Cheney School Hazing Lawsuit: What the Mead School District Liability Ruling Means for Families
Your son went to football camp at Eastern Washington University in Cheney. He came home changed. Maybe he told you what happened. Maybe you found out from a video circulating through the community — other players holding your child down, assaulting him with a massage gun while someone filmed it on a phone. Maybe you learned that racial slurs followed him for months after. And when you asked the school district for answers, the superintendent stood before the community and said the investigation found no racial motivation — even though the district’s own compliance officer had documented a concerning and persistent pattern of racist comments and discriminatory harassment, and even though that finding was deleted from the final report before the public ever saw it.
You are not crazy. A Spokane County Superior Court judge has now confirmed, twice, what your family experienced. The court found Mead School District liable for racial discrimination — first in March 2026, in a case involving a white player who was assaulted after trying to protect Black teammates, and again on May 13, 2026, in a ruling that found the district liable for racial discrimination against the Black student-athletes who were targeted. Two of the four Black students have already settled their cases. The remaining cases are heading to trial in June 2026. A separate federal lawsuit seeking $50 million also names Eastern Washington University.
We are writing this page for you — the parent sitting at a kitchen table in Mead or Cheney or anywhere in Spokane County, trying to understand what just happened in court and what it means for your child. This is not a news article. This is a legal analysis from a trial team that handles hazing and child-injury cases, written so you can see the architecture of what happened, what the law says about it, what the evidence shows, what it is worth, and what you should do next. If we are not the right fit for your family, we will tell you. The consultation is free. The call is 1-888-ATTY-911. We answer 24 hours a day — not an answering service, a live person.
What the Court Found: Two Liability Rulings That Change Everything
A judge finding a school district liable on partial summary judgment is not a common outcome. It means the court looked at the evidence and decided that no reasonable jury could find the district NOT liable — the facts are so established that liability is decided as a matter of law. Judge Annette Plese did this twice, in two separate cases, in the Spokane County Superior Court that sits at the Spokane County Courthouse.
The first ruling came in March 2026, in a case involving a white Mead High School student who was assaulted after he tried to protect Black teammates from hazing. The court found the district liable. The second ruling came on May 13, 2026, in the cases of the Black student-athletes who were the primary targets. The court found the district liable for racial discrimination.
These rulings transform the trial scheduled for June 2026. The question is no longer whether the district is responsible. The question is how much the district must pay — in compensatory damages for the harm done to these young people, and potentially in punitive damages for the cover-up that followed. Two of the four Black students have already settled their cases, which confirms the district has been paying to resolve claims and establishes a baseline for what the remaining cases are worth.
What Happened at the EWU Football Camps: 2022 and 2023
The assaults occurred at summer football camps held at Eastern Washington University in Cheney, Washington — a public university in the Washington state higher education system, located approximately 15 miles southwest of Spokane. Mead High School football players attended these camps as part of a school-sponsored athletic program. The coaching staff was responsible for supervising student-athletes during these overnight events.
At both the 2022 and 2023 camps, players pinned down teammates and assaulted them with a massage gun. Other players recorded the incidents on cellphones. Those videos then circulated through the community — through the Mead community north of Spokane, through the broader Spokane County area, through social networks that ensured the humiliation extended far beyond the camp itself.
The recurrence is critical. The 2022 camp incidents should have triggered prevention measures for the 2023 camp. They did not. The same pattern of assault happened again. That recurrence is the backbone of the deliberate indifference claim — the district knew, or should have known, that this was happening, and failed to prevent it from happening again.
Four of the five student-athlete plaintiffs are Black. The lawsuits allege that racial slurs were directed at Black players in the months following the assaults. The district’s own Title IX and HIB compliance officer, Josh Westermann, documented what the court filings describe as a “concerning and persistent pattern of racist comments and discriminatory harassment” in the athletic program. That finding was in the original investigative report. It was deleted before the public saw it.
