18 Page 10 of 14 Dennis A. Verrett, Jr. and o/b/o minor child v. Independent School District #625 Case# A-5444 July 5, 2018 Page 10 of 12 made comments about the achievement gap in response to two black children socializing in class. This was di?'erential treatment: when white students socialized during class time, the Science Teacher separated them and did not make remarks suggesting that their behavior was race related. The Science Teacher may not have intended to target Complainant Daughter speci?cally as he was speaking to the class generally; however, harassment does not need to be targeted at an individual complainant in hostile environment cases. See Hal! v. Gus Construction Ca, 842 F.2d 1010, 1015 (8th Cir. 1988). Additionally, the Assistant Principal was responsible for harassing conduct based on race when she showed Complainant Daughter statistics about the achievement gap online. The Assistant Principal was acting within the scope of her of?cial duties when she did so. The Assistant Principal was neither helping the situation nor calming Complainant Daughter down by doing so. Rather, she made Complainant Daughter feel that her race was inferior by con?rming what the Science Teacher had said without providing context, including the structural and systemic reasons for the achievement gap. Moreover, the Complainant was required to complete a Behavior Re?ection Form with questions that would reasonably lead a student to believe that they had misbehaved in school. When Complainant Father and Complainant Daughter?s mother brought these racially harassing incidents to the attention of the school'adminisu'ative staff, appropriate actions were not taken. Complainant Daughter?s mother proposed a very reasonable resolution, but the school declined to accept the resolution. The Assistant Principal received no correction for her actions. Complainants were not updated with the results of the investigations nor were they informed of the Respondent?s actions in response. Complainant Daughter did not receive a formal apology from the Science Teacher until months after the incident, and when she did, the card was left blank suggesting a lack of sincerity. The Assistant Principal attempted to justify her behavior when apologizing to Complainants, also suggesting a lack of sincerity. The behavior of all of the school?s staff after the racially harassing incidents failed to rectify the situation or show remorse for what had happened. Moreover, the Respondent took no action to address the hostile environment created for all students including the Complainant Daughter. Thus, Respondent both created and then sustained a-racially hostile education environment. 3. The Harassment was Sui?ciently Severe The severity of racial harassment must take into account the setting and mission of an educational institution, as ?an educational institution has a duty to provide-a nondiscriminatory environment that is conducive to learning.? Notice: Racial Incidents and Harassment Against Students at Educational Institutions; Investigative Guidance, Federal Register. Vol. 59, No. 47 (1994). Furthermore, the severity of the harassment must be measured from the perspective of the student. Id In this case, the severity is based upon a ?fth grade, female, Black student. The courts have held that an ?isolated incident? can create a hostile environment if the incident is ?extremely serious.? Id. See Boyer-Liberia v. Fontar?nebleau Corporation, 786 F.3d 264, 277 Cir. 2015). Moreover, ?the status of the harasser may be a signi?cant factor.? Id. at 278. Such that ?a supervisor?s use of a [racial epithet] impacts the work environment far more severely than use by co-equals.? Rodgers v. W.-S. Lt?: Ins. Co., 12 F.3d 668, 675 (7th Cir. 1993). The Department of Education has stated that ?racially based conduct by a teacher, even An Af?rmative Action Equal Opporhmity Employer CASE Document 1-1 Filed 08%. Page 11 of 14 Dennis A. Venett, Jr. and We minor child v. Independent School District #625 Case# A-5444 July 5, 2018 Page I of 12 an ?off duty?. teacher, may have a greater pact on a student than the same conduct by a school maintenance worker or another student.? Notice: Racial Incidents and Harassment Against Students at Educational Institutions; Investigative Guidance, Federal Register. Vol. 59, No. 47 (1994). In addition, ?less severe or fewer incidents may more readily create racial hostility in a smaller environment, such as an elementary school, than in a larger environment, such as a college campus.? Id. The behavior by both the Science Teacher and the Assistant Principal was suf?ciently severe to create a hostile environment. Complainant Daughter was so upset by what the Science Teacher said that she left the classroom crying and had to be brought down to the Administration of?ce. Both the Science Teacher and the Assistant Principal were in positions of authority, and this status increases the severity of the incidents. Additionally, these incidents took place in a relatively small building, a middle school. Complainant Daughter subjectively believed that she was racially harassed. She left her classroom crying after the ?rst incident. Additionally, she has expressed that she felt disreSpected and would not want herself or younger sibling to be exposed to future negative remarks about her race at Expo Elementary School for Excellence. A reasonable person in Complainant Daughter?s place would also feel that they had been harassed. In assessing whether the harassment was objectively hostile, ?the reasonable person standard as applied to a child must incorporate the age, intelligence, and experience, of a person under like circumstances to take into account the developmental di?'erences in maturity and perception due to age.? Id. In this case, a ?fth?grade Black child with no knowledge of the achievement gap heard her Science