A federal judge from the Eastern District of Kentucky has granted a school district’s motion to dismiss a claim brought by a parent, who claimed his Constitutional rights to free speech and due process were violated when the school district banned him from sporting events.
Plaintiff Jerry Spurlock was banned from the facilities owned and operated by Ashland Independent Schools (District). He filed this lawsuit against the District, its Superintendent Sean Howard, Principal of Paul Blazer High School Jamie Campbell, and Athletic Director of Paul Blazer High School James Conoway, alleging that the ban violates his Constitutional rights to free speech and due process.
“This case arises from the often-intense culture of high school sports,” noted the judge in the opinion.
Spurlock is the freshman high school basketball coach at Boyd County High School. His son is a student at that school and is a member of the high school basketball team. Spurlock alleges that during his son’s eighth grade year, the then-basketball coach at Paul Blazer High School, Jason Mays, attempted to recruit his son to transfer to the District and play for Paul Blazer. Spurlock, “presumably surreptitiously, recorded that conversation and ultimately, it was released on social media in September of 2022.” Both the District and Boyd County High School reported the recording to the Kentucky High School Athletic Association (KHSAA). The KHSAA investigated and found that Coach Mays had violated its rules pertaining to impermissible recruiting. Thereafter, in November of 2022, the District fired Coach Mays.
Spurlock described Mays as “having unprecedented success” as the coach for the Paul Blazer team. He further claimed that following Mays’ dismissal, he and his son were subject to retaliation. He alleged that the defendants permitted and even encouraged its staff, students, and basketball fans to harass them. He added that there were antagonizing comments, chanted obscenities and lewd gestures aimed at him and his son during four basketball games in late 2022 and early 2023. He further claimed that the Principal of Paul Blazer High School Jamie Campbell’s wife “ambushed him” after the February 3, 2023, matchup between Paul Blazer and Boyd County. He alleged that she stared him down and stood where he was intending to walk. He claimed that she berated him, “why the fuck are you speaking to me, why are you saying anything to me?”
He further alleged that, “upon information and belief,” Defendant Campbell directed his wife to initiate the interaction with him. He claimed that Defendant Campbell then attempted to follow him into the parking lot to confront him.
On March 7, 2023, Boyd County played Paul Blazer in the Regional Championship at Morehead State University. Spurlock stated that during the game obscenities and lewd gestures were again aimed at him from Paul Blazer’s student section. He alleged that Campbell mouthed “fuck you” toward him. Spurlock claimed that after the game, he attempted to “make a complaint” to the Paul Blazer staff, but that its students, staff and administrators threatened him and that he was ultimately escorted out of the gym by police “for his own safety.” He alleged that “at no point during this interaction did [he] make threatening remarks toward the defendants, staff or students.”
In their previous filings with the court, the defendants stated that at the March 7 game, Spurlock behaved aggressively toward Paul Blazer’s staff and even challenged Campbell to “meet him outside.” The defendants submitted a video of this incident, which was reviewed by the Court. “Consistent with the plaintiff’s allegations, there were chants and lewd gestures from the student section as the spectators began to approach the gym floor and exit,” wrote the court. “However, the video depicts the plaintiff taunting Campbell before being escorted out of the gym by police.”
Three weeks later, by letter dated March 28, 2023, the District, through counsel, informed Spurlock that he would “not be permitted to enter or remain upon the premises of any Ashland Independent School District property or any District event.” In support of what the parties refer to as the “No Trespass Order,” the letter cited Board Policy 10.21, which charges the Board with the “responsibility to maintain safe, harassment-free schools, school activities, and workplaces for student and staff to minimize disruptions to the District’s programs.” The letter stated that on March 7, 2023, the plaintiff “made threatening or harassing communications toward District employees and/or their family members relating to the District’s basketball program and students on the team.”
About six weeks later, Spurlock sent a letter to Howard, recounting the instances of the alleged harassment against him and his son. The plaintiff also asked for proof as to “why he had been banned from the Districts’ premises.”
On August 15, 2023, Howard emailed Spurlock and advised him that he had reviewed the plaintiff’s complaint as well as the documentation and video clips submitted by him and that he had found no support for the plaintiff’s allegations of intimidation or harassment.
He also reiterated that the March 2023 letter restricting the plaintiff’s attendance from Ashland events was based on “legitimate concerns about the plaintiff’s communications about District employees and his conduct at sporting events.” Howard advised Spurlock that the “restrictions would remain in place through June 30, 2024, at which time the circumstance would be reviewed to determine if the restrictions could be modified or ended.”
On December 27, 2023, Spurlock sued the aforementioned defendants, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as attorney’s fees and costs. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that banning him from any of the facilities owned or operated by Ashland Independent Schools was part of an ongoing campaign of retaliation against him for his exercise of his constitutional right to free speech. Spurlock claimed that in instituting the ban, the defendants also deprived him of his constitutional right to due process.
The plaintiff “alleges that the defendants violated his First Amendment rights to freedom of speech ‘by retaliating against [his] speech to Boyd County High School, to the KHSAA, on social media, and directly to Defendants and by banning him’ from the District’s facilities,” wrote the judge.
“To establish a claim for First Amendment retaliation, the plaintiff must show that (1) he engaged in protected conduct; (2) there was an adverse action taken against him ‘that would deter a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in the conduct;’ and (3) ‘there is a causal connection between elements one and two—that is, the adverse action was motivated at least in part by the plaintiff’s protected conduct.’ Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378, 394 (6th Cir.1999).
“As this court previously found, the plaintiff’s claim fails at the first step of the inquiry. He has not plausibly alleged that he engaged in ‘protected conduct.’ At the March 7 basketball game, the plaintiff appeared to threaten Campbell and challenged him to ‘meet him outside.’ He dared one of the defendants to nothing short of a fist fight before escorted off the premises by local law enforcement. ‘Fighting words’ fall well outside of the First Amendment’s bounds. Indeed, “an invitation to exchange fisticuffs” is the very epitome of fighting words. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 409, 109 S. Ct. 2533, 105 L. Ed. 2d 342 (1989).”
The court continued: “To the extent that the plaintiff continues to contend that something other than his conduct on March 7 resulted in the ban, the timeline of events belies this claim. The restriction or ‘ban’ was put in place only after, and in response to, his conduct on March 7.”
The plaintiff “has not plausibly alleged that he engaged in constitutionally protected speech, much less that the District’s decision to prohibit him from being on school property pursuant to Board policy and Kentucky law violated his constitutional rights. As such, his claim for retaliation must be dismissed.”
Spurlock v. Ashland Indep. Sch. Bd. of Educ.; E.D. Ky; CIVIL ACTION NO. 23-124-DLB-EBA; 7/31/24
