PITTSBURGH – Ambridge Area School District wants a federal court to throw out a lawsuit brought on behalf of a 14-year-old African-American and special needs student at its high school who claimed he was kicked off the football team for participating in an angry exchange with a teammate who had bullied him on Snapchat.
A.F. (a minor, by and through his father, Antonio Fultz) first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 6 versus Ambridge Area School District. All parties are of Ambridge.
“A.F. joined the high school football team in April of 2021. A.F. played the position of starting defensive tackle. A.F. has participated in summer practices without pads in anticipation of playing football during the 2021-22 season,” the suit said.
“On June 23, 2021, A.F. was communicating with his weightlifting coaches, Xiyrail Barnat and Keith Olden in the Snapchat group via text messages. They were concerned A.F. was not going to weightlifting. An older Caucasian teammate, a sophomore, intervened in the communications. The teammate, who was also competing for the defensive tackle position held by A.F., sent voice messages to A.F. calling him a 'lazy bum' and swearing at him.”
The suit alleged A.F. had a history with this sophomore student, competing with him athletically since seventh grade and having been the victim of an assault from him and his cousin back in 2018.
“A.F. recently beat the teammate for the starting defensive tackle position and believed he was being bullied again by this teammate. A.F. and the teammate began to insult each other, A.F. by texts and the teammate by voice messages. The argument escalated when the teammate told A.F., ‘You want to fight? I will kill you.’ Similar threats were then exchanged by A.F. in text and the teammate by voice message. A.F. sent an older picture he had in his phone of him holding a BB gun with the barrel pointed away and over his shoulder. A.F. sent no threat attached to the picture,” per the suit.
“The argument stopped between A.F. and the teammate soon after the picture was sent. The argument was observed by coaches, Olden and Barnat, who remained logged on the app. Olden has provided A.F. with a subsequent written statement that reads, ‘Nothing wasn’t said that doesn’t get said everyday between kids.’ Barnat has provided A.F. with a subsequent written statement that reads, ‘In the Snapchat messages there was a back-and-forth argument between’ A.F. and the teammate.”
As a result of two subsequent school meetings, a police investigation and a letter sent from the District to A.F., it was learned that no criminal charges would be filed against him – but that he was being kicked off the football team for the 2021-2022 School Year, and the other student involved in the online altercation would not be disciplined.
The plaintiff feels that this disparate treatment is based on his race, and is therefore discriminatory.
Though counsel for the plaintiff informed the District of the recent decision reached by the U.S. Supreme Court in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., when it found that school system violated a student’s rights by kicking her off the cheerleading team for a remark she made on Snapchat, but the District has not reversed its decision to remove A.F. from his school’s football team.
Additionally, the suit stated that on Aug. 1, the sophomore teammate at issue posted an unsettling picture of his face in the dark on Snapchat with the comment, “Anyone else have the urge to kill someone u hate at night.”
Fultz has advised the school of the post.
After receiving permission from U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge William S. Stickman IV on Aug. 13, subsequent filings in the case have been made exclusively under seal, with a single exception.
On Aug. 16, the District filed a response opposing the plaintiff’s desire for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
“The District admits that it suspended A.F. for the 2021-2022 football season for posting on Snapchat a series of threats of violence directed towards a teammate on the football team, in addition to A.F. posting a picture of a gun on a live video chat with his teammates. The District denies that it punished A.F. for out-of-school speech,” counsel for the District said.
Stickman issued a memorandum opinion and order on Aug. 27 denying the plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, finding that he had not met his burden of proof for such relief and rejected the argument that Mahanoy held water in this separate matter.
UPDATE
On Nov. 8, the District filed a motion to dismiss Counts I-III from the plaintiff’s complaint and an accompanying brief, finding the plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted for violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
“In the case at hand, plaintiff’s speech is clearly different than that of the speech at issue in Mahanoy. Plaintiff’s threatening messages to his teammate (including a picture of himself holding a gun) is a direct and implicit threat sent in the context of an argument between the students. Plaintiff’s communication was a threat and/or ‘fighting words’, and the very type of communication that the Supreme Court recognized as falling outside the protective scope of the First Amendment and, conversely, within the right of a school to regulate,” the brief stated, in part.
“It does not matter whether these types of communications occur on-campus or off-campus. They are simply not protected by the First Amendment and fall squarely within the authority of schools to regulate and to impose appropriate discipline. Plaintiff’s speech was not entitled to protection under the First Amendment. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim with respect to Count I of his Complaint. As a result, this claim must be dismissed with prejudice.”
The District added that as, in its view, the plaintiff’s speech as alleged within his complaint is unprotected speech in the nature of direct and implicit threats, it “had substantial grounds to impose discipline based on the plaintiff’s communication and in light of established school policy regarding threats”, which did not violate the plaintiff’s free speech rights under the First Amendment or his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
For counts of violating the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and Titles IV and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the plaintiff is seeking a long list of reliefs:
• Declaring that District’s disciplinary action against A.F. for his out-of-school speech violated A.F.’s rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution;
• Declaring that the policies in the District’s Student Handbook, on their face, violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution because they are overbroad and punish lawful protected speech;
• Declaring that the policies in the District’s Student Handbook that have been used, and may be used, to punish out-of-school speech are unconstitutionally vague, and thereby violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution;
• Enjoining the District from any continuing punishment or sanction against A.F. on account of his constitutionally protected speech, including reinstating A.F. to the Ambridge High School football team and expunging from A.F.’s school records all references to the incident in question;
• Awarding the plaintiff damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
• Awarding the plaintiff costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988; and
• Granting such other relief as this Court deems just and appropriate.
The plaintiff is represented by Erik M. Yurkovich in Wexford.
The defendant is represented by Joseph W. Cavrich and Salvatore Bittner of Andrews & Price, in Pittsburgh.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:21-cv-01051
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com