Schools and Education and the Citizen Participation Act
Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, or SLAPPs, are brought not to vindicate legal rights, but to harass, intimidate and silence those who engage in public participation. Such lawsuits turn the justice system into a weapon, and have a serious chilling effect on free speech that is vital to the public interest.
SLAPPs chill important speech in three ways: First, for the duration of the suit, they divert attention and resources from the underlying public issue. Frequently parties are required to keep silent about the underlying issue once it becomes bound up in litigation. Second, the harrowing experience of defending a lawsuit – securing an attorney, finding ways to finance the defense, and spending time away from work, scare the person or organization who spoke out on the issue, and teach a frightening lesson to other would-be participants in the public debate to never take on powerful interests. Third, SLAPPs chills speech because they frequently result in settlements contingent upon silence, retraction, correction or agreements to stop publishing certain statements.
In recent years, SLAPPs against concerned parents have risen to prominence as a way for school boards, administrators, teachers and coaches to strike back at parents who speak out on important issues relating to their children’s education and safety.
Sued for Speaking Out!
• Brown v. Agora Parents Association
In 2009, parents of children in an online charter school raised issues in their online chat room about management and improper relationships between management and the board of directors. The head of the school responded by suing six of the parents for defamation, alleging $150,000 in damages. The defamation suit, Brown v. Agora Parents Association, is ongoing in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, even as the parents’ concerns sparked a probe by the Department of Education. The Pennsylvania DOE issued an ultimatum to the charter school board: Cancel a contract with the school founder's management company and resign, or face revocation the school's operating charter.
• Gureghian v. Hardy
December of 2008, the Philadelphia Inquirer ran a story about Chester Charter School, raising issues of the school’s use of public funds. In January of 2009, the operator of the charter school sued the paper, along with an editor and three reporters, for defamation and other claims. In March, the Philadelphia Inquirer filed for bankruptcy, freezing discovery in the lawsuit. Citing the freeze, the charter school then attempted to block public record requests by an Inquirer journalist, including those related to use of public funds, but the Office of Open Records ordered the school to produce the requested documents. See Pennsylvania Office of Open Records Final Determination, AP 2009-0205.
• Fuller v. Rogers, et. al.
In 2007, the head coach and two assistant coaches of a Seattle high school basketball team were investigated and fired after parents of the student basketball players spoke with the Seattle Times about the team’s recruiting tactics. Recruitment of high school players is in violation Washington high school athletic rules, but several parents independently provided details of faked addresses, promises of scholarships, and gifts of cars to convince girls to play for the nationally ranked school. The two assistant coaches first sued the school district, which the court dismissed on summary judgment. The coaches then filed suit for defamation against each of the parents who had spoken with the newspaper.
• O'Connor v. Burningham Utah Supreme Court No. 20060090. July 31, 2007
Also in 2007, a high school basketball coach sued parents who had testified in school board proceedings that resulted in his termination. The parents alleged that the coach had misused team funds, engaged in improper recruiting and extended preferential treatment to the team's star player. The case went all the way to the Utah Supreme Court, where the court denied that the parents were protected by any judicial proceeding immunity, and held that the coach did not qualify as a public figure under Times v. Sullivan. The case was remanded to be litigated in light of those findings.
• Vives v. Hull (N.M. 1st Judicial Ct. Oct. 8, 2009)
In 2004, Linda Hull, a New Mexico parent, realized that local music teacher Ted Vives had been convicted and registered as a child sex offender. She lobbied the school district to mandate that registered sex offenders be escorted on the school’s campus, and alerted other parents and organizations to Vives’ past, which she felt was particularly important because Vives had begun giving private, unaccompanied music lessons to students after school. In 2008, Vives sued Hull, claiming intentional interference with contractual relations, infliction of emotional distress, false light invasion of privacy and malicious abuse of process. At trial, Vives admitted he hadn’t disclosed to parents that he was a convicted sex offender when he moved to Los Alamos and began offering private music lessons in his home to teenagers. He also noted that being alone with children was a “sensitive trigger” of his “urges” to offend.