Unhappy Law School Experience Leads To Lawsuit

A former law student who sued Howard University Law School had some claims survive after the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (Judge McFadden) permitted amendment of the complaint

Michael Newman is a white former student of Howard University School of Law. He alleges that, during his brief time there, Howard administrators created an intolerable racially hostile environment and, eventually, ousted him. So he sued them for racial discrimination, breach of contract, and defamation. In a previous order, the Court dismissed several of his claims. Newman now moves to amend his Complaint, and Howard opposes the motion. For the reasons below, the Court grants Newman’s motion in part. But when amendment would be futile, the Court denies the motion.

From the complaint's allegations

In October 2020, Howard hosted a symposium that proved to be the spark in this powder keg. Amend. Compl. ¶ 18. At the symposium, “an African-American speaker claimed that if Biden and Harris won the White House[,] they would usher in a ‘golden age of environmental justice.’” Id. Newman responded by posting in his section-only GroupMe. Id. He said, “Where I part with the black community is where they believe government solves problems, I only see it causing problems.” Id. He then asked whether “black voters didn’t question turning to government for solutions” and whether “reliably voting for the same party every election disincentivized both parties from responding to the needs of black communities.” Id.

This did not go over well. Newman’s peers responded with an uproar. Students complained to Newman, to school administrators, and to professors. Amend. Compl. ¶ 19. Students (and some administrators) claimed that Newman’s comments were racist or, at best, insensitive. Id. ¶¶ 20–22. In one instance, a member of the Howard Law student government interrupted a class to ask students to meet and “discuss next steps” in response to Newman’s comments. Id. ¶ 19 (cleaned up).

Newman met with a Howard administrator, who encouraged him to “make amends.” Amend. Compl. ¶ 23. Newman suggested that he email his law school class explaining himself, and the administrator agreed. Id. The administrator encouraged Newman to share his background with his peers “so that when they hear these comments, they don’t assume animosity.” Id. ¶ 25. Newman agreed.

Meanwhile, the hostility spilled over into Newman’s classes. During a legal research class, Newman’s professor “introduced a discussion of ‘cultural competency’ and discrimination.” Amend. Compl. ¶ 30. She “invited Newman to share experiences from his own background,” but he declined, saying that he would rather listen to his classmates. Id.

At least six students then complained, one after another, about Newman. Id. They charged that he lacked cultural competency and that his comments made them “anxious” and “impede[d] [their] ability to work.” Id. ¶¶ 30–32. After that episode, the professor immediately changed her grading system. Id. ¶ 33. She introduced a subjective component into students’ grades and allowed the students to “grade one another,” thus potentially incorporating their biases into a student’s grade. Id.

Over the rest of Newman’s first semester, his classmates shunned him. Amend. Compl. ¶ 36. This caused him mental and emotional distress. As a result, he did poorly on his first semester final exams. Id. ¶ 37. Newman’s test scores that semester sat “among the lowest in the class, with two D’s and a C.” Id. But he would not discover this until much later.

He wrote a lengthy letter of apology

Whatever good wishes Newman offered his classmates were not reciprocated. They lambasted his letter on Twitter. They called Newman racist, said he was “ruining [their] educational experience,” and accused him of being a neo-Nazi. Amend. Compl. ¶ 54. Students also said that they would “read him,” which is slang for “to harshly criticize” him. They also demanded to know “who was on the admissions board and what spirit forced them to admit this white man to our school.” Id. And students endorsed the idea of “cyber bully[ing]” Newman and exclaimed “Bring back bullying.” Id. Various students used racial epithets to attack Newman. They called him “Mayo King,” “mayo monster,” “[s]now possum,” “Keebler cookie elf man,” and “pale man.” Id. ¶¶ 54–55

Then

Newman and [Dean] Holley met again. This time, Newman asked Holley about a recently deceased Howard student. Amend. Compl. ¶ 100. “Newman asked Holley the cause of death,” and Holley refused to answer directly. Id. But she denied that the student had committed suicide, or that her death was related to either COVID or the COVID vaccine. Id. Newman later learned from a “local news station” that the classmate had died of a pulmonary embolism, id. ¶ 104, a condition in which blood clots travel to the lungs, blocking blood flow and (thus) oxygen intake. Newman connected the dots: He read an “peer-reviewed scientific paper that linked a rise in cases of [pulmonary embolisms] to the introduction of mRNA Covid vaccines.” Id. ¶ 105. So he “set about to warn classmates of the potential risks” of these vaccines. Id. Newman sent his classmates emails using his email account’s blind carbon copy (bcc) function. Amend. Compl. ¶ 106. He “warn[ed] them of the study linking mRNA vaccines to the cause of their classmate’s death.” Id. Minutes later, Holley emailed Newman. Id. ¶ 107. She informed him that he had violated her orders by again sending “unauthorized emails to the law school student body.” Id. She also relayed that his classmates had characterized his email as “disgusting” and “disturbing.” Id. ¶ 109. Holley thus informed Newman that she would be “having [his] Howard email address suspended and [his] gmail blocked from the law school system.” Id. ¶ 112. She also informed him that she would be bringing an administrative complaint against him in the coming days. Id.

As a result of his interactions with the Dean

Holley filed her complaint in short order. She accused him of “continual harassment of member[s] of the Howard Law community, and disturbance of the learning environment at the School of Law.” Amend. Compl. ¶ 114. Newman returned fire. He filed an administrative complaint of his own, in which he accused Holley of threatening him, discriminating against him, and creating a hostile educational environment. Id. Newman’s complaint was never adjudicated.

A school disciplinary hearing took place

In the end, the panel again found Newman responsible and recommended expulsion, id. ¶ 153, and this time his appeal was rejected, id. ¶ 154

He sued in federal court

The defamation claim survives as the three statements

the Court will consider three of Newman’s defamation claims. The Court already explained that his claim about Holley calling his comments defamatory and his claim that Holley accused him of saying that “African-Americans suffer from hive mind” were actionable. Newman, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2024 WL 450245, at *17. And for similar reasons, his new claim that Holley accused him of harassment is too. It also implies certain verifiable underlying facts about Newman’s conduct.

Conclusion

To recap where things stand: All Newman’s race-discrimination claims are futile and will not be appended to the Complaint, except his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. His contract claims survive in part, but only for certain alleged breaches of contract. His quasi-contract claims will not be considered. Likewise, his tortious interference with contract claim is futile and will not be included. But three of his defamation claims survive.