Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
A northern Indiana high school student and her mother who alleged a school bus driver acted in a racist manner when the student was told to go to the back of the boarding line after jumping the line have failed to prove their discrimination claims, the Indiana Northern District Court has ruled.
Indiana Northern District Court Chief Judge Jon DeGuilio granted Warsaw Community School Corporation and other defendants’ motion for summary judgment in the case, A.A., et al. v. Warsaw Community School Corporation, et al., 3:21-cv-378.
DeGuilio ruled that A.A., a high school student, and her mother failed to support their Equal Protection Clause and Title VI claims with any evidence that the bus driver’s actions toward the student were motivated by racial animus.
Kasha Harris brought the suit against Warsaw Community School Corporation, bus driver Lauren Brito and Mark Fick, the director of transportation at Warsaw Schools, as next friend of A.A., her daughter.
According to court records, A.A. was a student at Warsaw Community High School in March 2021 and rode the bus to school every day. Brito was her bus driver and picked up A.A. and her brother outside their home.
A.A. and her brother are African American. The two had a history of being late and missing the bus.
In early March 2021, other students boarding at the same stop complained to Brito about A.A. cutting the line. After talking with her trainer about how to handle the situation, Brito was advised to ask the student to go to the back of the line.
Brito observed A.A. cutting other students in line during the week of March 8, 2021, so she asked A.A. to go to the back of the line. A video taken March 12 by internal cameras on the bus showed A.A. cutting the line that day and Brito asking her to go to the back of the line, which A.A. did without objection.
Brito did not ask any of the other African American students to go to the back of the line, and all other students boarded the bus without incident.
A.A. felt that Brito was targeting her and that her actions in asking her to go to the back of the line were racist.
On March 16, Harris accompanied her daughter to the bus stop and filmed her boarding. Harris and Brito began arguing, with the mother accusing the bus driver of racism.
Harris ended up driving A.A. to school that day.
Later that evening, Fick called Harris and informed her that her children were not allowed to ride the bus because they had disrupted bus services.
Harris later filed suit, alleging the bus driver had used racist language toward A.A., had told her to go to the back of the bus — rather than the back of the line — and that her behavior was motivated by racial animus.
During discovery, the plaintiffs admitted Brito had not used racist language toward A.A. and never told her to go to the back of the bus, DeGuilio wrote.
“Plaintiffs have made no showing that Defendant’s actions were motivated by racial animus, which is required to sustain a claim under both the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI. Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden under numerous steps of the McDonnell Douglas inquiry, the only method for proving the claims that they advanced, and failed to present any evidence that would permit a reasonable factfinder to conclude A.A.’s race led to any adverse action,” DeGuilio wrote, citing Ortiz v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., 834 F 3d 760, 765 (7th Cir. 2016).
DeGuilio added that the plaintiffs’ case rested on speculation and legal allegations, which cannot sustain a reasonable inference that intentional discrimination took place.
“Defendants are therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Plaintiffs have failed to make a showing on the essential elements of their claims,” he concluded.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.