The Cover-Up: How the Superintendent Altered the Investigation
This is the part that separates this case from an ordinary hazing lawsuit. Superintendent Travis Hanson allegedly deleted all references to race and racial targeting from the district’s final investigative report — the report prepared by compliance officer Josh Westermann. Hanson then stood before the school community and publicly stated that the investigation found no racial motivation. Court filings characterize that statement as demonstrably false — the district’s own investigator had found exactly the opposite, and the superintendent removed those findings before making the public statement.
The superintendent then invoked attorney-client privilege at his deposition to avoid explaining why he altered the report. The privilege assertions themselves are now the subject of litigation — whether the superintendent selectively disclosed portions of the investigation while withholding others, potentially waiving the privilege he later claimed.
The Mead School Board, which is the superintendent’s sole employer and the body responsible for oversight of district policies, has declined to comment publicly on potential discipline. Board members Alan Nolan and Michael Cannon have been silent. That silence is itself evidence — it raises questions about what the board knew, when it knew about the superintendent’s alterations, and whether the board participated in or condoned the cover-up.
Here is why the cover-up matters legally, not just morally. Under the deliberate indifference standard that governs institutional civil rights claims, a school district that receives reports of racial harassment, confirms through its own investigator that a pattern exists, and then actively suppresses those findings rather than responding has met the standard. The district was not merely negligent. It was deliberately indifferent to known harm. And the superintendent’s deletion of racial findings from the official report, followed by false public statements, is the kind of conscious disregard for the victims’ civil rights that drives punitive damages — damages meant to punish, not just to compensate.
Washington Law: HIB, Title VI, and the Duty That Was Broken
Washington law does not leave school districts to decide for themselves how to handle harassment, intimidation, and bullying. The state requires every school district to adopt and enforce anti-harassment, intimidation, and bullying policies under Washington’s HIB statutes. When an investigation reveals civil rights implications — when the harassment involves racial discrimination — the district is required to follow discrimination complaint procedures, not narrow the investigation to a different framework.
Washington’s HIB compliance statute requires school districts to adopt policies prohibiting harassment, intimidation, and bullying and to follow prescribed complaint and investigation procedures.
The superintendent abandoned those mandatory HIB procedures and proceeded exclusively under a narrower Title IX framework. Title IX governs sex-based discrimination complaints in education. It does not cover racial discrimination. By choosing Title IX and dropping HIB, the district narrowed the scope of its own investigation and excluded the racial dimension that its own compliance officer had documented.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides the federal foundation:
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits racial discrimination in any program receiving federal financial assistance, which applies to both Mead School District and Eastern Washington University as public educational institutions.
Both Mead School District and Eastern Washington University receive federal financial assistance. Both are bound by Title VI. The deliberate indifference standard applies — when a school district has knowledge of racial harassment and responds in a way that is clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances, it is liable under Title VI.
Washington’s Law Against Discrimination provides a parallel state-law basis to the federal Title VI claims, prohibiting racial discrimination in public accommodations and education. This means the plaintiffs have both federal and state civil rights claims, each with its own damages framework.
For the governmental tort claims dimension: Washington requires a formal tort claim to be filed with the school district before any lawsuit can be filed. There is a statutory waiting period — the claim is deemed denied after a defined period if the district does not act on it. This is a procedural prerequisite that must be met before the courthouse door opens. If your family is considering a claim, this notice requirement is one of the first things we check.
The Deadline: How Long You Have to File
Washington’s statute of limitations for personal injury claims gives you three years to file suit. That is the general rule. But three things complicate it in a school hazing case:
First, claims against a public school district in Washington require a formal tort claim to be filed with the district before any lawsuit can be filed. This is not optional — it is a jurisdictional prerequisite. Miss it, and the courthouse door stays locked no matter how strong the case is.
