A federal Judge from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has dismissed a lawsuit brought by a parent, who alleged among other things that his kids were discriminated against because of their race in their bid to play basketball on the middle school team.
Plaintiff William Blasi is the father of two children, Oliver and Pierce, which he described in the complaint as being mixed race, i.e., “part white and part ethnic Chinese.” In November 2009, both children tried out for the middle school basketball team in the Pen Argyl Area School District. They both made the team, along with every other student who tried out.
However, Blasi, a pro se litigant, sued the district after the defendant’s coaches “encouraged assaults on his children by other children who ‘were mainly white,’ and denied his sons equal opportunity to play basketball because ‘lesser skilled white boys’ and ‘much lesser skilled white boys’ played more than his sons.”
The plaintiff went so far as to send 17 emails to various officials and coaches of the defendant,”where he complained about how the program was run, players being encouraged to foul excessively, the Blasi children being excessively fouled, and the discrimination of the coaches and their favoritism toward white student players,” according to the court.
On December 22, 2009, “Terry R. Barry, the principal of the Blasi children’s Middle School, sent a letter to Blasi to inform him that he was prohibited from attending one home basketball game for violating the School District’s policy, i.e., several provisions of the August 2005 Parental/Spectator Guidelines.”
Blasi ultimately sued, alleging a violation of his First Amendment right to free expression, his right to petition the government for redress, and his right to be free from retaliation for exercising his constitutional rights.
The school district moved to dismiss the complaint, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The court considered each of the six counts, siding with the defendant in each instance.
Among the arguments was Blasi’s contention that the School District’s Parental/Spectator Guidelines, a two-page document directed at parents and spectators who are physically present at an athletic event, was unconstitutional.
The court disagreed.
“I find that the 2010 version of the Parent/Spectator Guidelines are content-neutral; they are narrowly tailored to serve a substantial interest; and they leave alternative avenues of speech to the speaker” wrote the court.
As for the retaliation claim, the court noted that the plaintiff “must allege (1) constitutionally protected conduct, (2) retaliatory action sufficient to deter a person of ordinary firmness from exercising his constitutional rights, and (3) a causal link between the constitutionally protected conduct and the retaliatory action.” Emigh v. Steffee, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15965, 12-13 (3d Cir. Aug. 2, 2011) (quoting Thomas v. Independence Twp., 463 F.3d 285, 296 (3d Cir. 2006)).
After “a careful review of Mr. Barry’s letter,” the court determined that “there was no retaliatory action in suspending Mr. Blasi from attending one basketball game. The letter carefully sets forth Mr. Blasi’s specific violations of the Parental/Spectator Guidelines, citing the exact provision violated, and describing his unacceptable behavior. It explains the sanction given as provided in the Guidelines. Mr. Blasi indicated by his signature that he had received and read a copy of the Guidelines, and he agreed to uphold the standards therein for the 2009-2010 school year. Mr. Blasi has not demonstrated that the School District’s Parental/Spectator Guidelines are unconstitutional. The School District was well within its rights to impose the sanction it did. In fact, the suspension should not have come as a surprise to Mr. Blasi, having been put on notice upon receipt of the Guidelines in November 2009.”
Similarly, the court found for the defendant on the remaining counts, which involved the plaintiff’s contention that:
(1) His sons should not be forced to wear an off-the-court uniform on game days.
(2) The “closed gym” or “closed practice” policy interferes with his Constitutional right to raise and protect his family and the rights of his “mixed-race children,” and his rights as a citizen in the school district.
(3) His two sons were cut from the basketball team even though they were taller, strong, and better basketball players than any of the white student players who made the team.
While “parents have a fundamental liberty interest, which is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children (Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 66, 120 S. Ct. 2054, 147 L. Ed. 2d 49 (2000)) … , the right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children is not without limitations. Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166, 64 S. Ct. 438, 88 L. Ed. 645 (1944).
The Third Circuit has recognized that … “parental rights are not absolute and can be subject to reasonable regulation.
“Here, the policies of which Mr. Blasi complains in Counts 3, 4, and 5 in no way interfere with Mr. Blasi’s right to raise his children. Those policies are reasonable restrictions on parents and spectators so that the athletic environment is conducive to good sportsmanship and learning. During a School District sporting event, the School District has control and custody over the student athletes. The policies place no restrictions on the ability of Mr. Blasi or of any parent to coach children at home or away from the School District’s facilities.”
Further, the School District’s policies “challenged here are reasonable regulations aimed at promoting student civility and to control the athletic and coaching environment. The School District has the legal right to impose a dress code for student athletes and to hold closed practices for any sport.”
The court concluded that the plaintiff “failed to set forth claims that the School District’s Parental/Spectator Guidelines or its Athletic Code are unconstitutional. Mr. Blasi and his two sons were aware of certain behaviors expected by the School District at its supported sporting events and of the consequences for violating those policies which they agreed to uphold. Rather than retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights, Mr. Blasi has shown that he and his children violated separate provisions of the regulations found in the Guidelines and the Code, and were sanctioned accordingly.”
William Blasi v. Pen Argyl Area School District; E.D. Pa.; CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-6814, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112412; 9/30/11.
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Pro se. (for defendant) Jonathan P. Riba, Lead Attorney, Ellis H. Katz, Sweet Stevens Tucker & Katz LLP, New Britain, Pa.
