CONTACT US
Phone, Fax and Email Directory

ATTORNEYS
Meet the B&W Attorneys

GOLF!
Information about our Annual Golf Tournament

NEWS
Keep up-to-date with the latest from Barrett & Worden

 Defense Verdict in Private School Lawsuit

BRB and BCB  by and through their parents, KH and WH,  v. Cedar Park Christian School  KCC 05-2-12264-1 SEA

When dissatisfied parents sued after their child was expelled from Christian kindergarten, Colleen Barrett successfully defended a private religious school against claims for breach of contract, defamation, false light, outrage, and negligence.  

            The expulsion occurred after school staff made five separate contacts with the child’s stepfather about the child’s behavior.  Despite those multiple communications between the school and the stepfather, the parents contended the school’s handbook contained promises of progressive discipline which were not met.  The parents contended that school communications about the expulsion, including an explanatory letter to the parents themselves, amounted to defamation and false light invasion of privacy.  The parents contended the school’s actions constituted outrage.  The parents named both the child and his younger brother as plaintiffs, and sought damages for their inability to continue a Christian education.  

            The case presented challenges and the stakes were high.  First, the school’s reputation was under attack.  Second, the Plaintiffs sought a large award for damages to their reputation, damages for emotional distress, and damages for loss of earning capacity.  Plaintiffs’ demand at mediation was for $800,000.  And third, the defense faced competent and vigorous re00presentation provided by Plaintiffs’ counsel, Rebecca Roe and Adam Berger of Schroeter, Goldmark & Bender. 

             Pretrial, Barrett & Worden used summary judgment motions and motions in limine to limit the scope of the lawsuit and the scope of potential damages. On summary judgment, the court dismissed the negligence claims because they constituted claims for the non-existent tort of educational malpractice.   The court dismissed the claims brought on behalf of the younger brother and dismissed portions of the claims for false light invasion of privacy after the Defense showed there was no evidence supporting those claims. The Court limited the defamation claim by ruling that statements the school made about the child were protected by the Common Interest Privilege.  And the court limited any potential damages for breach of contract to nominal damages of one dollar.

             After successfully using motion practice to reduce the scope of the claims and the potential damages, Colleen focused on the remaining factual disputes at trial. Because of the case’s complexity, the emotional nature of the claims advanced, and the attack on the school’s credibility, Colleen needed to present the jury with a clear and focused narrative that explained the facts leading to the expulsion, the process that led to the expulsion decision, and the context of the school’s communications about the child. She used courtroom technology to do that.

             Working with Prolumina, Colleen developed a Power Point time line that she used in both opening statement and closing argument to frame and explain the facts at issue.  And she used a database that included all the case’s documentary evidence to project images of significant documents during direct examination, cross examination, and closing. After that closing, the jury returned a defense verdict that exonerated the school.