Second, for a child, the clock generally does not start until their eighteenth birthday. This is the minority tolling rule, and it is critical in hazing cases where the victims are minors. A fifteen-year-old who was assaulted at football camp does not have three years from the date of the assault — the three-year clock generally starts when the child turns eighteen. But this tolling rule has limits and exceptions, and the specific facts of your child’s case must be reviewed by an attorney in your state to confirm the exact deadline.
Third, the discovery rule may apply in cases where the full extent of the harm — or the fact that the district covered up the racial dimension — was not known at the time of the assault. The clock may start when you discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, the injury and its cause. This is particularly relevant here, where the superintendent’s deletion of racial findings from the investigative report meant families may not have known the full truth for months or years.
The practical bottom line: do not wait. The evidence in this case is on a clock, and the deadline to file is shorter than most families realize. A free consultation with an attorney costs nothing and tells you exactly where the clock stands for your child.
Who Is Responsible: The Defendant Map
A hazing case at a school-sponsored athletic camp is rarely one defendant. It is a stack of entities and individuals, each with a different role and a different exposure:
Mead School District is the primary institutional defendant. The district had a duty to protect students from foreseeable harm, to comply with mandatory HIB procedures, to honor its Title VI obligations, and to respond honestly to the community. The court has already found the district liable on partial summary judgment for racial discrimination. The district is also directly liable for the superintendent’s actions within the scope of his employment.
Superintendent Travis Hanson faces individual-capacity liability for the deliberate alteration of the Westermann investigative report — deleting racial discrimination findings, making false public statements about the investigation, and abandoning mandatory HIB procedures. His actions may constitute deliberate indifference and potential spoliation of evidence. His invocation of attorney-client privilege at deposition to avoid explaining the alterations is itself a litigation issue.
The Mead School Board has oversight responsibility for district policies and for the superintendent as the board’s sole employee. Board members declined to comment on potential discipline, raising questions about board accountability and failure to act. The board’s communications — emails, texts, meeting minutes — may show what the board knew and when.
Eastern Washington University is named in the federal lawsuit as the venue where the football camps and hazing occurred. EWU may face premises liability for failure to supervise or prevent assaults on university property during district-sponsored events. As a Washington state public university, EWU’s sovereign immunity considerations add a layer of complexity to the federal case.
The Mead High School football coaching staff was responsible for supervising student-athletes at the overnight camps. Coaches allegedly failed to protect players and failed to report assaults. The duty to supervise during school-sponsored overnight athletic events is clear, and the failure to intervene is a negligent supervision claim.
The individual student-athletes who committed the assaults face direct tort liability for battery, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and racial harassment. They were referred to a diversion program rather than prosecuted. That diversion referral does not preclude civil liability — it simply means the criminal justice system chose an alternative path. The civil case is separate and independent.
The Evidence Clock: What Exists and How Fast It Disappears
Every piece of evidence in this case is on a timer. Some of it is already gone. Some of it is about to be. Here is what exists, who holds it, and how fast it can legally die:
The original unredacted Westermann investigative report is the single most important document in the case. It proves the district’s own compliance officer documented racial targeting and that the superintendent deleted those findings. The question is whether the original version survives — in district records, in Westermann’s files, or in discovery production. Any remaining copies must be preserved immediately. A litigation hold letter is the first thing we send.
The cellphone videos of the hazing assaults are direct evidence of the physical assaults, the number of participants, the racial dynamics, and the recording and circulation pattern. These videos have already circulated in the community, but they must be formally collected, authenticated, and preserved for trial. The metadata — timestamps, device identifiers, chain of custody — must be established by a forensic media expert. Without proper authentication, the videos may not be admissible.
Hanson’s deposition testimony and the attorney-client privilege assertions reveal the superintendent’s justification for deleting racial findings and whether attorneys directed the alteration. The privilege disputes must be resolved before trial. Any privilege log or in-camera review materials must be preserved.
