NC court rules against parents who said Charlotte school expelled their kids as retaliation

The North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled against Union County parents who claimed a Charlotte private school expelled their children after they raised questions about an alleged move away from a “traditional, apolitical education.”

Doug and Nicole Turpin claimed Charlotte Latin School retaliated against them for wanting to know more about the school’s operations. The appellate decision by a three-judge panel on Tuesday, which the Turpins intend to appeal, upheld an October 2022 trial court ruling favoring the school in the case around an agreement between Charlotte Latin School and parents.

Judge Carolyn Thompson wrote in the opinion the Turpins failed in their efforts to make a case for “breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unfair and deceptive trade practices, negligent infliction of emotional distress, defamation, or negligent retention or supervision.” The other members of the bipartisan three-judge panel, John Arrowood and Julie Flood, concurred with Thompson’s opinion.

The couple said until the 2020-2021 school year Charlotte Latin provided the “traditional, apolitical education” they expected when enrolling their children in school, according to the ruling, which was first reported by the Carolina Journal.

The Turpins’ initial April 2022 lawsuit alleged Charlotte Latin expelled their children — both middle school students — after the parents began asking questions about the school’s direction.

The key argument in the case hinged around a Charlotte Latin School clause in its enrollment agreement that reserves the “right to discontinue enrollment if it concludes that the actions of a parent/guardian make that a relationship impossible or seriously interfere(s) with the school’s mission.”

Parents objected to school changes amid George Floyd protests

Judge Thompson said in the opinion the Turpins’ allegations against Charlotte Latin School “make clear that a ‘positive, collaborative working relationship between the School’ and plaintiffs was ‘not capable of being accomplished.”

“Indeed, the animosity between plaintiffs and defendants can be observed in just the second paragraph of plaintiffs’ complaint, wherein plaintiffs assert that the school’s actions were an example of ‘what has come to be known in American society as ‘cancel culture,’” Thompson wrote.

The Turpins said they were concerned with several strategic decisions Charlotte Latin made after the George Floyd protests in 2020. The couple wanted to question school officials about the impact of changes in the school curriculum they observed. They pointed to a letter sent to Charlotte Latin parents in June 2020 that suggested the school had allegedly moved “toward a curriculum, culture, and focus associated with a political agenda,” according to the brief.

During the 2020-2021 school year, the Turpins and other parents who became concerned with changes in the curriculum, reading materials and classroom policies formed a group called “Refocus Latin” to address issues with the school.

“Being a parent isn’t easy. Parents have a right—or, at the very least, a need—to understand what their children are exposed to, whether by their friends, the media, or their teachers,” lawyers for the Turpins wrote in a brief filed in August. “This is a case about two parents needing an answer to that question.”

In a statement obtained by The Charlotte Ledger, the Turpins indicated they would challenge the ruling.

“We are extremely disappointed with the Court of Appeals’ decision. Even more, we are incredibly concerned about the bad precedent the decision sets for private school parents and children statewide,” the statement said. “Private school students must not be expelled from school when parents communicate their concerns about the curriculum and culture of the school or about their child’s health and safety.”

The lawyer for the Turpins, Chris Edwards of the law firm Ward and Smith, argued the school unfairly targeted the family.

“It may be a nonprofit business, but this is a business, not a public school,” Edwards said. “So, the Turpins are the school’s consumers, and it has an obligation to deal with them in good faith.”

Charlotte Latin had right to terminate agreement with parents

Thompson, however, concluded the Turpins went beyond wanting to just meet with Charlotte Latin School leaders about curriculum and direction.

“(The Turpins) then devote two additional pages of their complaint to assail Latin’s ‘political agenda’ and note that they ultimately ‘request(ed) the opportunity to meet with the Board … in hopes of beginning a dialogue about the need for better transparency with parents regarding curriculum and the need for consistency with Latin’s Mission and Core Values, as well as Latin’s promise of a traditional and apolitical education,” Thompson wrote.

Thompson said that Charlotte Latin could legally terminate its relationship with the Turpins because the agreement did not allow parents “to continuously assail the culture and curriculum of the school, with which they no longer agreed.”

Thompson concluded Charlotte Latin was empowered to terminate its relationship with the Turpins at its discretion because the parents “had made their relationship with Latin impossible or substantially interfered with its mission.”