A Bannock County jury ruled Thursday that Idaho State University retaliated against a pharmacy student who raised racial discrimination concerns, awarding her $160,000 in damages after an 11-day trial.
The 12-person jury delivered its verdict in the case of Chanica Sintima versus Idaho State University before 6th District Judge Robert C. Naftz at the Bannock County Courthouse. Deliberations lasted roughly nine hours, concluding at 8:20 p.m. Thursday.
Sintima, who enrolled in ISU’s Doctor of Pharmacy program in summer 2020, expressed relief when the verdict was read. Her husband stated that the ruling validates what his wife knew to be true and allows her to move forward with her career aspirations.
Jury Findings and Damages Breakdown
The jury ruled in Sintima’s favor on three counts: retaliation under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, violation of the Idaho Human Rights Act, and infringement of First Amendment rights. The jury ruled against her on a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Of the $160,000 awarded, the largest portion—$111,000—covers vocational rehabilitation or retraining costs. The jury also awarded $40,000 for lost past earnings, $5,000 for medical expenses, and $2,000 each for harm to reputation and emotional distress. No damages were awarded for future lost earnings or ongoing pain and suffering.
Sintima’s attorneys, J. Grady Hepworth and Howard A. Belodoff, both from Boise, had sought approximately $3.4 million in total damages. The case included evidence such as recordings of university administrators, text messages between faculty members, and testimony from Sintima herself.
The Dispute at Eastern Idaho Regional Medical Center
According to court documents and trial testimony, the conflict began during Sintima’s fourth-year Advanced Pharmacy Practice Experience rotation at Eastern Idaho Regional Medical Center in Idaho Falls during fall 2023. Sintima was months away from her expected graduation in May 2024 when problems arose.
She alleged that Dr. Erin Berry, who supervised her rotation beginning Sept. 18, 2023, applied attendance and tardiness policies inconsistently between Sintima and a white classmate. Sintima also claimed Berry created an educational environment where she felt disenfranchised.
The complaint named Berry, Dr. Kasidy McKay, and 10 unnamed individuals as defendants who allegedly retaliated after Sintima raised complaints about racially disparate treatment. Her attorneys argued at trial that ISU College of Pharmacy Dean Tom Wadsworth, Berry, McKay, and a progressions committee all engaged in retaliation that derailed Sintima’s career plans.
University Response
ISU’s attorney, Michael E. Kelly of Kelly Law PLLC and a special deputy attorney general, declined comment immediately after the verdict.
The university issued a statement Friday saying it has policies and processes to ensure students have a safe and respectful learning environment. While ISU expressed disagreement with the conclusion that retaliation occurred, the statement said the university respects the judicial system and looks forward to moving beyond the matter.
The statement emphasized that ISU employees work diligently to create a supportive educational experience for all students and that the university will continue efforts to ensure its policies reflect that commitment.
What Comes Next
The verdict marks the conclusion of a legal battle that began after Sintima’s pharmacy rotation in fall 2023. The $160,000 damage award, while significantly lower than the amount sought by her attorneys, provides financial compensation for retraining and lost earnings.
Whether ISU will appeal the decision remains to be seen. The university has not announced any specific policy changes in response to the verdict, though it stated its commitment to maintaining supportive educational environments for all students.
For Sintima, the ruling represents validation of her claims and an opportunity to pursue her professional goals after a lengthy legal process. Her attorneys characterized the case as one where institutional retaliation prevented a student from achieving her dream of becoming a pharmacist.