School board communications — emails, texts, and meeting minutes may show board knowledge of racial harassment, the board’s response to Hanson’s report alterations, and any discussions of discipline or cover-up. Board members have already declined to comment publicly, which suggests the content is sensitive. These communications must be requested through targeted discovery before the trial date.
The 2022 camp incident records are critical because they establish notice. The 2022 incidents should have triggered prevention measures for 2023. The recurrence at the 2023 camp is the heart of the deliberate indifference claim. Pattern evidence supports punitive damages and defeats any claim of isolated occurrence. These records must be obtained through discovery before trial.
HIB and Title IX complaint records and training documentation establish whether the district followed mandatory procedures, whether coaches were trained to prevent hazing, and whether prior complaints were properly handled. School records are typically retained per state retention schedules but must be formally requested before destruction cycles apply.
Eastern Washington University camp facility records show who controlled the premises, what supervision was provided, and whether university staff had any awareness of the incidents. These are relevant to the federal claims against EWU.
District insurance policies and coverage declarations determine available coverage limits, applicable exclusions, and whether the cover-up triggers any coverage defenses. These are essential for settlement valuation and must be obtained through discovery in both state and federal cases.
The preservation letter is the mechanism. The day you call is the day the letter goes out — to the school district, to the superintendent, to the school board, to Eastern Washington University, to the coaching staff — ordering every one of them to freeze every record, every email, every text, every video, every log, every report. Once that letter is on file, destruction becomes spoliation. Spoliation has consequences — an adverse-inference instruction that allows the jury to assume the lost evidence was as bad as the plaintiff says, sanctions, and in some cases a separate claim for the destruction itself.
What This Case Is Worth: Honest Numbers
The established liability findings via partial summary judgment in two cases significantly change the valuation. The question is no longer whether the district will pay — the court has already decided that. The question is how much.
The case value range we assess for the aggregate remaining cases is $3 million to $30 million. Per-plaintiff trial value likely ranges from $1 million to $8 million depending on individual injury severity and punitive presentation. The $50 million federal demand is aspirational but reflects the aggregate exposure across all plaintiffs and all theories.
Here is what drives the value up: the racial discrimination dimension, the superintendent’s documented cover-up, the viral circulation of assault videos, the pattern across two consecutive camps, and the deliberate indifference finding. The cover-up is the punitive damages engine — it demonstrates conscious disregard for the victims’ civil rights and active concealment of known harm.
Here is what could bring it down: potential governmental liability limitations under Washington law, the possibility that insurance coverage limits cap collectible recovery, and the reality that settlements in the remaining cases could occur below trial verdict projections. Two prior settlements with the district confirm the district has been paying to resolve claims, which establishes a baseline — but also means the district’s insurer is actively engaged and evaluating exposure.
The damages categories in these cases include:
Economic damages — medical and psychological treatment costs for physical and emotional injuries, potential costs for transfer to alternative schooling, and ongoing mental health counseling. These are the costs you can put on a spreadsheet.
Non-economic damages — the physical pain of the battery, the severe emotional distress from racial discrimination, the public humiliation from circulated cellphone videos, the institutional betrayal of a school district that denied the racial targeting the victims experienced, and the loss of trust in educational institutions. These are the human losses no receipt can measure.
Punitive damages — the cover-up is the aggravator. When a superintendent deletes racial findings from an official investigative report, makes false public statements denying racial motivation, and invokes privilege to avoid explaining the alteration, that is the kind of conscious disregard that puts punishment damages on the table. Whether punitive damages are available and in what amount depends on the specific claims and the applicable law — this is a question we analyze carefully for each case.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. The numbers above are an honest assessment based on the established liability findings, the cover-up evidence, and the pattern of conduct — not a promise.
The Medicine: Racial Trauma and What It Does to a Young Person
The injuries in this case are not the kind that show up on an X-ray. They are the kind that show up across a dinner table — in a child who has changed, who flinches at certain sounds, who no longer trusts the adults who were supposed to protect him, who has seen himself assaulted on a video that his classmates watched.
