Bannock County Jury Finds Idaho State University Retaliated Against Black Pharmacy Student, Awards $160,000 in Damages
A Bannock County jury has found Idaho State University liable for retaliating against a Black woman pursuing a Doctor of Pharmacy degree, awarding her $160,000 in damages following an 11-day trial in Pocatello.
The 12-person jury — eight men and four women — delivered its verdict in the case of Chanica Sintima v. Idaho State University before 6th District Judge Robert C. Naftz after roughly nine hours of deliberation. The panel found ISU liable on claims of retaliation under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Idaho Human Rights Act, and the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The jury ruled against Sintima on a count of negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Sintima enrolled in ISU’s Doctor of Pharmacy program in the summer of 2020. She was a fourth-year student just months from her expected graduation in May 2024 when the dispute that led to the lawsuit arose.
What Happened During Sintima’s Clinical Rotation
According to the complaint and testimony presented at trial, Sintima began a Block 4 Advanced Pharmacy Practice Experience (APPE) rotation at Eastern Idaho Regional Medical Center in Idaho Falls on September 18, 2023, under the supervision of ISU professor Dr. Erin Berry. Sintima alleged Berry applied attendance and tardiness policies inconsistently between her and a fellow white classmate, creating an educational environment in which she felt disenfranchised.
On October 5, 2023, Berry verbally told Sintima she was meeting most clinical expectations and could expect a “B” at her midpoint evaluation. That same day, Sintima emailed ISU’s Office of Equity and Inclusion to ask how to file a discrimination complaint. During the fourth week of the six-week rotation, Sintima discovered her counterpart had already received a written midpoint evaluation while she had not.
On October 16, Sintima raised the disparity directly with Berry and informed Berry she intended to file a formal grievance. According to evidence presented at trial, Berry responded by threatening to report Sintima to Dr. Kasidy McKay, chair of the Department of Pharmacy Practice and Administrative Sciences. Evidence also showed Berry contacted hospital staff at EIRMC, expressing concerns about Sintima and possible plans to leak protected health information to the media. The hospital subsequently took action involving Sintima’s rotation.
Evidence presented during the 11-day trial included recordings of university administrators and text messages between faculty, as well as Sintima’s own testimony from the witness stand.
Damages Awarded and University Response
Although Sintima’s Boise-based attorneys — J. Grady Hepworth of Hepworth Law Offices and Howard A. Belodoff — estimated total damages of approximately $3.4 million, the jury awarded $160,000. The bulk of the award — $111,000 — covered the cost of vocational rehabilitation or retraining. The jury also awarded $40,000 in lost past earnings, $5,000 in medical expenses, and $2,000 each for harm to reputation and shame, mortification, or hurt feelings. The jury awarded nothing for future lost earnings or pain and suffering.
ISU’s attorney, Michael E. Kelly of Kelly Law PLLC, a special deputy attorney general, declined to comment immediately following the verdict. The university issued a written statement the following day.
“Idaho State University has established policies and processes in place to ensure students have a safe and respectful learning environment, and ISU’s employees work diligently to create a supportive educational experience for all students,” ISU’s statement read. “While we do not agree with the conclusion that retaliation occurred, we respect the judicial system and look forward to moving beyond this issue.”
Sintima, speaking to the Idaho State Journal after the verdict was read, said she was “very happy and grateful that justice was served in this case.” Her husband, Dicken Bonsrah, added that the verdict confirmed what his wife had known throughout the ordeal and that she could now move forward toward becoming a pharmacist.
In closing arguments, attorney Hepworth argued that ISU’s actions destroyed Sintima’s professional dreams. “The only thing that stopped Ms. Sintima from achieving that dream was the illegal retaliation of Idaho State University,” Hepworth told the jury, according to reporting by the Idaho State Journal.
The case draws attention to institutional accountability at one of Idaho’s flagship public universities. For broader coverage of education issues across the state, visit Idaho News. Local school district developments, including the appointment of a new principal at Century High School in the Pocatello/Chubbuck School District, continue to be covered by Bannock County News.
What Comes Next
With the jury verdict now on record, the case moves into a post-trial phase. ISU could pursue post-trial motions or an appeal, and the university’s statement indicated it disagreed with the retaliation finding. Sintima’s attorneys may also seek additional relief, including attorney’s fees, which are sometimes available in civil rights cases under federal law. Whether the university will implement any internal policy changes in response to the verdict remains to be seen. Bannock County News will continue to follow developments in this case as they emerge from the Bannock County Courthouse.