Souderton Area School District sued by ACLU for free speech violations in Formica incident

The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania and the law firm Ramsingh Legal, PLLC on Wednesday filed a federal lawsuit against the Souderton Area School District for violating the free speech and due process rights of district residents.

The lawsuit claims that the district banned two parents and one former student from school property after they criticized school board member Bill Formica for posting lewd comments about Vice President Kamala Harris on social media. The lawsuit further claims that the district prohibited members of the community group Souderton Area for All from holding demonstrations on school property and required individuals to show photo identification to be admitted to school board meetings, in violation of the First Amendment.

“Souderton Area For All believes in the district’s motto that ‘Character Counts,’ and we want to hold school officials accountable when they engage in offensive behavior,” said Stephanie Jamison, SAFA chair. “The school board’s efforts to silence its critics teaches students the wrong lesson about democracy.”

The comments by Formica in late July sparked outrage in the community, culminating in a packed middle school auditorium and a protest calling for Formica’s resignation at the board’s August school board meeting. Ahead of the meeting, district officials prohibited protesters from demonstrating on school property, forcing them to stand on the side of the road. Meanwhile, the district allowed Formica’s supporters to gather near the school entrance, where they prayed and sang religious songs, according to an ACLU press release.

    A packed house of residents turned out for Souderton Area School District’s August school board meeting at Indian Crest Middle School following a string of objectionable social media posts by board director Bill Formica.
 By John Worthington | The Reporter   

Despite requests from the community to hold the September school board meeting at a larger venue, the district moved the meeting back to its regular location, with a much smaller meeting room capacity. As a result, the district required attendees to present photo identification. Two of the plaintiffs were subsequently barred from the meeting.

According to the release, one of the plaintiffs, along with her father and another parent of a student, confronted school board member Kim Wheeler in the parking lot after the meeting, asking why the board allowed Formica to continue serving following his comments. Two weeks later, they received letters from the district’s solicitor, threatening them with arrest for trespassing if they entered school property and requiring them to provide advance notice and remain in their vehicles when they drop off or pick up their children from school.

“The Souderton Area School District has engaged in a pattern of conduct designed to silence its critics,” said Sara Rose, deputy legal director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania. “Banning parents and a recent graduate from school property without any due process to punish them for calling for a board member’s resignation is an egregious example of this behavior.”

The lawsuit follows an earlier Sunshine Act case filed by Joy Ramsingh on behalf of some district residents against the district over the photo identification requirement. Although the school district dropped the ID requirement after that case was filed, there is a possibility that the ID requirement could resurface, said the release.

    Stephanie Barnett Jamison, president of Souderton Area for All, reads some of school director Bill Formica’s objectionable social media posts.
 By John Worthington | The Reporter   

“The combination of the ID requirement and the ban from school property sends a clear message: if you speak out, you’ll face consequences,” said Emily Morgan of Ramsingh Legal PLLC, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs in this case. “This lawsuit is about making sure that everyone can participate in school board meetings without fear or intimidation.”

In a statement, the school district described the lawsuit’s allegations as “misconceptions.” Regarding the photo ID requirement, the district said that ID was requested at the September meeting to ensure that parents and residents had “seating priority.”

“The district asked attendants to show identification for this purpose alone,” read the statement. “Due to a political controversy, board meetings had been drawing large crowds, including many people who did not live in the district. Identification was not required to attend the meeting, but simply to provide seating priority for residents.”

The district also defended its decision to bar two parents and a student from board meetings, describing their behavior as “aggressive and threatening.”

“The district has a responsibility to protect the safety of our staff and school board members,” read the statement. “Because of this, after two parents and a former student became aggressive and threatening with a school board member and a minor after a board meeting, the district made the decision to restrict their in-person attendance at subsequent meetings. It is not uncommon for school districts to take this kind of action when someone has exhibited threatening behavior.”

“The district will legally defend these decisions and will uphold the rights of all its residents to peacefully exhibit their free speech rights,” the statement concluded.

The ACLU lawsuit is asking the court to order the school district to immediately rescind the ban on the parents and former student, to allow them to attend school board meetings and other events on school property and to permit SAFA to hold demonstrations on school property prior to school board meetings.

The school board has a scheduled meeting tonight at 7 p.m. at the district administration office.

The legal filing can be found at aclupa.org/Souderton.