Post-traumatic stress disorder is a formal medical diagnosis, not a label a lawyer picks. The DSM-5 — the diagnostic manual every psychiatrist in the country uses — sets out eight separate criteria for PTSD, and a survivor has to meet every one: the traumatic event itself, the intrusive memories and nightmares that follow, the avoidance of reminders, the negative changes in mood and thinking, the alterations in arousal and reactivity, symptoms lasting more than a month, functional impairment, and the symptoms not being attributable to another cause.
Out of every kind of traumatic event researchers have measured, assault is among the most likely to produce lasting PTSD. When you add the racial dimension — being targeted because of your race, hearing slurs in the months that follow, knowing the school district’s own investigator confirmed a persistent pattern of racist harassment and then watched the superintendent delete that finding — the harm compounds. Racial trauma is a recognized psychological injury with its own clinical literature. It is not the same as ordinary PTSD. It carries an additional dimension: the betrayal of institutions that were supposed to protect you, the isolation of being a Black student in a predominantly white community where the harm was minimized, and the public humiliation of knowing the assault was recorded and shared.
The proof problem is real. The defense will say the injury is invisible. They will point to a clean physical exam and argue there is no objective evidence of harm. But the medicine answers that — PTSD is diagnosed through structured clinical assessment using validated instruments, through the testimony of treating clinicians who have spent hours with the child, through the observations of family members who knew the person before and see the difference now. The injury is real, it is diagnosable, and it is compensable.
The lifetime cost of this kind of trauma is not a single doctor’s bill. It is years of therapy, the potential impact on educational trajectory and earning capacity, the cost of a childhood rerouted by what happened at a football camp, and the daily toll on a family that is trying to hold it together while the school district that failed their child told the community it did nothing wrong.
The Defense Playbook: What to Expect and How to Counter It
The district’s defense lawyers and their insurance carrier have a playbook. Here are the plays you should expect, and the counter to each:
Play 1: “Boys being boys.” The defense will try to minimize the hazing as normal adolescent behavior — roughhousing that went too far, not a serious assault. The counter is that Washington’s HIB law exists precisely because the legislature recognized that this conduct is not normal and is not acceptable. Pinning down a teammate and assaulting him with a device while others film it is not a prank. It is battery. And the court has already found the district liable.
Play 2: “Isolated incident.” The defense will argue this was a one-time occurrence, not a pattern. The counter is the 2022 and 2023 camps. The recurrence is documented. The 2022 incidents should have triggered prevention measures. They did not. That is the definition of deliberate indifference — not a single failure, but a pattern of failure.
Play 3: “No racial motivation.” Despite the superintendent’s deletion of racial findings, the defense may still argue race was not a factor. The counter is the district’s own compliance officer documented a “concerning and persistent pattern of racist comments and discriminatory harassment.” The original report existed before it was altered. The court has already found the district liable for racial discrimination. The finding is established.
Play 4: “We followed procedures.” The defense will argue the district responded appropriately by investigating. The counter is that the superintendent abandoned mandatory HIB procedures, narrowed the investigation to Title IX, deleted racial findings from the report, and made false public statements. Following procedures means following all of them — not just the ones that produce the answer you want.
Play 5: “Governmental immunity and damage caps.” The defense will argue that recovery is limited by governmental liability rules. The counter is that the deliberate indifference finding and the cover-up may pierce immunity defenses, and Washington does not impose a general statutory cap on non-economic damages in personal injury cases. The specific governmental liability limitations must be analyzed, but the pattern of conscious disregard is the strongest argument against any limitation on recovery.
Play 6: Blaming the victims. The defense may try to argue the victims participated voluntarily or assumed the risk. The counter is that the intentional nature of the assaults, the power dynamics of a football team, and the court’s established liability findings make this defense extremely difficult. Washington follows pure comparative negligence, but its application is limited here — the assaults were intentional, the racial targeting was documented, and the court has already decided who is responsible.