Teacher use this term to explain that the behavior of two Black students socializing is an example of the disparities in educational outcomes between Black'and White students. Moreover, the evidence shows that other students were also upset by his remarks and found them to be ?racist.? Respondent?s behavior towards Complainant Father after the racially harassing incidents toward Complainant Daughter rose to the level of racial harassment. By not taking the Complainants? concerns seriously and taking proper remedial measures to restore the harm caused to the Complainant Daughter and her class, the Respondent created an unwelcome environment for the Complainant Father in the educational community. Complainant Father subjectively believed he had been harassed because of his race, and a parent in his situation would objectively feel the same. 5. The Harassment Interfered with and Obstructed the Ability of Complainants to Fully Participate in and Enjoy the Bene?ts of the School Complainant Daughter no longer felt secure in her learning enviromnent. The comments by her Science Teacher and the statistics on the achievement gap shared by the Assistant Principle reinforced the idea that White students do better than Black students in school. The Respondent took no action to address this incident with the students and their parents to counter the message that the students heard without appropriate context. Because of the actions of the Science Teacher and Principle, the Complainant Daughter did not feel able to thrive in the school. An A?irnrative Action Equal Opportunity Employer CASE Document 1-1 Filed 08/28/18 Page 12 of 14 Dennis A. Verren, Jr. and olblo minor child v. Independent School District #625 Cassi! A-5444 July 5, 2018 Page 12 of 12 Complainant Father regularly spent time at the school volunteering prior to the racial harassment. In Walker v. Ford Motor Co., the court found a hostile environment where racial harassment made plaintiff feel ?unwanted and uncomfortable in his surroundings? even though the harassment was not directed at him. 684 F.2d 1355, 1358-59 (11th Cir. 1982). Because Respondent no longer felt that the school was welcoming towards all races and wanted to create and equal and just educational environment, Complainant Father felt uncomfortable both sending his daughter to school there and participating in school activities as a parent there. Complainant Father moved his whole family to another home so that Complainant Daughter and his other children could go to a different school. This is evidence that both Complainant Daughter and Complainant Father were unable to participate and enjoy the bene?ts of Expo Elementary School for Excellence. Although Complainant Father originally chose the school because of its academic success rates, he is unable to send .his Complainant Daughter there because she does not feel that is conducive to her learning. B. Race Discrimination Determination The Complainants have alleged su??icient facts to support a hostile education environment claim. Complainants are Black, the Respondent subjected them to unwelcome harassment, the harassment was because of their race, and it was severe and pervasive. Therefore, the Complainants have shown probable cause that the Respondent subjected them to a hostile education environment which they allowed to continue until Complainant Father moved Complainant Daughter to another school. In view of the foregoing, this Department concludes that there is probable cause for discrimination based on race indicating that Respondent violated the Saint Paul Human Rights Ordinance as Complainant had alleged July5,2018 Jeffry Martin Date Deputy Director An Af?rmative Action Equal Opportunity Employer CASE 14 EXHIBIT Nome:_; Date: [0 CNQQ QMOX erb? M: mm 930% Muf?n06 asinvolved? MK i Whmg?howoqnexp?mdjv?bC?CkUg?g ?gs (35:35 i fe?' Mod Sod HIE?skated Lonely . .61? Scored effer thing to do if this happens again is? I 1 Ajr??m WC) 9A Em 361/7. Commenfs: 334 1-5" LOOP) WEIGHU Un'x'js?h (XX) 51%? bh?nfum (C) dd Pebou?r Sfudem? Signature! CASE Document 1-1 Filed 08/28/18 Page 14 of 14 DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND .. . 1* EQUAL ECONOMIC Human Rights Division Jef?'y Martin, Deputy Director 240 Gig; Hall Telephone: (651) 266-8966 CITY OF SAINT PAUL 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Famimz'le: (651) 266-8962 Melvin Carter, Mayor Saint Paul, MN 55102-1681 BEFORE THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY Dennis A. Verrett, Jr. and o/b/o minor child, Complainant RIGHT TO SUE LETTER v. Case No.: A-5444 EXHIBIT #625,? 1. Respondent NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUE Pursuant to the authority vested under Chapter 183 of the Saint Paul Human Rights Ordinance, this Department hereby issues this right to sue letter for one of the following reasons: 1. The Director has determined that further use of the Department resources are not warranted; 2. The Director has determined that there is a no probable cause ?nding to credit the allegations contained in the charge; 3. CI The Director has determined that Complainant?s appeal is denied and reaf?nns the no probable cause ?nding; The Director has determined that the Department has been unable to successfully conciliate the probable cause ?nding in the charge; and 5. El Others: Please note that Complainant has forty-?ve (45) days from the receipt of this notice to ?le this matter in Court. Receipt of notice is presumed to be ?ve (5) days from the date of service by mail of the written notice. Failure to do so might result in prejudicial harm to this matter. SAINT PAUL DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS EQUAL ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY July 17. 2018 Jel?y Martin, Deputy Director Date cc: Jamie Jonnassen for the Respondent An Af?rmative Action Equal Opportunity Employer