Court Orders Ursuline To Re-enroll Student Accused Of Ugly Behavior

NEW ROCHELLE, NY — A ruling has been made in the lawsuit against The Ursuline School over the expulsion of a student because of accusations of hateful off-campus behavior.

Judge Damaris A. Torrent ruled on Aug. 23 that the student's application for a preliminary injunction is granted. The Ursuline School was also ordered to immediately permit her to return to the school and register for the 2022-2023 academic year; permit her access to her school e-mail account, college applications and application materials; and permit her to resume all activities as a student in good standing.

Ursuline is not permitted to conduct any further disciplinary proceedings against the student involved regarding the alleged conduct in the litigation. The school is also not permitted to enter or maintain a record of expulsion with respect to the student or attempt to enforce her expulsion.

SEE ALSO: Court Filings Allege Ugly Behavior By Expelled Ursuline Student

The expelled student brought a similar application in September of last year after Ursuline expelled her for violating the school’s mission and values as written in the Student/Parent Handbook. A temporary restraining order was granted at the time.

Lawyers for Ursuline sought to end the temporary restraining order that allowed the expelled student to remain at the school. A judge issued the order reinstating the student in part because the high school girl at the center of the lawsuit insisted that she had been unfairly singled out for behavior that did not result in similar punishment for her peers who also participated in social media activity the school deemed offensive.

The school described a pattern of repeated racist and offensive behavior by the student. Ursuline officials alleged that the student admitted to some of the most egregious incidents when confronted by administrators.

“In a series of vulgar and shocking social media posts, Plaintiff maligned Chinese people, made racist remarks about African-Americans and used language and gestures that are crude and offensive,” lawyers for Ursuline wrote in court documents. "When Plaintiff’s conduct was brought to the attention of the school, it promptly suspended her and commenced an investigation. Acting in accordance with its policies and procedures, the school established a 'Designated Team' to look into the matter, spoke to plaintiff and her mother, deliberated and, based on undisputed facts, came to a unanimous decision to expel."

School officials attested in court papers that other social media posts involved the student wearing blackface and using the "N-word" on more than one occasion. Far from being apologetic about her behavior, the student instead insisted that some of the offensive posts represented her true feelings, attorneys for the school claimed in the filings.

Earlier this year, in April, the temporary restraining order was replaced by a preliminary injunction, allowing the student to remain in school until the end of the 2021-2022 school year. At that point, Ursuline’s counsel notified the girl's lawyers that the preliminary injunction had expired and that she was no longer a student at the school. The student's lawyers then applied to have another temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction put in place.

"The plaintiff has made a sufficient showing, at least at this juncture, that (1) certain conduct involving posting of inappropriate content occurred before she became a student at the school, (2) the other students engaged in creating an inappropriate video which plaintiff posted received a suspension, not expulsion, and (3) other students posted the same or similar videos without receiving any disciplinary sanctions," the judge wrote in his decision. "The salient fact is that unless this Court grants relief, an expelled high school student will be forced to attempt to find a private school to accept her on the eve of the commencement of the school year."

A footnote clarified that, "It is not disputed that the plaintiff left her public school due to bullying, and that this circumstance was the impetus for her matriculation at the Ursuline School. Therefore, a return to public school is not a viable option for the Petitioner."

The judge's decision seems to back up the student's contention that she had been unfairly singled out. The girl's attorney had told the court that he had hundreds of videos that show that the school has ignored similar behavior by other students.

"Given the ages of the girls depicted and the sexual nature of many of the posts depicted, the videos are not annexed as an exhibit," the lawyer wrote in court documents.

The Ursuline School appealed the decision on August 24. The school's counsel referred to the formerly expelled student only as "E.P."

“The Supreme Court erred by entering an order granting Plaintiff a preliminary injunction that, inter alia, directed Defendant/Apellant to register E.P. for the 2022-2023 school year and enjoined the School from enforcing its decision to expel E.P.," the school's lawyers wrote. "There is no evidentiary basis for the preliminary injunction as there is no contract between the parties for the 2022-2023 school year. Moreover, as a private parochial school, Defendant/Apellant is entitled to deference with respect to school operations including discipline over students... E.P. can go to public school and E.P.’s preference to return to Defendant/Apellant should not take priority over the safety of Defendant/Apellant’s diverse school community in general and/or the School’s right to govern its institution in a manner consistent with its mission and values. Defendant/Appellant seeks reversal of the preliminary injunction.”

The expelled student's lawyer, George Galgano, has previously accused school officials of using doctored images and lying about the girl's expression of regret over past offensive social media posts. He told the court last year that the school initially cited a TikTok dance video for her expulsion, but the attorney said dozens of other students, and even a faculty member, were known to have participated in similar videos without being fired or expelled.

After the student filed a $1 million lawsuit, Galgano said, administrators began to change the reason for the expulsion, by citing behavior that occurred prior to her ever having attended the school.

"This is a teaching moment and not a time where the school should be taking an unwavering and unforgiving position of intolerance," Galgano wrote in court papers. “[She] is remorseful, and she deserves forgiveness and understanding ... And the school should accept some responsibility for this pervasive problem that exists across all public and private schools in this country. There is no place for TikTok on school grounds. Yet the bulk of the videos, I've seen are in classrooms, at sporting events, in cafeterias and on school grounds in plain view."