PHILADELPHIA — Defendant Pennsylvania School Boards Association’s (PSBA) motion for summary judgment in a First Amendment lawsuit has been granted.
Plaintiffs Simon Campbell and Pennsylvanians for Union Reform (PUR) had alleged that a defamation lawsuit filed against them by PSBA was in retaliation for constitutionally protected behavior.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania determined that although the plaintiffs successfully proved that their actions are protected by the First Amendment, they did not show that the defendant’s were not. Judge Jan E. Dubois delivered his ruling on Aug. 23.
PSBA is an association comprised of public-school boards. Plaintiffs PUR and Campbell perform advocacy work that pits them against PSBA’s mission, according to the lawsuit.
In March 2017, Plaintiffs sent a Right to Know Law (RTKL) request to public schools in the state. A few months later, Campbell sent an RTKL request to about 600 PSBA members.
The court notes that plaintiffs sought "the contact information for certain school district employees and for the representatives of public employee unions.”
In addition to requests for information, the RTKL notices stated: “I call upon elected school officials to terminate the taxpayers forced relationship with PSBA. Revoke PSBA membership. . . . Stop making taxpayers fund the salaries and . . . pensions of a private corporation’s employees.”
This was the start of a series of inflammatory comments made by the plaintiffs, according to court documents. In April 2017 plaintiffs posted a picture of a PSBA executive online with the caption: “Taxpayers, thanks for the $226,000 and the public pension! Now **** off, and drive to the school district if you want public records. And don’t forget your check book.”
The PSBA board voted to file a suit against plaintiffs on June 12, 2017. Plaintiffs responded by filing their own suit on Feb. 28.
Judge Dubois agrees with the plaintiffs that their behavior is not actionable. Campbell and PUR were exercising their constitutional rights when they criticized the PSBA, according to the ruling. Dubois notes that: “When allegedly defamatory statements concern public figures, it is not enough that the statements may be deemed rude, harassing, or even untrue.”