A lawsuit alleging that a Lakewood charter school failed to respond to months of racial harassment against a Black student asserts four federal civil rights claims, with the plaintiff’s attorney arguing that the school’s alleged inaction raises questions under both federal education statutes and the Constitution.
“The fact that it’s racial changes the ballgame,” said Denver attorney Steven Murray of Murray Law, representing Jaylen Davis, a former student of Addenbrooke Classical Academy.
Davis sued the school and school leaders Principal John Byrne and Executive Director Ric Netzer in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint alleges violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Murray said the claims provide avenues for different types of relief. “Each claim has different elements and different types of damages,” he said. “We tried to be conservative in bringing the claims.”
The complaint states that administrators knew about the racial harassment by classmates but failed to take adequate steps to stop it or protect Davis.
According to the complaint, harassment began during the spring semester of Davis’ sophomore year. Classmates touched and played with his hair, gave him a stress ball shaped like a monkey and showed him a video featuring racist slurs and a character wearing a Burger King paper crown who called for Black people to be thrown off a plane. The complaint alleges students later wore Burger King crowns to class and reenacted the scene in front of him. Another student told Davis he would “return to” a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant when he died.
Davis and his mother say they repeatedly complained to Byrne and Netzer. The complaint alleges neither administrator stopped nor prevented the harassment. It also alleges Netzer told Davis to “hit, punch or slug” the students targeting him.
In May 2025, graffiti appeared on a boys’ restroom wall containing a threat of rape, explicit racial slurs and references to a slave auction. Davis’ name appeared beneath it, along with names of other male students of color.
The school locked the restroom before Davis learned about the graffiti and did not notify him or his mother, according to the complaint. A classmate showed Davis a photograph of the graffiti. After seeing his name, Davis called his mother, who came to take him home.
“When a school knows a Black student is being harassed with vile racist language, it must act to protect him. Addenbrooke didn’t,” Murray said.
The complaint requests a jury trial, with Davis and his mother prepared to testify. “We believe in the jury system,” Murray said, adding that he trusts jurors can use their common sense to evaluate the evidence and reach a decision.
Different Claims, Different Defendants
The four claims in the case differ in what they require Davis to establish, whom he can hold liable and what damages he may recover.
Title VI prohibits race discrimination in programs receiving federal financial assistance. Murray said the Title VI claim against the school focuses on the alleged racial harassment and the administration’s failure to remedy it.
Title IX prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded education programs. This claim against the school invokes the statute based on the alleged threat of rape in the graffiti.
The third claim arises under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits public entities from denying people equal protection of the law based on race. The complaint brings that claim against Byrne and Netzer, in their individual capacities, through 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal statute used to pursue claims for violations of constitutional rights.
The final claim is asserted against the school under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging race-based discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
Murray said the equal protection claim against the individual defendants turns on whether school officials were deliberately indifferent to known racial harassment. The legal standard, he explained, examines whether officials who knew about the harassment responded in a reasonable way.
The § 1983 claim names Byrne and Netzer individually. Section 1983 allows plaintiffs to seek relief against individual officials for alleged constitutional violations committed under color of state law.The damages sought reflect those distinctions. Murray said the complaint seeks compensatory damages for Davis’ emotional pain and suffering and punitive damages against the individual defendants. Punitive damages require the plaintiff to establish the requisite level of willful conduct or reckless indifference to his legal rights, he said.
Alleged Failure to Protect a Student
The allegations concerning the school’s response will be important to the case, Murray said. Davis and his mother reported the peer harassment, he said, and their testimony and any supporting documentation will help establish what school officials knew.
Murray said schools have an obligation to respond responsibly to reports of harassment and not act with deliberate indifference.
Davis did not return to Addenbrooke for his junior or senior year. He is completing these years online from home, losing the in-person school experience and opportunities to participate in extracurricular activities, Murray said.
“At Addenbrooke, he would have had extracurricular activities,” he said. “He would have had a peer group. He would have had teachers” who could serve as mentors and guides.
Murray said he hopes the case prompts schools to take racial harassment seriously and respond proactively.
“Jaylen should not be subjected to this,” he said. “And no student of color should be subjected to this.”
Davis, now 18, is represented by Murray of MurrayLaw LLC in Denver and Janeí Au of Clearview Legal LLC in Maryland.
The complaint’s allegations have not been proven in court.