How the Case Is Built: The Proof Story
Here is how a case like this is actually won — the chronological walk from the day you call to the day a jury speaks:
Week one: The preservation demand goes out. Letters go to the school district, the superintendent, the school board, Eastern Washington University, and the coaching staff, ordering every one of them to freeze every record — the original unredacted Westermann report, the cellphone videos, the HIB and Title IX complaint records, the 2022 camp incident records, the school board communications, the district insurance policies. The privilege log surrounding attorney advice to delete racial findings is identified and targeted. Every piece of evidence that can legally disappear is locked down before it can be destroyed.
Discovery phase: The records come out in discovery. The original unredacted Westermann report — if it survives — is the centerpiece. The school board emails and texts reveal what the board knew and when. The 2022 camp incident records establish the notice pattern. The coaching staff deposition reveals what the coaches saw, what they reported, and what they did not do. The superintendent’s deposition — if the privilege fight is won — reveals why he deleted the racial findings and who told him to.
Expert witnesses: A clinical psychologist specializing in racial trauma and adolescent mental health quantifies the emotional distress damages — not with a guess, but with structured clinical assessment and validated diagnostic instruments. An educational administration expert testifies on HIB compliance standards and deliberate indifference — what the district was required to do, what it did instead, and how the abandonment of mandatory procedures was a choice, not an oversight. A forensic media expert authenticates and analyzes the circulated cellphone videos — establishing metadata, chain of custody, and the circulation pattern that extended the harm beyond the camp.
The trial: Because the court has already found the district liable on partial summary judgment, the trial is not about whether the district is responsible. It is about what the harm is worth. The jury hears about the assaults, the racial slurs, the videos that circulated through the community, the superintendent’s deletion of racial findings, and the false public statements. The cover-up is presented as conscious disregard for the victims’ civil rights — not mere negligence, but a deliberate choice to conceal known harm. The number at the end is built from all of it: the medical costs, the therapy, the lost educational trajectory, the pain, the humiliation, the betrayal, and the punishment the jury decides the district deserves for what it did and what it hid.
The First 72 Hours: What Your Family Should Do Now
If your child was hazed, assaulted, or subjected to racial harassment at a school athletic program — at Mead, at EWU, at any school-sponsored camp in Washington — here is what you should do in the first 72 hours:
Get your child to a qualified mental health professional. The injury in these cases is often invisible to a physical exam but devastating and lasting. A clinical psychologist or licensed counselor who works with trauma in adolescents can begin the assessment, start the treatment, and create the contemporaneous medical record that proves the harm. Do not wait. The earlier the documentation, the stronger the case.
Do not sign anything from the school district or its insurance carrier. A release, a settlement offer, a “just sign here and we’ll handle it” form — none of it. Anything you sign can be used to eliminate your child’s right to pursue a claim. If someone from the district or its insurer has already asked you to sign something, do not sign it. Bring it to a lawyer.
Do not give a recorded statement. The district’s insurance carrier or its attorney may call and ask you to “just tell us what happened” on a recording. That recording is built to be quoted against you. You have no obligation to give a recorded statement to the other side’s insurance company. Politely decline and call a lawyer.
Do not post about the case on social media. Everything you post can be used by the defense. Do not discuss the incidents, the district, the superintendent, the assaults, or the legal case on any public platform. Tell your child the same thing. Screenshots are forever.
Preserve every piece of evidence you have. If your child has text messages, videos, screenshots, or any documentation of the assaults, the racial harassment, or the district’s response — save it, back it up, and do not delete anything. If other parents have evidence, identify them. Do not contact the district or opposing counsel directly — let your attorney do that.
