PITTSBURGH – Ambridge Area School District discounts claims that it violated the civil rights of a 14-year-old African-American and special needs student at Ambridge High School, who claims 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, 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.
On Dec. 17 and in response to the District’s prior motion to dismiss his constitutional rights claims, the plaintiff opted to voluntarily dismiss Counts I-III himself – but retained the civil rights count of racial discrimination.
UPDATE
Ambridge Area School District answered the complaint on Jan. 10, arguing that team coaches participated in the Snapchat group in question and witnessed A.F.’s angry messages to his teammate, in addition to providing 13 separate affirmative defenses.
“The claims asserted in plaintiff’s complaint are barred by applicable statutes of limitations. At all times relevant hereto, the District acted reasonably and consistently with any and all duties and obligations imposed upon it by law or otherwise while engaged in the performance of its duties. The actions of the District do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. The District asserts herein all defenses available to it under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, including but not limited to, qualified immunity. If plaintiff suffered any injuries or damages, plaintiff failed to properly mitigate their alleged damages. Plaintiff’s claims are or may be barred in whole or in part by the doctrines of estoppel, waiver and/or unclean hands,” per those defenses.
“The District asserts herein all defenses available to it under the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, including but not limited to, qualified immunity and limitations on damages. The District had an established, effective anti-discrimination policy and complaint reporting procedure in place. The District exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any discriminatory conduct by its students. Plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of the District’s discrimination complaint reporting procedure set out in the District’s anti-discrimination policy. The discrimination complained of by plaintiff was not based upon race. The alleged conduct of ‘the teammate’ was not severe or pervasive. Plaintiff cannot demonstrate a discriminatory policy or custom attributable to the District.”
For counts of violating Titles IV and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the plaintiff is seeking the following reliefs:
• 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