Henderson et al v. School District of Springfield R-12 et al

Filing 30

ORDER on the Court's own motion striking paragraphs 4, 5, 9, and 23 of Plaintiffs' Complaint 1 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Signed on 11/17/2021 by District Judge M. Douglas Harpool. (Maerz, Mary)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BROOKE HENDERSON and JENNIFER
LUMLEY.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF SPRINGFIELD
R-12, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 6:21-cv-03219-MDH

ORDER
Before the Court is the Court’s own motion to strike portions of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
(Doc. 1). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides that “upon motion . . . the court may order
stricken from any pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or
scandalous matter.” Judges have “liberal discretion” in striking pleadings under Rule 12(f). BJC
Health Sys. v. Columbia Cas. Co., 478 F.3d 908, 917 (8th Cir. 2007) (citing Nationwide Ins. Co.
v. Cent. Mo. Elec. Coop., Inc., 278 F.3d 742, 748 (8th Cir.2001)). Several paragraphs contained in
Plaintiffs’ Complaint serve only to argue or attempt to advance the political or philosophical
ideologies of Plaintiffs:
4. Although “equity” seems like a relatively benign cause—sometimes
euphemistically called “social justice,” “diversity and inclusion,” or “culturally
responsive teaching”—it is actually code-speak for a much bigger and more
dangerous picture: the practice of conditioning individuals to see each other’s skin
color first and foremost, then pitting different racial groups against each other.
5. Equity is very different from equality. Equity is about so-called fairness. Equality
is the principle proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, defended in the
Civil War, and codified into law with the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to
Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Equality strives for equal opportunity and colorblind treatment under the law, while
equity in practice is an official license to punish individuals based on skin color…
1

Case 6:21-cv-03219-MDH Document 30 Filed 11/17/21 Page 1 of 2

9. Slide after slide, image after image, SPS promotes and reinforces a view of race
essentialism that divides Americans into oppressor and oppressed based solely on
their skin color. SPS sets up a dichotomy between white and non-white races that
depicts whiteness as inherently racist and a tool of oppression…
23. Fostering racial identities, promoting the idea that they are in conflict, and
perpetuating divisive stereotypes pits individuals against one another based on the
color of their skin. SPS’s practices take its employees and students further from the
truth and reconciliation. Instead, the district’s practices divide them into two
worlds: the oppressors and the oppressed. They teach them that their whole identity
comes from the color of their skin. They teach them to discriminate against each
other. They teach them not only how to be racist, but that they should be racist.
(Doc. 1, Plaintiff’s Complaint).
Plaintiffs’ Complaint asserts claims for relief against the Springfield Public School District
(“SPS”) under the First Amendment based on the doctrines of compelled speech and content and
viewpoint discrimination. The Complaint further asserts a claim of unconstitutional condition of
employment against SPS for requiring employees to attend and participate in “equity training”.
Paragraphs 4, 5, 9, and 23 above have no bearing on whether SPS violated Plaintiffs’ First
Amendment rights. Instead, Plaintiffs appear to use these paragraphs only to imply that SPS’ views
on racism, racial discrimination, and related issues are incorrect and that Plaintiffs’ own differing
views are correct. Such statements are purely political advocacy and are therefore clearly
immaterial and impertinent as required under Rule 12(f). Therefore, it is ORDERED that
paragraphs 4, 5, 9, and 23 are stricken from Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1).

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 17, 2021

/s/ Douglas Harpool______
DOUGLAS HARPOOL
United States District Judge

2

Case 6:21-cv-03219-MDH Document 30 Filed 11/17/21 Page 2 of 2