Unless I read it wrong, you're incorrect.
1. The plaintiff was pinching the child and giving him punishment - get pinched or miss lunch.
2. The plaintiff was warned about 10 times until he was suspended because he called the child 'turtle' (or fat depending on the story). But the 'because' was not that single instance or the words, it was he had exceeded the warning tolerance amount (or something like that).
3. The plaintiff was scheduled to be put on the registry but the ruling was reversed at this point.
Extremely egregious conduct, physical contact of a painful nature against being denied food.
Is it potentially precedent setting. May-bee but uh, I'd say no.
Good info though. TIA.