Publisher's Note: This post appears here courtesy of the Carolina Journal. The author of this post is CJ Staff.
Parents challenging a Charlotte private school's decision to expel their two children continue to present legal arguments in filings at the North Carolina Supreme Court. The high court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on Oct. 29.
It's a case that has attracted attention from two Republican congressmen and 11 Republicans in the North Carolina General Assembly.
Lower courts have ruled in favor of the school and against the parents.
Doug and Nicole Turpin argue that Charlotte Latin School breached a contract when it kicked out two Turpin children in 2021. The Turpins argue that the school made its decision after Doug Turpin asked questions about changes in school operations.
"This case matters to families across North Carolina," the Turpins' lawyers wrote in a brief filed Friday.
"Doug and Nicole Turpin do not dispute that private schools may adopt their own culture or curriculum. Indeed, Doug and Nicole support those schools' right to do so."
"But while Doug and Nicole support school choice, they believe that private schools - like any other business - must be held to account when they commit wrongs," the court filing continued.
"For example, they still can breach contracts. And their faculty, staff, and leadership still can violate the common law and statutes."
"Latin says otherwise. It claims that Doug and Nicole's suit threatens all private schools, potentially exposing them to sweeping consequences," the Turpins' lawyers wrote.
"But it is Latin's view, not Doug and Nicole's, that would work a sweeping change in the law. Its arguments are - and always have been - that private, nonparochial schools should not suffer the consequences for their actions. That is not the law."
"Ruling for Latin would make private schools first among equals - legal entities that can make contracts, invite members of the public into their halls, yet face no repercussions when they mislead, inveigle, or deceive others," the court filing added.
The Turpins face a Sept. 22 deadline to respond to arguments in friend-of-the-court briefs supporting Charlotte Latin.
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte offered a First Amendment argument on Aug. 4 while supporting the school.
"Although the Diocese agrees with Charlotte Latin that it had an enforceable contractual right to terminate Plaintiffs' children's enrollment when - in its sole discretion - Charlotte Latin determined that Plaintiffs had made a collaborative relationship impossible or had seriously interfered with its mission, the Diocese also presents this Court with an alternative argument, made by no existing party, that underscores the broader significance of this case for private religious schools across North Carolina and highlights First Amendment concerns that no party has addressed in depth," wrote lawyer Joshua Davey.
"The Diocese operates a network of Catholic schools that, like Charlotte Latin, require enrollment contracts expressly reserving the right to terminate enrollment when, among other reasons, parental conduct undermines the school's mission," Davey added.
"These contractual provisions are essential tools that allow religious schools to carry out their faith-based educational missions while providing clarity and transparency to families who voluntarily choose to enroll."
"[E]nforcing such provisions as written not only accords with longstanding principles of North Carolina contract law but also avoids entangling courts in religious questions and protects the constitutional autonomy of private religious schools under the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution," the court filing continued.
The North Carolina Association of Independent Schools and Southern Association of Independent Schools also back Charlotte Latin in the legal battle.
The Turpins challenge
"what has long been understood as a fundamental aspect of freedom of contract, i.e., the rights of independent schools, like Defendant-Appellee Charlotte Latin Schools, Inc. ('Latin'), to manage their relationships with parents by contract," the associations' lawyers wrote in August.
"Appellants alleged sweeping legal theories that, if allowed to proceed, would undermine the bedrock fundamental right of freedom of contract and would lead to litigation in an area of longstanding, settled law. Appellants' legal theories also would imperil the First Amendment's freedom of association by inserting lawyers and courts where they do not belong."
Charlotte Latin filed its own brief July 28 defending the decision to kick out the Turpin children.
"Unlike public schools, the relationship between students, parents, and Latin are governed by contract," the school's lawyers wrote.
"Like other businesses, consumers have the right to decide if they want to do business with Latin. Similarly, Latin has the right to decide if it wants to do business with consumers."
"In its contract, Latin expressly reserved the right to terminate its agreement with parents if Latin determined that a positive, collaborative working relationship was impossible. That is all that happened here," the school's brief continued.
US Reps. Richard Hudson and Pat Harrigan led the list of names on an amicus, or friend-of-the-court, brief filed in May supporting the Turpins.
"When private schools unfairly retaliate against students and their parents, can the schools be held accountable?" lawyer Troy Shelton asked in the friend-of-the-court brief.
"That's where Charlotte Latin broke its promises, smeared the Turpins in public, and expelled the children. If the decision below stands, it grants schools unfettered discretion to engage in such retaliatory conduct, undermining the foundational trust between families and schools in North Carolina."
The brief from elected officials and interested groups focuses on two issues, Shelton wrote.
"First, it examines the inherent unfairness faced by parents and students when private schools expel students under retaliatory or arbitrary circumstances," he explained.
"Second, it advocates for the application of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 - North Carolina's unfair and deceptive practices statute - as a vital remedy for safeguarding the commercial relationship between private schools and the families they serve."
"The Turpins' ordeal exemplifies the vulnerability of families in private educational settings," Shelton added.
