Settlement reached in Michigan dad’s $1M lawsuit against school over daughter’s ‘modern-day scalping’

This undated photo provided by Jimmy Hoffmeyer shows his daughter Jurnee Hoffmeyer, 7, before a classmate and a teacher cut her hair on separate occasions. (Jimmy Hoffmeyer via AP)

We’ll deliver breaking news directly to your inbox. Sign up today.

BAY CITY, MI — In the spring of 2021, a biracial 7-year-old girl had her long locks of hair cut off by staff at the Mount Pleasant elementary school she attended. As a result, the girl’s father filed a $1 million federal lawsuit against the school district and two staffers, alleging his daughter was the victim of racial discrimination.

The incident, described by the National Parents Union as a “modern-day scalping,” sparked national outcry and went viral, with outlets including The Washington Post, The New York Post, People Magazine, and CNN publishing articles on it.

Court records now indicate a settlement has recently been reached in the case, though details are yet to be finalized.

Jimmy Hoffmeyer in September 2021 filed his federal lawsuit on behalf of his daughter Jurnee Hoffmeyer. The suit named Mount Pleasant Public Schools, librarian Kelly Mogg, and teacher assistant Kristen Jacobs as defendants.

Attorneys in the case attended a settlement conference with U.S. District Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris on Jan. 18, during which they reached a confidential settlement. The parties are to submit closing documents by Feb. 27. As such, the case is not yet closed.

Though an audio recording of the conference was made, the recording is sealed by order from Morris.

Saginaw attorneys Kailen C. Piper and Gregory W. Mair, representing the district and its staff, declined to comment on the proposed settlement. Attorneys Shawndrica N. Simmons and Herbert A. Sanders, representing Hoffmeyer, could not be reached for comment.

Jurnee was a student at Ganiard Elementary School, 101 S. Adams St., in Mount Pleasant. On March 24, 2021, a classmate of Jurnee’s used scissors taken from a classroom to cut Jurnee’s hair while they were on a school bus, the suit states. The student did this without Jurnee’s permission, according to the suit.

Prior to this, Jurnee had long, curly hair. Hoffmeyer is Black while Jurnee’s mother is white.

This undated photo provided by Jimmy Hoffmeyer shows his daughter Jurnee Hoffmeyer, 7, after a classmate and a teacher cut her hair on separate occasions. (Jimmy Hoffmeyer via AP)

Hoffmeyer took his daughter to a beautician, who gave Jurnee an asymmetrical haircut. A few days later, Jurnee came home from school with nearly all her hair cut off, down to a couple of inches from her scalp, the suit states.

“Jurnee’s Library Teacher, Ms. Mogg had cut off her remaining hair with the assistance and/or acquiescence of Ms. Jacobs,” the suit states. This was done without permission from Jurnee or her parents, according to the suit.

“The Defendants failed to properly train, monitor, direct, discipline, and supervise their employees, and knew or should have known that the employees would engage in the complained of behavior given the improper training, customs, procedures, and policies, and the lack of discipline that existed for employees,” the suit continues.

In the suit, Hoffmeyer contended the defendants violated Jurnee’s constitutional rights, and therefore are not entitled to qualified immunity. The defendants’ conduct amounted to “deliberate indifference” and was “obdurate” or “wanton,” the suit further states.

The suit contained 10 counts:

· Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment

· Deliberate indifference-violation of due process and the Fourth Amendment

· Deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs through official custom, policy, or practice

· Racial discrimination in violation of the Michigan Civil Rights Act

· Ethnic intimidation

· Intentional infliction of emotional distress

· Assault and battery

· Violation of Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act

· Tortious interference with the right to have a haircut from a licensed cosmetologist or barber

· Violation of the licensing and regulation of cosmetology

Days after the suit was filed, district issued a statement on it.

“We are confident that the facts will prevail given our district’s appropriate and aggressive response to the incident and the findings of the third-party investigation that was conducted,” the district wrote. “We will aggressively defend against these baseless allegations in court and will not allow this to distract us from our mission to provide every child a world-class education that prepares them for college and careers.”

The third-party investigation concluded Mogg did not act with racial bias and thus could keep her job.

“The third-party independent investigation included interviews with and feedback from district personnel, students, families as well as a review of video and photographic evidence including social media posts,” The Mount Pleasant Public Schools Board of Education stated.

The investigation’s key findings were as follows:

· On March 26, an elementary student’s hair was cut by a MPPS employee without parent knowledge and without the knowledge of district administrators.

· Cutting a student’s hair on school grounds either with or without parent permission is a clear violation of school policy.

The board added that the third-party inquiry was performed in addition to an internal review by the school district’s administration. That probe included conducting interviews and reviewing video footage and photographic evidence.

After the haircutting incident, Hoffmeyer removed Jurnee from Ganiard and enrolled her in another school.

Two days before the recent settlement conference, defense counsel filed a motion seeking the case’s dismissal.

“There is no evidence of a racially discriminatory intent, purpose, or motive, or evidence that Plaintiff was denied full and equal enjoyment of goods and services,” attorney Piper wrote. “There is no evidence that Defendants’ actions ‘shocks the conscience’ and did not result in an injury so severe so as to constitute a substantive due process violation under the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Piper also wrote her clients were entitled to qualified immunity.

On a related note, the Michigan House of Representatives in March 2022 passed the CROWN Act in a 235-189 vote to prohibit race-based hair discrimination. The act was sponsored by Rep. Sarah Anthony, D-Lansing, and first introduced in 2019, then reintroduced in February 2021.

If signed into law, the bill would add language to Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act to include hair texture and protective hairstyles such as braids, locks, and twists as “traits historically associated with race.”

The act’s name is a backronym for “Create a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair.” States including California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Tennessee, Virginia, and Washington have adopted the Crown Act as law.

Read more:

Michigan school district ‘confident facts will prevail’ in $1 million racial discrimination lawsuit in girl’s haircutting incident

Father of girl, 7, who had hair cut off by school staffer files $1 million lawsuit alleging racial discrimination

Even as local efforts increase, hair discrimination is still legal in Michigan

Department of Civil Rights ‘deeply concerned’ about Mount Pleasant girl’s haircut by school staffer

Michigan school district says girl, 7, asked to have her hair cut

Michigan girl’s haircut by school staffer ‘modern-day scalping,’ says National Parents Union

If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

X

Opt out of the sale or sharing of personal information

If you opt out, we won’t sell or share your personal information to inform the ads you see. You may still see interest-based ads if your information is sold or shared by other companies or was sold or shared previously.