Souderton Area School District Sues ACLU for Free Speech Violation in Formica Incident

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

The lawsuit claims the district banned two parents and a 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 suit also alleges the district barred members of the community group Souderton Area for All from holding demonstrations on school property and required people to show photo ID 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 Matters,’ and we want to hold school officials accountable when they engage in offensive behavior,” said Stephanie Jamison, SAFA president. “The school board’s efforts to silence its critics are teaching students the wrong lesson about democracy.”

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

A crowd of residents showed up to the Souderton Area School District’s August school board meeting at Indian Crest Middle School following a string of objectionable social media posts by Principal Bill Formica.
By John Worthington | reporter

Despite requests from the community to hold the September school board meeting in a larger venue, the district moved the meeting back to the usual location with a much smaller meeting room capacity. As a result, the district required participants to present a photo ID. Two of the complainants were subsequently excluded from the meeting.

According to the statement, 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 had allowed Formica to continue serving following his comments. . Two weeks later, they received letters from the district attorney threatening them with arrest for trespassing on school property and requiring them to give advance notice and remain in their vehicles when dropping off or picking 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 due process to punish them for calling for the resignation of a board member is a blatant 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 ID requirement. Although the school district dropped the ID requirement after that case was filed, there is a possibility that ID requirements will resurface, the release said.

Stephanie Barnett Jamison, president of Souderton Area for All, reads some of the objectionable social media posts by school principal Bill Formica.
By John Worthington | reporter

“The combination of the identification requirements and the ban on school property sends a clear message: If you speak up, you will face consequences,” said Emily Morgan of Ramsingh Legal PLLC, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the case . “This process is to ensure that everyone can attend school board meetings without fear or intimidation.”

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

“The district asked chaperones to present identification for this purpose only,” the statement said. “Because of a political controversy, board meetings drew large crowds, including many people who did not live in the district. Identification was not required to attend the meeting, but simply to provide priority seating 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,” the statement said. “For this reason, after two parents and a former student became aggressive and threatened 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 unusual for school districts to take this type of action when someone has exhibited threatening behavior.”

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

The ACLU lawsuit asks the court to order the school district to immediately lift the ban on parents and former students, allow them to attend school board meetings and other events on school property, and allow SAFA to hold demonstrations on school property before school board meetings.

The school board has a meeting scheduled for tonight at 7 pm at the district administration office.

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