Connect with us

Should Gay Rights Advocating Tennessee Student Assaulted By Principal Sue?

Published

on

A Tennessee high school student was allegedly assaulted by his principal. Why? Because the kid, one Chris Sigler, had the temerity to continue pushing for the school to establish a gay-straight alliance.

If proven, the principal’s actions would be criminal. But there’s no reason Sigler has to wait and see whether the district attorney will pursue the case – a case which, in any event, won’t directly benefit Sigler. Instead, he might want to file a civil claim against Moser. He potentially has three distinct claims: battery; assault; and the intentional infliction of emotional distress. Here’s a blueprint for his claims, based only on what I’ve read:

In tort law, a defendant commits a battery where he intends to make an unprivileged contact against someone, and contact results. No damages are needed for this tort claim to be successful, because this ancient tort also protects our personal dignity. If Sigler was indeed grabbed, shoved, and chest-bumped, he has a claim.

He also could sue for assault – confusingly, assault means two quite different things under criminal and tort law, and we usually think of assault in the criminal law sense: a physical attack against another person. Under civil (tort) law, though, that’s a battery. Assault, for tort purposes, means that the defendant intends to cause, and causes, the victim to apprehend (not quite the same as fear) imminent contact. Sigler’s mom says she walked in to see Moser “leaning over [her son] and shouting in his face.” That’s an assault – another tort that doesn’t require proof of actual damages, because, again, the law wants to protect people’s dignity against this sort of affront. Allowing such actions is also a deterrent against similar behavior in the future – by this defendant, and by like-minded miscreants.

Finally, Sigler might have a claim for the intentional infliction of emotional distress. This tort requires conduct that is extreme and outrageous, that is at least reckless in causing emotional distress, and that actually does cause severe emotional distress.

Although courts aren’t crazy about this tort (because it’s difficult to draw its boundaries), under certain circumstances it’s entirely appropriate. Recall Albert Snyder’s claim against Fred Phelps’s wackos – a jury awarded him millions for the actions of Westboro Baptist “Church” in disrupting his son’s funeral. (He didn’t end up collecting, thanks to the Supreme Court’s ill-advised ruling that these cretins were protected by the First Amendment; there’s no such issue here.)

I think the emotional distress claim has some traction here. Isn’t a principal pushing and shoving a student, and screaming at him, extreme and outrageous? And why was he doing it, if not to cause fear and emotional distress? If Sigler can prove that severe distress resulted – because this tort does require harm – he can recover for this, as well. And this tort, unlike the others, would examine the whole course of conduct by Moser, not just the incident giving rise to the assault and battery claims.

There might also be a claim against the school district for its actions in allowing the kind of bullying that led students to push for a gay-straight alliance in the first place, and perhaps even for the actions of Moser if he was found to be acting within the scope of his employment.

What might Sigler get out of this, if his damages aren’t great?

Plenty. Courts and juries really disfavor defendants who commit intentional torts. Punitive damages are available to punish people like Moser and to send a message to others that this kind of crap will no longer be tolerated. The publicity that such a suit would generate would draw attention to the unconscionable way that an educator was treating a student, and might have the added benefit of forcing Moser out of his job. And he might end up having to pay Chris Sigler thousands of dollars in actual and (mostly) punitive damages. If the case were proved, such a result would be justice.

As I detailed in this on-line article, I don’t generally favor civil suits as a way of dealing with the problem of bullying. They’re an incomplete, hit-and-miss approach that doesn’t necessarily lead to systemic change. But where a high school principal is himself the bully? By all means: Sue him. And get him out of there.

 
Were he born 10,000 years ago, John Culhane would not have survived to adulthood; he has no useful, practical skills. He is a law professor who writes about various and sundry topics, including: disaster compensation; tort law; public health law; literature; science; sports; his own personal life (when he can bear the humanity); and, especially, LGBT rights and issues. He teaches at the Widener University School of Law and is a Senior Fellow at the Thomas Jefferson School of Population Health.

He is also a contributor to Slate Magazine, and writes his own eclectic blog. You can follow him on Facebook and Twitter if you’re blessed with lots of time.