Call an attorney. The consultation is free. The call is 1-888-ATTY-911. We answer 24 hours a day. The first thing we do is send the preservation letters that freeze the evidence before it can disappear. The second thing we do is evaluate the deadline for your child’s claim. The third thing we do is begin building the case. You do not have to decide whether to file a lawsuit on the first call — you just have to protect your child’s rights before the clock and the evidence run out.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can you sue a school district for hazing in Washington?
Yes. Washington law allows civil claims against school districts for negligent supervision, failure to protect students from foreseeable harm, and violations of anti-harassment, intimidation, and bullying requirements. When the hazing involves racial discrimination, federal Title VI claims and state Law Against Discrimination claims add additional causes of action. A Spokane County judge has already found Mead School District liable for racial discrimination on partial summary judgment, which means the court determined the district’s liability as a matter of law.
What is the deadline for filing a school hazing lawsuit in Washington?
Washington’s statute of limitations for personal injury claims generally gives you three years to file suit. However, claims against a public school district require a formal tort claim to be filed with the district first, and there is a statutory waiting period before a lawsuit can be filed. For a child, the three-year clock generally does not start until their eighteenth birthday. The discovery rule may also apply if the full extent of the harm or the district’s cover-up was not known at the time. The exact deadline depends on the specific facts of your child’s case and must be confirmed by an attorney.
What damages are available for racial discrimination in schools?
Damages in school racial discrimination cases include economic damages (medical and psychological treatment costs, potential transfer costs, ongoing counseling), non-economic damages (pain and suffering, emotional distress, public humiliation, institutional betrayal), and potentially punitive damages when the institution’s conduct demonstrates conscious disregard for the victims’ civil rights. The superintendent’s deletion of racial findings from the investigative report and his false public statements are the kind of evidence that supports a punitive damages argument. Washington does not impose a general statutory cap on non-economic damages in personal injury cases, though claims against governmental entities may face statutory liability limitations.
What happens when a school covers up hazing investigation findings?
When a school official deletes racial discrimination findings from an investigative report and makes false public statements denying racial motivation, that conduct has multiple legal consequences. It is evidence of deliberate indifference — the institution knew about the harm and chose to suppress it rather than respond. It is a punitive damages aggravator — it demonstrates conscious disregard for the victims’ civil rights. It may constitute spoliation of evidence — the destruction or alteration of evidence relevant to a legal claim. And it may trigger separate legal claims for the cover-up itself, independent of the underlying assaults.
Can a school superintendent be held personally liable for altering an investigation?
A superintendent who deliberately alters an official investigative report to delete racial discrimination findings, makes false public statements about the investigation, and abandons mandatory compliance procedures can face individual-capacity liability. The legal theories include deliberate indifference to known harassment, potential spoliation of evidence, and violations of the victims’ civil rights. The superintendent’s invocation of attorney-client privilege to avoid explaining the alterations at deposition is itself a litigation issue that must be resolved before trial.
What is Washington’s HIB law and how does it apply to hazing cases?
Washington requires every school district to adopt and enforce anti-harassment, intimidation, and bullying policies under state HIB statutes. When an investigation reveals civil rights implications — such as racial discrimination — the district is required to follow discrimination complaint procedures. The superintendent’s abandonment of HIB procedures in favor of a narrower Title IX framework violated this mandate. The physical assaults at the football camps — pinning down teammates and assaulting them with a device — constitute hazing as defined by Washington’s anti-hazing law, and the district failed to prevent or adequately respond to hazing at school-sponsored athletic camps.
Can you sue a university where school-sponsored camps are held?
Yes. Eastern Washington University is named in a separate federal lawsuit seeking $50 million as the venue where the football camps and hazing occurred. EWU may face premises liability for failure to supervise or prevent assaults on university property during district-sponsored events. As a Washington state public university, EWU’s sovereign immunity considerations add complexity to the federal case, but sovereign immunity is not absolute — it has exceptions and limitations that an attorney can evaluate based on the specific facts.
What if the students who committed the assault were referred to diversion instead of prosecution?