"After following the school's prescribed channels for dialogue about curricular concerns, the Turpins were met with severe retaliation - their children were summarily expelled and the parents were defamed. The Court of Appeals' decision absolved Latin from accountability for such conduct by dismissing claims at the pleading stage, before any factual development could occur."
In addition to Hudson and Harrigan, the brief had support from state Sens. Brad Overcash, Dana Jones, Ted Alexander, and Amy Galey. State representatives also endorsed the brief: David Willis, Celeste Cairns, Grant Campbell, Brian Echevarria, Neal Jackson, Keith Kidwell, and Heather Rhyne.
Doug Turpin's group Coalition for Liberty is listed as one of 12 organizations supporting the brief. Others are seven local chapters of Moms for Liberty, American Center for Education and Knowledge, Color Us United, Future Prep Educational Services, National School Boards Leadership Council, New Tolerance Campaign, Our Duty USA, Palm Beach Freedom Institute, Patriots Business Alliance, United Families International, and Advocates for Faith and Freedom.
"Doug and Nicole Turpin sent their children ... to Charlotte Latin expecting them to flourish," the family's lawyers wrote in a brief filed April 24.
"Instead, Latin expelled them - abruptly, without warning, and without process."
"The reason? Doug spoke up," the court filing continued.
"He followed the school's express invitation, and the process set out in its enrollment contract, to raise concerns and did so respectfully, urging a return to the school's own stated values. For that, Latin severed its relationship with Doug and Nicole, blindsiding the family by expelling their children without warning at a meeting billed merely as a discussion."
"This case asks whether a private school can invite open dialogue and then expel students in retaliation for their parents' protected speech - while insisting its contracts grant it unlimited discretion to do so. The answer, under North Carolina law, must be no," the Turpins' lawyers argued.
The state Appeals Court's April 2024 decision in the case marked the second time appellate judges had ruled against the Turpins. Unlike the first unanimous ruling in January 2024, the second decision split judges, 2-1, and produced three separate opinions.
The Turpins argued that the school violated its contract after the parents raised questions about changes in Charlotte Latin's focus. The school responded that the Turpins violated provisions of the school's
"parent-school partnership" with ongoing complaints about Charlotte Latin's operations.
"On appeal, plaintiffs contend that they 'sufficiently alleged a breach of contract, and the trial court was wrong to conclude otherwise' because 'the court ignored the agreement's plain language and disregarded Latin's obligation to apply those agreements in good faith.' We disagree, because the plain and unambiguous language of the enrollment contracts - and pursuant to the enrollment contracts, the Parent-School Partnership - allowed Latin to terminate plaintiffs' enrollment contracts at Latin's discretion," wrote Judge Carolyn Thompson for the court's majority.
Judge John Arrowood supported Thompson's majority opinion but wrote a concurrence.
"I agree that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege a breach of contract because the plain and unambiguous language in the enrollment contracts, which state that 'the School reserves the right to discontinue enrollment if it concludes that the actions of a parent/guardian make such a relationship impossible or seriously interfere with the School's mission[,]' allowed the school to terminate plaintiffs' 2021 enrollment contracts at its discretion," Arrowood wrote.
"Because I believe that allowing this case, in its current state, to advance further would severely undermine the fundamental right to freely contract in North Carolina, which is a bedrock principle of North Carolina law, I write separately to highlight those concerns."
"North Carolina 'recognizes that, unless contrary to public policy or prohibited by statute, freedom of contract is a fundamental constitutional right,'" Arrowood explained.
"Thus, absent such policies or prohibitive statutes, it is beyond question that parties can contract as they see fit and that courts must enforce those contracts as written to preserve that fundamental right."
"In my view, these enrollment contracts between a private school and those who wish to attend that school do not violate any public policy, statutory prohibitions, or protections," the concurring opinion continued.
"Therefore, this is a case of basic contract interpretation."
Thompson and Arrowood are Democrats. Judge Julee Flood, a Republican, dissented from the ruling favoring Charlotte Latin.
"The line between the right to terminate a private contract and a contract breach is sometimes mercurial," Flood wrote.
"While the majority would draw that line at the point at which Plaintiffs were accused of certain behaviors in violation of provisions of their private school enrollment contracts, I conclude that the mandates of a Rule 12(b)(6) review are such that we must decline to draw that line prematurely."
Rule 12(b)(6) involves testing the legal sufficiency of a complaint.
"Treating the allegations in Plaintiffs' Complaint as true, and viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs made such allegations that they sufficiently stated a claim for breach of contract," Flood wrote.
"Although the majority assesses Plaintiffs' conduct as making impossible a 'positive, collaborative working relationship between the School[,]' or alternatively, as 'seriously interfer[ing] with the School's mission[,]' such that Defendants were justified in their termination of Plaintiffs' enrollment contracts, I conclude that this determination is premature as it necessarily involves findings of fact," the dissent added.
"It is not within our appellate purview to determine at this stage in the proceeding whether Defendants were justified in their termination of Plaintiffs' enrollment contracts," Flood wrote.
