High Schooler Came Out as Gay Online. Days Later She Was Suspended and Banned from Graduation: Lawsuit
In April, Morgan Armstrong, a graduating senior at Tennessee Christian Preparatory School, came out publicly and announced on social media post that she was in a relationship with a woman
A lawsuit filed by the student and her parents alleged that days later, the school suspended her and banned her from attending graduation
In a statement, a school official denied the allegations made in Armstrong's lawsuit, calling them 'misleading"A student has filed a lawsuit against her high school, alleging that she was suspended, banned from campus and prohibited from attending graduation after coming out as gay on social media and revealing she had a girlfriend.
According to a complaint obtained by PEOPLE and filed on May 19, Morgan Armstrong, an 18-year-old graduating senior at Tennessee Christian Preparatory School, made the social media post on April 23, writing "cats outta the bag."
A screenshot of the post, which was included in the complaint, showed Armstrong and her girlfriend kissing and holding hands.
In an interview with The Washington Post, Armstrong defended the post. 'Everyone else gets to post their boyfriend or girlfriend. So just because I have a girlfriend and I'm a girl, why does that mean that I shouldn't be able to?" she asked. "I love my girlfriend and I wanted to show it.'
Days after making the post, Armstrong was summoned to the administrator's office and given a suspension letter, according to the complaint.
The suspension letter, which was included in the complaint, stated that Armstrong would not be allowed on campus or any school events, including but not limited to graduation, which took place on May 10.
Although the school said that her diploma will be mailed to her on June 15, the complaint alleged that the school "explicitly threatened to sabotage Morgan's college admissions process and to withhold Morgan's diploma" if there was any "online slander" about the school or anybody associated with it.
Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories
Additionally, the school alleged in the letter that Morgan's social media posting included "a disparaging remark reflecting the people at Tennessee Christian," a claim that Armstrong disputes.
The complaint claimed that her suspension letter mentioned a private message that the senior sent to some of her friends that read: 'go like and comment on my post guys bc if no one on my socials knew I was gay then they sure as hell do now so this is a big thing tbh, also I'm kinda scared about the facebook comments bc i have some ruthless trump supporting 'jesus' mfs on there.'
However, according to the complaint, that message did not refer to the school, but instead to some of Armstrong's relatives — people who, according to Armstrong, 'profess but do not practice Christian principles of love, acceptance, and compassion.'
The complaint alleged the real reason why the school suspended her 'was the fact that she had come out as gay" — and that even if she had violated the school's social media policy, since this would have been a first-time offense, the maximum policy should have been a 1 day in-school suspension.
In a statement shared with NBC affiliate WRCB, the school rejected the allegations made in Armstrong's lawsuit, calling them 'misleading.'
'Despite this supposed legal dispute, Tennessee Christian remains fully committed to delivering Morgan Armstrong's diploma. Our goal continues to be the academic and personal success of each student, even in the face of conflict or disagreement. We wish Morgan Armstrong the very best as she continues her academics in college,' wrote Jared Tilley, Tennessee Christian's head of school.
PEOPLE contacted Tennessee Christian Preparatory School for comment on Thursday, May 29.
Armstrong and her parents, who are named co-plaintiffs in the suit, are seeking to expunge Armstrong's suspension record and disciplinary violation, allow her to take her final exams, forbid the school from withholding her diploma and prohibit the school from 'sabotaging' Armstrong's college admissions process.
'School is a place where every student is entitled to feel welcome, accepted, and supported,' Daniel A. Horwitz, Armstrong's attorney, said in a statement 'It is not a place where any administrator should feel comfortable disciplining kids for being gay or threatening to sabotage their college admissions process.'
