- Parents suing a Charlotte private school over the expulsion of two children in 2021 responded in court this week to arguments from the local Catholic Diocese and groups representing private schools in North Carolina and the region.
- Lower courts have ruled in favor of Charlotte Latin School and against Doug and Nicole Turpin. The North Carolina Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case on Oct. 29.
- Two Republican congressmen and 11 GOP members of the General Assembly have sided with the Turpins in the dispute.
Parents suing a Charlotte private school over the expulsion of their two children responded this week to court filings from the local Catholic Diocese and state and regional groups representing independent schools.
The dispute between Doug and Nicole Turpin and Charlotte Latin School also has attracted attention from two Republican congressman and 11 GOP members of the state legislature. The elected officials have sided with the parents.
Lower courts have ruled in favor of the school. The North Carolina Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the dispute on Oct. 29.
The Turpins argue that Charlotte Latin breached a contract when it dropped children Olive and Luke as students in 2021. Charlotte Latin has responded that its contract with the Turpin family allowed for the students’ dismissal.
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the school.
“The Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte claims that Doug and Nicole Turpins’ case threatens the constitutional protections that keep secular courts out of religious affairs. But that premise is faulty,” the Turpins’ lawyers responded Monday. “No part of Doug and Nicole’s case touches on religious doctrine, ecclesiastical authority, or the autonomy of faith-based schools. Indeed, Charlotte Latin is a secular school, and Doug and Nicole challenge only whether Latin’s enrollment contract allowed it to arbitrarily and unfairly expel their children, Olive and Luke. The Court should disregard the Diocese’s attempt to conflate these issues.”
“Whatever the outcome of Doug and Nicole’s case, it will not change the balance of power between courts, on the one hand, and religion, on the other,” the brief continued. “Under the United States and our State Constitution, courts may not interfere in matters of faith. But they may hold religious institutions accountable for secular conduct. Far from a constitutional problem, Doug and Nicole’s case will determine only whether private schools of any stripe can silence families and evade responsibility under the guise of ‘discretion.’”
The Turpins questioned the church organization’s interest in the case.
“The Diocese’s willingness to wade into an otherwise secular dispute — while alarming — is really an act in self-preservation,” the family’s lawyers wrote. “Not so long ago, the Diocese faced backlash from thousands of concerned parents, which eventually led the principal of one Diocesan school, Charlotte Catholic High School, to resign. By siding with Latin, the Diocese hopes to gain an effective tool for dealing with vocal or inquisitive parents.”
“The stakes are high, not just for Doug and Nicole, but for thousands of private school families across the State,” the court filing continued. “If the Court sides with Latin and the Diocese, the message to those parents will be clear: private schools in North Carolina have judicial immunity. Those families deserve transparency, fairness, and a voice in their children’s education.”
The Turpins also responded to a separate friend-of-the-court brief from the North Carolina Association of Independent Schools and Southern Association of Independent Schools.
“This case asks whether a private school’s contractual promises mean anything,” the family’s lawyers wrote. “The Southern and North Carolina Associations of Independent Schools, like Charlotte Latin, say they do not. These Associations urge the Court to treat private schools as institutions immune from judicial scrutiny, immune from the rules that govern every other business.”
“Doug and Nicole believe that private schools should adhere to their contractual promises and that, when they break those promises, private schools should be held accountable,” the Turpins’ lawyers wrote. “Latin said it would expel their children, Olive and Luke, in only the narrowest circumstances, and our State’s law required Latin to exercise that discretion in good faith. Like any other parent, Doug and Nicole only want the benefit of that bargain.”
“The Associations see things differently. They contend that Latin had the power to unilaterally expel Olive and Luke. And they appear to contend that Latin should have that power whatever the facts alleged in the complaint may be. The Associations’ position, if accepted, would erode freedom of contract in our State and could transform private school enrollment contracts into illusory formalities,” the court filing continued.
Charlotte Latin “should betreated like any other party to a contract,” the Turpins’ lawyers argued. “That is, it should be held to the promises that it has made: fairness, direct communication, and good faith. Parental rights should not be subjugated to institutional power.”
The Charlotte Diocese offered a First Amendment argument in its August brief 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 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 independent school 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.