The laws described throughout this guide apply to public schools because they are government actors that receive federal funding. Private schools and private tutoring companies are not government actors. Parents whose children attend private schools or use private tutors should be aware that although constitutional protections may not apply, there are other laws that accomplish the same protection. Legal claims such as 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Unruh Civil Rights Act (in California), breach of contract, negligent hiring and supervision, and other common law claims can accomplish nearly the same anti-discrimination effect in the private context as Title VI and § 1983 accomplish in public schools. These laws are often even more favorable against private-actor discrimination.
Why This Violates the Law
In a public school, a family alleging antisemitic discrimination would typically bring claims under Title VI (hostile environment, deliberate indifference) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (constitutional violations by state actors). In a private school or tutoring context, those statutes do not apply. But the following causes of action fill the gap: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 replaces Title VI. Section 1981 guarantees to all persons the same right to make and enforce contracts as is enjoyed by white citizens. The Supreme Court has held that Jewish individuals are protected under § 1981. Shaare Tefila Congregation v. Cobb , 481 U.S. 615, 617 (1987). When a family enters into a contract for educational services — whether with a private school, a tutoring company, or an individual tutor — and the institution subjects the child to antisemitic harassment or fails to address it, the family has been denied the full and equal enjoyment of the contractual relationship on the basis of race and ethnicity. The Unruh Civil Rights Act replaces the Equal Protection Clause. California's Unruh Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 51) guarantees full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, and services in all business establishments, regardless of race, religion, ancestry, or national origin. A private school is a business establishment. So is a tutoring company. The Unruh Act provides statutory damages of no less than $4,000 per violation, plus actual damages and attorney's fees — a damages floor that has no equivalent in the public school context. If a private school allows antisemitic harassment to persist, each incident is a separate violation with its own $4,000 minimum. Breach of contract has no public school equivalent. When a private school or tutoring company markets itself as safe, inclusive, and non-discriminatory, and a family enrolls and pays tuition in reliance on those representations, a contract has been formed. If the institution fails to deliver what it promised — by tolerating antisemitic harassment, employing teachers who indoctrinate rather than educate, or refusing to address discriminatory conduct after being notified — it has breached the contract. This claim does not require proving discriminatory intent. It requires only proving that the institution did not provide what it contracted to provide. For families who may struggle to prove that a private school's failure to act was motivated by antisemitism rather than indifference or incompetence, breach of contract offers an alternative path that avoids the intent question entirely.
Negligent hiring and supervision applies to any institution that employs
adults who interact with children. A private school or tutoring company that places teachers or tutors in positions of authority over minor students has a duty to exercise reasonable care in hiring, training, supervising, and monitoring those employees. When a teacher or tutor subjects a child to antisemitic harassment, the institution's screening and supervision systems have failed. This claim does not require proving that the institution intended to discriminate — only that it failed to exercise reasonable care and that the failure resulted in foreseeable harm.
Case Study: Devy v. BrightChamps EdTech LLC , No. 5:26-cv-01865 (N.D. Cal. 2026)
BrightChamps is an online tutoring company based in Palo Alto, California, that advertises safe, inclusive, and professionally supervised educational services. In November 2025, a Jewish child signed up for BrightChamps' online entrepreneurship classes. During a live, one-on-one tutoring session, the assigned tutor discovered that the student was Jewish — and instead of teaching the curriculum, the tutor spent approximately twenty minutes verbally attacking America and Israel. The tutor stated that the Taliban and Palestinian militants are "freedom fighters," denied that the Hamas massacre on October 7, 2023 occurred, and accused Israel of committing genocide.
The student was captive in the session, subjected to sustained antisemitic harassment by an adult in a position of authority and trust. The family notified BrightChamps, but the company failed to take corrective action. The family filed suit asserting claims under § 1981, the Unruh Act, breach of contract, and negligent hiring and supervision. What families should take from this: If your child attends a private school or uses a private tutor and is subjected to antisemitic harassment, you have legal options that do not depend on protections that only apply against public entities.