Read the original article on People
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Samford University withdraws Creekside development plans amid environmental issues from Homewood community
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (WIAT) — Samford University has withdrawn its applications and development plans for a once-upcoming development project. On Thursday, the city of Homewood announced that the private Christian college had paused its Creekside project, described as a 'livable town square' that would've been located across from its campus on Lakeshore Drive. Instead, Samford officials will 'focus on other construction priorities on campus' instead. 'Developers said there is no timeline for revisiting the Creekside proposal,' the city said in a statement posted on its Facebook page. Since the project was first announced, some in the community pointed to certain environmental concerns they had with the development, namely a salamander pond located on protected land near the property. 'It's not just trees and ferns and wildflowers, it's the animals that live in here, so we have turtles and reptiles and lots of amphibians living here, lots and lots of birds,' Henry Hughes, executive director of Friends of Shades Creek, told CBS 42's Maddie McQueen back in March. 'We really want to maintain the integrity of this forest and any development that takes place in and around the forest is always a potential problem.' A series of public information sessions were held in the city prior to the project being paused. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Bishop who served King in Coronation faces ban over child abuse scandal
A bishop who served the King during the Coronation is among seven Church of England clergy facing disciplinary action after a damning abuse report which prompted Justin Welby's resignation. Paul Butler, the retired former bishop of Durham, who acted as bishop assistant to His Majesty during the ceremony, is among those who could be banned from ministry as a result of investigations following the Makin review. However, George Carey, the former archbishop of Canterbury, will not face any action. The report published last year ruled that abuse carried out for decades by Christian camp leader John Smyth was known about and not acted upon by various people within the Church. While the review led to the eventual resignation of Mr Welby as the most recent archbishop of Canterbury, the Church's national safeguarding team (NST) undertook to look at all clergy criticised within the report. In an update on Thursday, the Church said Mr Butler and six others would face disciplinary proceedings under the clergy discipline measure (CDM). CDM outcomes can range from a conditional discharge where no penalty is imposed, to removal from office, resignation by consent and a lifetime ban from ministry. While a new process, replacing the CDM, was approved by the Church's parliament earlier this month to include defrocking, it is not thought this will be in place in time for these cases. Lord Carey, who was named in the Makin report, had been one of 10 clergy revealed in February as facing possible action. But the NST has confirmed 89-year-old Lord Carey, the Reverend Paul Perkin and the Reverend Hugh Palmer will face no further action. As there is a 12-month time limit on cases being brought, the NST had to ask for permission of the president of the tribunals to bring a CDM 'out of time'. Permission was granted in only seven of the 10 cases and the NST said it 'entirely respects' the decision from the 'independent judicial process'. Others named as facing CDMs include the Reverend Sue Colman, the wife of Sir Jamie Colman, the Colman's mustard heir. The Makin report concluded Mrs Colman, associate minister at St Leonard's Church in Oakley, near Basingstoke in Hampshire, was aware of Smyth's abuse before being ordained and noted that she and her husband visited Smyth in Africa in the 1990s and funded the Smyths through a personal trust. Around a week after the Makin report was published, the Diocese of Winchester said Mrs Colman had been asked to 'step back from all ministerial duties'. The others facing possible disciplinary action are Reverend Roger Combes, Reverend Andrew Cornes, Reverend Tim Hastie-Smith, Reverend Nick Stott and Reverend John Woolmer. The NST said it would make no further comment on the cases while CDM proceedings were under way and no timeline has been given for when they might conclude. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Mother-in-Law Posts Baby's Name Online After Being Told Not to, Then Sends Parents on a Guilt Trip
A woman says her in-laws are continually disrespecting her wishes not to share anything about her child on social media In a post shared to Reddit, she writes that she and her significant other have told their families that they do not want "any information" about their baby posted online But her father-in-law went against them, posting a photo of the child on Facebook — and her mother-in-law soon followed suitDespite "explicitly" telling her family not to share her baby's name, one woman says her mother-in-law did it anyway — posting it on Facebook. In a post published on Reddit, the woman writes that she and her significant other have told their families that they do not want "any information" about their baby posted online. "No photos, no name, no 'my sweet grand baby turns 1 today,' nothing. We have many personal reasons for this, but ultimately, we just don't want our child's identity plastered all over social media for everyone to see," she writes. But a few months ago, her father-in-law "accidentally' posted a photo of the child on his public Facebook story. Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories. "I happened to open the app late at night and saw it," she writes, adding that she "panicked" and immediately had her significant other call him and walk him through taking it down. The man "claimed he was trying to send the photo to someone and it got posted to his story by mistake," she writes, adding: "Whether that's true or not, that was the final straw." From then on, they stopped sending photos of the child to anyone in the family. "Fast forward to yesterday: I open Facebook and see that my mother-in-law shared one of those 'grandkids are my life' type of posts with one of those super boomer-style graphics and at the top of the post, she listed all of their names," including that of the poster's child. While the mother-in-law ultimately took the names off the post, she also "went into guilt trip mode," saying the child "is almost a year old and still hasn't been to his grandparents' or great-grandparents' house." "The part that frustrates me the most is that even though I've been no contact for 6+ months, and she hasn't been around our son in that time, she's still managing to disrespect our boundaries," she writes. While the woman acknowledges her response "might sound like an overreaction," she adds: "We've communicated this boundary over and over again, and she still managed to find a way to violate it. And somehow still turns herself into the victim when confronted." Reddit users don't seem to think the woman overreacted, with one writing, "I don't think this is an over reaction. a boundary is a boundary, no matter how 'big' or 'small.' She's happy breaking 'small' boundaries, I'd wager she's happy breaking any. Your rules don't matter to her." Read the original article on People
