Parent Banned For Texting Coach

The 6th Circuit recently decided a case dealing with the First Amendment Rights of a parent of a student athlete.

Mr. McElhaney, a father of a softball player, texted the coach after his daughter was benched midway through the season. The text messages criticized his coaching ability and decisions. The coach, believing Mr. McElhaney had violated team policy which prohibited parents from talking to coaches about playing time, forwarded the messages to the principal.

The principal deemed the messages “inappropriate” and banned Mr. McElhaney from attending softball games for one week. McElhaney, refused to abide by the restrictions and attended the games without disruption but was forced to leave after the SRO threated to arrest him as a trespasser. Mr. McElhaney subsequently filed a civil rights action claiming his speech was protected by the First Amendment.

Requirements For First Amendment Claims

Myers v. City of Centerville (6th Circuit, 2022)

1.     The speech is protected speech;

2.     Government action caused injury that would stop an ordinary person from continuing the action; and

3.     Government action was motivated by constitutionally protected speech.

The court eventually sent the case back to the district court to determine if a violation actually took place but not before leaving readers with some take home points that both schools and parents need to know about. 

The Circuit Court started by reminding the parties that the right to criticize public officials is protected speech. Jenkins v. Rock Hill Loc. Sch. Dist. (6th Cir. 2008). The court also noted, that in some cases criticisms may rise to such a level that would justify such actions by school officials.

The court noted that in Blasi v. Pen Argyl Area School District, the banning of a parent from attending their child’s games was justified because the email communications sent to the coach would be deemed “threatening” by any reasonable person.

The court also reminded readers that while coaches could remove players from a team for actions that would cause a disruption to the team’s goals (see Lowery at 600) but noted the application of the “disruption” standard would not apply to regular adult speech targeting school officials.

In summary, the 6th Circuit ended their discussion with two clear points that need to be remembered by coaches and school officials.

1.     “It is enough to say that those protections (1st Amendment) encompass a parent’s criticism of the ways in which school employees treat the parent’s child at school.”

2.     “It is clearly established at a low level of generality that a school official may not retaliate against the parent for the content of his speech.”

In short, school retaliation against parents for otherwise protected speech is not permissible.