John Culhane lives in the Powelton Village area of Philadelphia with his partner David and their twin daughters, Courtnee and Alexa. Each month, he awaits the third Saturday evening for the neighborhood Wine Club gathering.
 

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

DOJ Blasted for Taking Epstein Investigation Orders From Trump

Published

3 hours ago

on

November 14, 2025

By

Attorney General Pam Bondi quickly — and publicly — agreed to fulfill President Donald Trump’s request that she use the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI to investigate Democrats and corporations that may have had ties to deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Trump on Friday declared that Epstein is the “Democrat’s problem” and not Republicans’, then called for the DOJ, FBI, and Bondi “to investigate Jeffrey Epstein’s involvement and relationship with Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, Reid Hoffman, J.P. Morgan, Chase, and many other people and institutions, to determine what was going on with them, and him.”

The New York Times reported that the “inquiry appeared to be retribution for the renewed focus on his own ties to Mr. Epstein.”

Just hours later, Bondi agreed.

READ MORE: Trump Stumbles Over ‘God Bless America’ Lyrics at Veterans Day Ceremony

“Thank you, Mr. President. SDNY U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton is one of the most capable and trusted prosecutors in the country, and I’ve asked him to take the lead. As with all matters, the Department will pursue this with urgency and integrity to deliver answers to the American people,” she wrote.

The New York Times called Bondi’s acquiescence “a stark demonstration of her willingness to surrender the traditional independence of the Justice Department to serve Trump’s personal political agenda.”

The Times also reported that Bondi assigning the investigation to the Southern District of New York “could create significant conflict within an office known for its investigative might and independence.”

NBC News senior White House correspondent Garrett Haake reported that “In July, the FBI and DOJ wrote in their memo that they were not releasing the Epstein files in part because ‘We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.’ – and now, after a push from the President, here we are.”

Legal experts and other critics denounced the moves.

READ MORE: Democrat Warns How Trump Could Engineer a Path to Stay in Power After 2028

“Count the ways they’re corrupting DOJ,” wrote former longtime U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance, now an MSNBC legal analyst and professor of law. “Presidents don’t direct AG’s to open criminal cases, especially ones designating only Dems for investigation when POTUS himself is involved. DOJ doesn’t publicize criminal investigations & the AG definitely doesn’t assign them on Twitter.”

MSNBC executive producer Kyle Griffin asked, “If this investigation was legitimate, why wasn’t this investigation opened months ago? If this investigation was legitimate, why isn’t everyone mentioned in Epstein’s emails being investigated?”

Republican U.S. Rep. Don Bacon added, “When the president gives orders to Pam Bondi and our law enforcement arms of the federal government, it undercuts the credibility of our law enforcement.”

“I don’t think it’s appropriate for him to do it. I would ask him not to do that, because all it does is taint our legal system,” Bacon concluded.

Responding to Bondi’s remarks, civil liberties and national security journalist Marcy Wheeler wrote: “Unabashed corruption.”

“This has absolutely nothing to do with crime,” she stated. “Pam Bondi is just debasing her entire department for her liege so that she can stave off Congress from releasing whatever damning information she has on Trump. It’s a cover-up pure and simple and merely an indication of Trump’s desperation.”

READ MORE: ‘Mask Comes Off’: Trump Branded an ‘Elitist’ as Base Scrutinizes ‘America First’ Focus

 

Image via Reuters

 

Continue Reading

News

Democrat Warns How Trump Could Engineer a Path to Stay in Power After 2028

Published

5 hours ago

on

November 14, 2025

By

One of Capitol Hill’s most prominent — and most vocal — Democrats is warning about what he says are the ways President Donald Trump could try to remain in power beyond his current term.

President Trump has long hinted that he is interested in a third term, and even has had red “Trump 2028” caps as part of his merchandise offering. And while he recently appeared to put to rest questions about a third term — prohibited under a plain reading of the U.S. Constitution — by saying he has been told he cannot run, doubts among some still linger.

U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) on Friday shared what he suggested were possible ways Trump could try to stay in power past 2028 — and warned he thinks it’s possible that he will.

