WILLIAMSPORT – The State College Area School District has denied claims from a religious rights group and two Centre County families that it is unfairly discriminating against home school and parochial school students within its area, by preventing them from participating in extracurricular activities in the District.
Religious Rights Foundation of Pa, a Pennsylvania non-profit corporation, C.Y. and L.Y., individually and as the parents and natural guardians of F.Y., a minor and B.H. and K.H., individually and as the parents and natural guardians of R.H., a minor, all of Centre County, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on July 10 versus State College Area School District and the Board of School Directors of the State College Area School District, both of State College.
“As a public school district within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, defendants exist, function, and operate pursuant to the statutory powers, duties, and authority set forth in the Pennsylvania Public School Code of 1949. According to District defendant’s website, it has eight elementary schools (grades K-5), two middle schools (grades 6-8), one high school (grades 9-12) and one Delta Program, an alternative, democratic school with middle and high school levels for grades 6-12,” the suit said.
“According to District defendant’s website, Board defendant has approved and authorized more than 100 extracurricular and co-curricular opportunities, including, but not limited to, 63 Advanced Placement (AP) and advanced courses at the high school, 76 high school activities and clubs, 26 high school athletic teams and various extracurricular and co-curricular activities at the middle and elementary schools. According to District Defendant’s website, ‘The State College Area School District is an equal opportunity education institution and will not discriminate on the basis of race, color, age, creed, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, ancestry, national origin or disability in its activities, programs or employment practices.”
The suit added that the defendant Board has a policy of non-discrimination that reads in relevant part: “The State College Area School District is committed to providing to all students access to equitable educational programs and activities in a safe, positive learning environment that is free from all forms of harassment and discrimination. regardless of race, color, age, creed, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, ancestry, national origin, marital status, pregnancy or handicap/disability.”
The suit further alleged that the defendants “permit students who reside within the State College Area School District and who are enrolled in a home school program ‘to participate in any activity that is subject to the provisions of Section [5-]511, including, but not limited to, clubs, musical ensembles, athletics and theatrical productions…”
According to the Public School Code, the defendants “have the statutory power and authority to permit parochial school students to participate in the extracurricular and co-curricular activities generally offered to the students of the State College Area School District, along with eligible home school and charter school students.”
According to a recent Board-approved policy: “Any home-schooled student who would like to participate in an instructional activity or class must submit a request to the Superintendent by a date established by the administration. Any home school students who would like to participate in co-curricular or extra-curricular activities must submit a request to the Superintendent by a date established by the administration. Home school students may participate in health services, standardized testing and the use of facilities normally available to students during the school day.”
“Home school students are not enrolled in the State College Area School District. Home school students satisfy the educational requirements set forth in the Public School Code through a home school program. Defendants provide home school students with a benefit, the ability to participate in extracurricular and co-curricular activities along instructional activities and classes, which is generally available to the students enrolled in the State College Area School District. Defendants permit students who reside within the State College Area School District and who are enrolled in charter schools to participate in its extracurricular and co-curricular activities,” the suit stated.
“There are several charter schools within the State College Area School District and the students attending these charter schools who reside within the State College Area School District are eligible to participate in defendants’ extracurricular and co-curricular activities. Charter school students are not enrolled in the State College Area School District. Charter school students are enrolled in charter schools and satisfy the educational requirements set forth in the Public School Code through a charter school program. Defendants provide charter school students with benefits, the ability to participate in extracurricular and co-curricular activities, which is generally available to the students enrolled in the State College Area School District.”
Like home school and charter school students, the suit said its student plaintiffs “are not enrolled in the State College Area School District, and student plaintiffs are enrolled in parochial schools and satisfy the educational requirements set forth in the Public School Code through a parochial school program.”
However, the suit added that the defendants “have historically refused to grant student plaintiffs and other similarly situated parochial school students the ability to participate in extracurricular and co-curricular activities of the State College Area School District” – on the basis that “there are a sufficient number of State College Area School District students who participate in the activities, and, if permitted to participate, a parochial school student may take away an opportunity to participate from a State College Area School District student.”
Such conduct, the suit claimed, “forces plaintiffs to choose between their religious beliefs and the generally-available benefit of participation in the extracurricular and co-curricular activities of the State College Area School District.”
“Plaintiff Religious Rights Foundation joins this complaint to protect, defend and promote the religious rights, beliefs and opportunities of not only the Parent Plaintiffs and Student Plaintiffs, but also, the religious rights, beliefs and opportunities of similarly situated members of the Religious Rights Foundation. Parent plaintiffs and student plaintiffs are members of the Religious Rights Foundation, and they are representative of the other members of the Religious Rights Foundation who are similarly-situated and/or who support the Foundation’s efforts to protect the religious rights of its members,” the suit said.
“Parent plaintiffs and student plaintiffs have suffered, and continue to suffer, an injury in fact, as a direct result of defendants’ discriminatory conduct as set forth herein. Plaintiffs’ request relief that will enjoin and prohibit defendants’ from continuing to act in a discriminatory manner toward plaintiffs and other similarly-situated individuals.”
UPDATE
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on Sept. 11, finding that the plaintiffs’ claims were in error and could not be amended to be pled properly.
“Plaintiffs are two sets of parents and their minor school-aged children who attend parochial schools located in the geographic boundary of the School District. They asked the School District for permission to participate in School District-sponsored activities. In response, the Superintendent denied the requests because, for the reasons stated in an email message cited in the complaint, the School District does not permit students who attend ‘private’ schools to participate in such activities. Plaintiffs, displeased with the School District’s decision, have made claims in the complaint where they inexplicably changed the word ‘private’ in the Superintendent’s email and replaced it with ‘parochial,’ and they have repeatedly pled that the School District refused the students’ participation because of their enrollment in parochial schools. That is not an accurate recitation of the facts presented in the complaint. The policy referenced in the Superintendent’s decision was a facially-neutral policy of not permitting private school students (whether or not such schools have a religious affiliation) from participating in School District-sponsored activities,” the dismissal motion stated, in part.
“Thus, under the facts alleged by the plaintiffs, the School District has not coerced any of the plaintiffs from refraining from practicing their chosen religions. As a result, neither the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment nor the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the federal constitution is implicated by the School District’s decision. As a facially-neutral policy, the School District’s policy of not permitting private school students from participating in School District sponsored activities should be afforded rational basis review. Under such a review – where the School District’s policy is afforded a presumption of rationality – the School District’s policy easily passes. As a result, plaintiffs’ complaint, which is brought under authority of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, cannot be amended to state a proper claim, and the claims in the complaint should therefore be dismissed with prejudice.”
For counts of violating the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, both under the U.S. Constitution, the plaintiffs are seeking the following reliefs:
• An order finding defendants’ conduct in violation of plaintiffs’ rights as guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution;
• An order finding defendants’ conduct in violation of plaintiffs’ rights as guaranteed by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution;
• An order enjoining defendants’ discriminatory conduct;
• An order requiring defendants to grant student plaintiffs, and other similarly-situated students, the right to participate in the extracurricular and co-curricular activities, including instructional activities and classes, as are generally available to the students enrolled in the State College Area School District;
• An order awarding counsel fees and costs to plaintiffs and requiring defendants to reimburse the same;
• An order granting any other relief deemed appropriate by the Court.
The plaintiffs are represented by Thomas Eric Breth, Thomas W. King III and Jordan P. Shuber of Dillon McCandless King Coulter & Graham, in Butler.
The defendants are represented by Michael I. Levin and Paul J. Cianci of Levin Legal Group, in Huntingdon Valley.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 4:23-cv-01144
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com