RAPID CITY, SD — Last week on Thursday, former superintendent Nicole Swigart of RCAS filed a lawsuit against the Board, District, and individuals therein. The complaint, alleging gendered discrimination in pay, gives several distinct infractions. In the name of demystifying the lawsuit, we here at the Post have compiled an explanation of the whole initial document and events leading up to it.
Allegations
The document states that Swigart received her position in 2022 and was then terminated in 2024 in a 6-1 vote by the Rapid City Board of Education, following a report from the United States Department of Education’ s Office of Civil Rights (OCR). OCR reports indicated that in interviews Swigart had made offensive, generalizing comments in regard to Native American students. The complaint states that the OCR did not state concerns to defendants in the 15 months prior to their completed report, and that the District did not conduct effective investigation into the report following allegations, and terminated her two weeks after she had requested protected FMLA leave.
The lawsuit alleges further that Swigart’s interim replacement as well as the current superintendent Cory Strasser received contracts giving more generous salary than was afforded to her during her time as Superintendent.
This has, according to the document, caused Swigart emotional and financial distress, for which she is seeking compensation.
The counts leveled against the Board of Education, the RCASD, as well as Michael Birkeland, Troy Carr, Jamie Clapham, Christine Stephenson, Walt Swan, and Katy Urban follow these allegations.
The Counts
- Violation of The Equal Pay Act: The case alleges that Swigart being paid significantly less than her male counterparts constitutes a violation of the Equal Pay Act.
- Violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act: Under similar qualifications, the case alleges that Swigart’s assignments, pay, and duties reflected discriminatory practices by the district.
- Retaliation in Violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act: The case alleges that the interviews conducted by the OCR were statutorily protected activities, and that Swigart’s termination was retaliatory violation of title VI (Protection from discrimination for Race, Color, or National Origin).
- Retaliation in Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act: The case alleges that the interviews conducted by the OCR were statutorily protected activities, and that Swigart’s termination was retaliatory violation of title VII (employment protection for those with protected characteristics).
- FMLA Interference and Retaliation: Swigart requested FMLA leave two weeks prior to her termination, which the case alleges constitutes a significant reason for her termination, in violation of the law.
- Defamation: Alleges that conduct following the report by the Board of Education was false and damaging to her reputation.
- Deceit: Alleges that Board members and the District had little reason to believe the OCR report statements were factual, or knowingly proceeded with the knowledge of these statements being false.
- Due Process Violation (Constitutional, State/Federal): Alleges that by Swigart’s first and 14th amendment rights, her suspension and termination constituted double jeopardy, and that her termination by vote during a special meeting constituted a violation of South Dakota open meeting laws.
- Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: In failing to defend Swigart’s reputation following the report, the document alleges that emotional distress was intentionally inflicted by the Board of Education.
- Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress: This is much the same as the prior count, though goes more into physiological symptoms related to the distress.
- Retaliation of First Amendment Rights: Alleges that the statements (which Swigart publicly denies) contained within the OCR reports constitute protected speech, and thus action taken based on them constitutes retaliation in violation of her first amendment rights.
Compensation and Demands
Swigart has requested compensation for these alleged violations and has requested a trial by jury be convened to settle the matter. More information to come as the case progresses.
Too Long, Didn’t Read
In Summation: Nicole Swigart was terminated from her position as RCAS superintendent following an OCR report alleging insensitive remarks toward Native Americans made by Swigart in interviews. Two weeks prior to the termination she requested protected FMLA leave, and both of her male successors had higher-paying contracts than her. Based on this, Swigart is suing all involved parties, alleging violation of her first amendment rights to protected speech, that she was underpaid because she was a woman, that the statements by the Board of Education following the release of the OCR report were damaging to her reputation and inflicted emotional harm on her, and that her termination for these statements was in fact, retaliation following her request for protected leave.