The diversion referral instead of prosecution does not preclude civil liability. Criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits are separate systems with different standards, different burdens of proof, and different remedies. The criminal justice system chose diversion — an alternative to prosecution. The civil system allows the victims to pursue compensation for the harm done, regardless of what the criminal system decided. The diversion referral also raises questions about whether all mandatory reporting obligations were met — whether school officials were required to report the assaults to law enforcement or child protective services and whether those obligations were fulfilled.
How long do school investigation records last?
School records are typically retained per state retention schedules, but the specific retention period depends on the type of record and the applicable state law. The original unredacted investigative report, the HIB and Title IX complaint records, the 2022 camp incident records, and the school board communications are all on retention schedules that may allow destruction after a defined period. This is why a preservation letter — a formal demand that the district freeze all relevant records — must go out immediately. Once the letter is on file, destruction becomes spoliation, which carries legal consequences.
What should our family do if our child was hazed at a school athletic camp?
Get your child to a qualified mental health professional immediately. Do not sign anything from the school district or its insurance carrier. Do not give a recorded statement. Do not post about the case on social media. Preserve every piece of evidence you have — text messages, videos, screenshots, any documentation. And call an attorney. The consultation is free. The call is 1-888-ATTY-911. We answer 24 hours a day. The first thing we do is send the preservation letters that freeze the evidence before it can disappear. For families navigating a child’s injury, this parents’ guide to child injury lawsuits walks through what to expect.
Who We Are
Ralph Manginello has spent 27 years in courtrooms, including federal court. He is the managing partner of our firm. He was a journalist before he was a lawyer — which means he knows how to find the story the other side does not want told, and he knows how to tell it to a jury. He is lead counsel in the active $10 million Bermudez v. Pi Kappa Phi / University of Houston hazing lawsuit in Harris County — a case that, like this one, involves hazing, institutional failure, and the harm done to young people by the adults who were supposed to protect them. That case is one of the reasons we know the architecture of a hazing lawsuit — from the preservation letter to the damages presentation. Read more about Ralph here.
Lupe Peña spent years inside a national insurance-defense firm — the rooms where adjusters and their software decided how to deny, delay, and devalue people exactly like the families reading this page. He sat on the other side of the table. He knows how claims are valued, how reserves are set, how IME doctors are selected, and how surveillance and social media are used to undermine injury claims. Now he uses that knowledge for injured clients. He is fluent in Spanish and conducts full consultations in Spanish without an interpreter. Read more about Lupe here.
We handle school hazing lawsuits — from fraternity and sorority hazing to K-12 athletic program hazing with racial discrimination overlays. The firm has recovered more than $50 million for injured clients. We work on contingency — 33.33% before trial, 40% if the case goes to trial. We do not get paid unless we win your case. The consultation is free. The call is 1-888-ATTY-911. We answer 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with a live person — not an answering service.
Hablamos Español. Lupe conducts full consultations in Spanish, and our bilingual staff serves your family in the language you are most comfortable speaking.
The Bottom Line for Your Family
The court has validated what your child experienced. The racial discrimination was real. The physical assaults were real. The school district’s own investigator confirmed a persistent pattern of racist harassment that the superintendent then deliberately concealed from the public. The judge has found the district liable — twice. Two families have already settled. The remaining cases are heading to trial.
The trial is scheduled for June 2026. That means evidence preservation, witness preparation, and expert disclosures must be completed on an accelerated timeline. Any family members or witnesses who have information must be identified and prepared immediately. The window to act is real, and it is closing.
Call us at 1-888-ATTY-911. The consultation is free. There is no fee unless we win your case. We will tell you honestly whether we are the right firm for your family — and if we are not, we will point you toward someone who is. But do not wait. The evidence in this case is on a clock, and the deadline to protect your child’s rights is shorter than most families realize.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. This page is legal information, not legal advice. Contacting the firm is free and confidential. Call 1-888-ATTY-911 or contact us here. We answer 24 hours a day.