“I think he is right now trying to scheme a way to be able to stay,” Senator Murphy told The Bulwark’s Sam Stein at the 2025 Texas Tribune Festival.

READ MORE: ‘Retribution’: Trump Calls for Epstein Inquiry Into Democrats

“I think you have a potential, two potential Supreme Court vacancies coming up,” Murphy noted, “and it may be very important for him to install folks on the Supreme Court who may be willing to entertain radical ideas about the restrictions on the Constitution, about a third term.”

Murphy continued with an alternative theory, suggesting the President Trump “may just be interested in installing Donald Trump Jr. or another family member in the White House.”

But then the Connecticut Democrat served up a warning.

“Whatever he’s planning on doing, he can’t get away with it unless he destroys the ability of the people to speak their mind in elections because he and his party are going to lose in 2026 and 2028 unless he’s successful in rigging the election,” Murphy declared.

He vowed, “we’re going to do everything in our power, and we need to order all of our advocacy in the United States Senate and the House to stop him from doing it.”

READ MORE: ‘Mask Comes Off’: Trump Branded an ‘Elitist’ as Base Scrutinizes ‘America First’ Focus

Murphy continued with his warnings.

“I don’t think anybody with ambition right now should be planning on running for president in 2028 because we may not have a free and fair election in 2028,” Murphy declared. “We all have to be in the business of saving our democracy right now.”

“I do think we have to, all of us,” he added, “be traveling the entire country, whether it be an early primary state or not, to build this political resistance movement.”

READ MORE: Trump Stumbles Over ‘God Bless America’ Lyrics at Veterans Day Ceremony

Continue Reading

News

‘Retribution’: Trump Calls for Epstein Inquiry Into Democrats

Published

7 hours ago

on

November 14, 2025

By

President Donald Trump is intensifying his efforts to thwart attempts to force the release of the Epstein files, even as the House moves toward a vote that could send disclosure legislation to his desk for his signature — or veto — further heightening scrutiny of his past ties to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

On Friday, the president announced he will ask the U.S. Department of Justice, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation “to investigate Jeffrey Epstein’s involvement and relationship with Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, Reid Hoffman, J.P. Morgan, Chase, and many other people and institutions, to determine what was going on with them, and him.”

The New York Times reported that the “inquiry appeared to be retribution for the renewed focus on his own ties to Mr. Epstein.”

After White House officials reportedly held a Situation Room meeting with Republican Congresswoman Lauren Boebert on Wednesday to convince her — unsuccessfully — to remove her name from the discharge petition, the president on Friday took a different tack, appearing both to try to wash his hands of the entire ordeal while refocusing attention on his political opponents and others.

“Epstein was a Democrat, and he is the Democrat’s problem, not the Republican’s problem!” Trump railed on his Truth Social website, while attacking Democrats.

“The Democrats are doing everything in their withering power to push the Epstein Hoax again, despite the DOJ releasing 50,000 pages of documents, in order to deflect from all of their bad policies and losses, especially the SHUTDOWN EMBARRASSMENT, where their party is in total disarray, and has no idea what to do,” Trump alleged.

“Some Weak Republicans have fallen into their clutches because they are soft and foolish,” the president continued. “Epstein was a Democrat, and he is the Democrat’s problem, not the Republican’s problem!”

“Ask Bill Clinton, Reid Hoffman, and Larry Summers about Epstein, they know all about him, don’t waste your time with Trump. I have a Country to run!”

Deadline on Friday noted that “Since the email release, Trump has avoided answering reporters’ questions about Epstein.”

Pointing to Trump’s Friday remarks, Politico’s Kyle Cheney remarked, “Trump again pleads with Republicans to stop talking about Epstein. The pressure hasn’t worked as well as it usually does. Also, the emails show Epstein was politically amorphous, deriding Ds just as much as Rs. And these latest emails were from the Epstein estate, not DOJ.”

Attorney Aaron Parnas added, “I guarantee you if Donald Trump truly believed Epstein was the ‘Democrat’s problem,’ he would have released all of the files by now.”

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.