Key Takeaways
- A ruling by the North Carolina Supreme Court may make it significantly easier for parents to sue private schools over the expulsion of their children or other issues.
- Private schools should review and consider changes to enrollment agreements, especially regarding student expulsion, to attempt to minimize the opportunities for parental suits.
- Factual claims in schoolwide communications that concern identifiable parents or other community members should be carefully vetted to minimize risk of defamation claims.
Private schools in North Carolina have some extra homework in the wake of a recent state supreme court ruling reviving a lawsuit brought by parents whose children were expelled from a Charlotte school amid the parents’ protest of curriculum changes.
Specifically, schools should study their enrollment agreements, especially with regard to student termination, and their policies concerning schoolwide communications that may concern identifiable parents or other community members.
At issue is the Aug. 14, 2026, decision of the high court in Turpin v. Charlotte Latin School. By a 5-2 vote, the justices reversed the North Carolina Court of Appeals to hold that parents Doug and Nicole Turpin adequately stated claims for breach of contract, fraud, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and defamation arising from the expulsion of their two children from Charlotte Latin School in 2021.
Background
The Turpins allege that beginning in 2020, Charlotte Latin changed its curriculum to focus on politicized racial issues and required young students to read books about sexuality and gender identity that were not age-appropriate. In response, the Turpins and other concerned parents formed “Refocus Latin,” organized as a vehicle to voice concerns about the curriculum to school leadership.
According to the Turpins, Charlotte Latin repeatedly indicated that they would not face retaliation or “blowback” for raising their concerns. However, shortly after meetings with school administrators about those concerns, Charlotte Latin claimed that a slide deck the Turpins had presented to the school’s board of trustees contained racist comments. The administrators then informed the Turpins that their children’s enrollment agreements were terminated and their children were expelled, effective immediately. Several days later, Charlotte Latin sent an email blast to parents, students, faculty and staff accusing the Refocus Latin parents of making racial comments, which the Turpins denied.
The Turpins filed suit asserting claims for breach of contract, fraud, unfair and deceptive trade practices (under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1), defamation, negligent misrepresentation, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligent retention.
The trial court dismissed the Turpins’ suit, and the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed, determining that the “plain and unambiguous language of the enrollment contracts” allowed Charlotte Latin to terminate enrollment at its discretion. The enrollment contracts permitted Charlotte Latin to end enrollment at any time “if it conclude[d] that the actions of a parent/guardian” made a “positive, collaborative working relationship” “impossible or seriously interfere[d] with the School’s mission.”
The Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court majority determined that, under North Carolina’s notice pleading standard, the Turpins adequately stated claims for breach of contract, fraud, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and defamation.
With respect to the breach of contract claim, the court determined that the Turpins sufficiently alleged the school’s stated reasons for expelling their children were pretextual, and that the true motivation was retaliation for the parents’ protected complaints about curriculum. In doing so, the court rejected the premise that the Turpins needed to allege “what impermissible reason the alleged pretext masked,” suggesting that such a standard would require the Turpins to be “mind readers.” The court also distinguished Charlotte Latin’s termination rights under its enrollment agreements from contract provisions that permit a party to “change the terms of the Agreement” at any time, with “[n]o strings attached.”
The court further determined the Turpins had adequately stated a fraud claim (and thus an unfair and deceptive trade practices claim) by alleging Charlotte Latin had promised not to retaliate against the Turpins with the intent to lure them to the board meeting and create a pretext for their children’s expulsion.
Finally, the court determined the Turpins adequately alleged that the school’s characterization of the Refocus Latin board presentation as including racist comments was materially false and therefore potentially defamatory. In reaching this decision, the court repeatedly emphasized North Carolina’s liberal pleading standard at the motion to dismiss stage, noting that allowing the case to proceed did not constitute a finding that the Turpins would ultimately prevail. The case will return to the trial court for discovery.
Justice Allison Riggs authored a partial dissent, joined by Judge Anita Earls, which warned that the majority’s holding “would open the door to litigation against all private schools” and cautioned that the rule “will need to be applied evenhandedly: schools with different ideologies cannot be treated differently than Charlotte Latin here.”
What Schools Should Be Doing
As noted by the dissent, the North Carolina Supreme Court’s opinion significantly expands opportunities for litigation against private schools in North Carolina. To mitigate this risk, schools should examine and consider updating their enrollment agreements and any related policies. Schools considering terminating students’ enrollment based on parental conduct should review those situations holistically (including by consulting with counsel, as appropriate), and the reasons for termination should be well-documented and consistently communicated. Additionally, factual claims in schoolwide communications that concern identifiable parents, students, faculty or other community members should be carefully vetted to minimize risk of defamation claims.
For questions, contact a member of McGuireWoods’ Education Industry Team.