Seattle Public Schools is seeking a new trial following an $8 million jury verdict awarded to a former student who was physically assaulted by a district teacher, arguing that opposing counsel’s emotional appeals during closing arguments improperly influenced jurors and resulted in an excessive damages award intended to punish rather than compensate.
In a court filing submitted this week, attorneys for Seattle Public Schools contend that closing arguments presented by the former student’s legal team were based on emotional manipulation rather than legal principles, and that the substantial award returned by the jury was designed to send a punitive message to the district rather than fairly compensate the plaintiff for actual damages suffered.
“There is a reason why such emotional appeals to juries are not allowed,” the motion reads. “If counsel are permitted to toss out the law and replace it with a purely emotionally-driven argument, the jury is going to base their verdict, as it did here, not on the facts and the law, but purely based on emotions, and the desire to ‘make the other side pay for their misdeeds’ or to ‘fix the system.'”
The district’s filing warns that if verdicts based on emotional arguments are allowed to stand, courtrooms “will resemble trials by the mob in the public square with torches and pitchforks,” suggesting that permitting such tactics would undermine the judicial system’s reliance on evidence and legal standards.
The motion for a new trial was filed less than two weeks after the jury delivered its 6 November verdict in a case stemming from a January 2018 incident at Meany Middle School. During that incident, mathematics teacher James Johnson struck then-13-year-old Zakaria Sheikhibrahim in the face and physically threw him out of the classroom following an argument about the student having his backpack in class, which violated school policy.
The jury found that Seattle Public Schools had violated Washington state’s nondiscrimination and equal educational opportunity laws by failing to provide Sheikhibrahim with a learning environment free from discrimination. Prior to trial, the district had already admitted to negligently supervising, training and retaining Johnson, effectively conceding one element of the plaintiff’s case.
Lara Hruska, one of Sheikhibrahim’s attorneys, characterised the district’s request for a new trial on Tuesday as part of a “long-standing refusal to take any accountability” for the harm caused to her client.
“Now, even in light of a jury verdict following a month-long trial, with no errors and no misconduct, this does feel like a last-ditch attempt to avoid the accountability,” Hruska stated, suggesting the district is grasping for procedural mechanisms to overturn a verdict it simply disagrees with rather than identifying legitimate legal errors requiring correction.
She indicated that requests for new trials represent an “extraordinary remedy” reserved for cases involving serious misconduct or fundamental legal errors, circumstances she maintains do not exist in this case. Hruska also rejected the district’s characterisation that she and her colleagues employed improper emotional appeals to manipulate the jury’s decision-making.
“We told a true story. We had solid witnesses,” she stated. “We had unequivocal evidence, and the jury carefully construed the witnesses and the exhibits and all of the information.” Her response suggests the jury’s decision reflected careful consideration of substantial evidence rather than emotional manipulation.
Beyond the emotional argument claims, the district’s attorneys raised several additional grounds for seeking a new trial. They argue the jury received improper instructions that led to duplicative damages, meaning Sheikhibrahim may have been compensated twice for the same injuries. The attorneys also contend that one juror should have been removed from the panel after the juror told the bailiff that social media posts the district introduced as evidence from Sheikhibrahim appeared to be racist, suggesting the juror harboured bias that could have influenced deliberations.
The district also alleges it was not permitted to cross-examine evidence that Sheikhibrahim’s attorneys used during closing arguments to establish Johnson’s alleged pattern of discriminatory behaviour toward Black boys. Sheikhibrahim is Muslim and of East African descent, whilst Johnson is also Black, creating complex dynamics around the discrimination claims that the district argues it should have been allowed to challenge more thoroughly.
Additionally, Seattle Public Schools accused opposing counsel of violating professional conduct rules by participating in a news article published during jury selection. The district notes that jurors who had seen the media coverage were excused, but argues the violation itself warrants a new trial regardless of whether contaminated jurors were removed.
The district’s attorneys had sought to reopen the case after closing arguments but before jury deliberations to introduce what they characterised as newly discovered evidence. This evidence reportedly included social media posts allegedly showing Sheikhibrahim performing “synchronised somersaults off a bridge and landing headfirst into the water below” months before the trial commenced.
The district’s legal team argues this social media activity contradicts Sheikhibrahim’s testimony and claims that he suffered “lifelong physical and mental limitations” from the January 2018 assault that affected both his physical capabilities and his ability to enjoy life. The implication is that someone with such severe limitations could not perform athletic feats like bridge diving.
Hruska dismissed the district’s interpretation of the social media posts, indicating that expert testimony presented during trial had explained that high-risk behaviour represents a symptom of her client’s post-traumatic stress disorder rather than evidence of full recovery.
“People with brain injuries can jump into water,” she stated matter-of-factly. “We’re not saying he’s stuck in bed. We’re saying he has severe PTSD and a mild traumatic brain injury. And we 100% stand by those claims.” Her response suggests the district fundamentally misunderstands the nature of traumatic brain injuries and PTSD, which do not necessarily prevent all physical activity but do create lasting cognitive, emotional, and psychological impacts.
