PITTSBURGH – A federal judge has denied the issuance of a preliminary injunction to the father of a Jefferson-Morgan varsity football player who sued the school district in federal court, after he was barred from the campus and football stadium after he asked the head coach to resign following a game last year.
Virgil McNett of Mather filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 20 versus Jefferson-Morgan School District, of Jefferson.
McNett, who lives in the defendant school district, has several children who attend school within it, including a son who plays on a high school football team, according to his complaint.
The plaintiff claimed that on Sept. 18, 2020, while picking his son up from a game, he “calmly” asked his son’s then-high school football coach to resign from his position.
In contrast, the coach, Aaron Giorgi, testified that, as soon as McNett’s son had left the field, the plaintiff approached the fence behind the bench area where the coaches and players were located and began yelling at him.
Giorgi testified that McNett, in the proximity of student athletes and the coaching staff, stated that the plaintiff would climb over the fence to fight Giorgi, and that McNett further stated that he would “kick Giorgi’s a–s.”
McNett claimed that several days later, he received a letter from the school district banning him from school grounds or any school sponsored event due to “bullying, intimidation, physical or verbal aggression” and use of profanity.
He alleged that despite repeated attempts to “rectify” the situation, the school board has failed to allow him to tell his side of the story or reconsider his suspension.
McNett added the school district’s allegations are false and that they are attempting to damage his reputation and defame his character by banning his access to school events.
McNett further alleged the defendant’s actions have caused him to miss his son’s senior football season and have prevented him from coaching, and among other demands, sought a preliminary injunction lifting the ban imposed by the defendant, pending the result of a trial in this matter
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge Robert J. Colville denied McNett’s motion for the injunction in a Nov. 23 memorandum opinion, finding Giorgi’s testimony to be “highly credible.”
“The evidence before Court tends to establish that plaintiff, despite his assertions to the contrary, was neither calm nor stationary during the Sept. 18, 2020 incident, and his behavior could certainly be described as disruptive and aggressive, considering the nature of his statements and the manner in which he made such statements, including his pacing around school buses to locate Mr. Giorgi, as well as the fact that he made such statements on school district grounds with students present,” Colville said.
“The Court also notes that, while the Sept. 18, 2020 incident clearly involved plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with the performance of the football team, it did not occur during a game or at a stadium, where excitement and raised voices may be anticipated. The event occurred as the football team returned to defendant’s high school parking lot from an away football game, and parents were present at the parking lot simply to retrieve student athletes.”
Colville stated that school districts are “permitted to restrict access to school property where the same is necessary to maintain tranquility and to protect against disruptive conduct”, and that the evidence “displays that the defendant exercised its authority to do so, and that there was an objectively reasonable basis for the ban imposed by defendant.”
“The Court briefly notes that, while plaintiff’s analysis in his motion for preliminary injunction is seemingly entirely limited to his claim asserting a purported violation of his First Amendment right to free speech, plaintiff also summarily states: ‘Under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, plaintiff has a right to due process for any proceedings from a governmental authority. Plaintiff was never granted his due process rights,” Colville said.
“Initially, the Court finds that, because plaintiff has offered no substantive argument or analysis with respect to his claim under the Fourteenth Amendment at this juncture, he has not established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits as to that claim at this time. Moreover, the Third Circuit has held, in a case where plaintiff parents asserted a due process claim on the basis that a school board defendant had violated their due process rights by banning the parents from a public school without a hearing and by refusing to accept a petition for a hearing, that such a claim ‘plainly lacked merit.’ For these reasons, to the extent that plaintiff relies on his assertion of a violation of his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process as supporting a preliminary injunction, the Court finds that plaintiff has not established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.”
For counts of civil rights violations under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and defamation per se, the plaintiff is seeking general and specific compensatory damages against the defendant, Jefferson-Morgan School District, in the amount proven at trial for the defamation of plaintiff’s character, an injunction ordering the defendant to discontinue the violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights, specific compensatory damages in the amount of attorneys’ fees and court costs,; punitive damages and all other relief that the Court may deem just and proper.
The plaintiff is represented by Anthony J. Werner of Very Law, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant is represented by Joseph W. Cavrich of Andrews & Price, also in Pittsburgh.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:21-cv-01064
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com