A federal judge has ruled that most civil rights claims filed by Gillingham Charter School against Pottsville Area School District over a college fair confrontation in 2024 may proceed.
The 35-page ruling by U.S. Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick found that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged violations of their constitutional rights after they were denied full access to a PASD-hosted college fair at Martz Hall last year.
This incident garnered viral attention on social media thanks to videos recorded on phones at the scene by Gillingham students.
Pottsville Area School District was arguing that the lawsuit and its nine specific claims against it had no standing and should be dismissed. Mehalchick disagreed on most points and is allowing the lawsuit to continue on six of the nine claims, mostly because the litigation is in its early stages.
At the heart of the case is whether Pottsville Area unlawfully discriminated against Gillingham students and staff based on their affiliation with a charter school and their views. The court found that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged “viewpoint discrimination” by Pottsville Area officials, a serious constitutional violation regardless of the type of venue.
“The complaint alleges that the Defendants have long opposed Gillingham as a charter school,” Mehalchick wrote. “Public school officials may not discriminate against specific political viewpoints.”
According to the judge, the plaintiffs claimed they were initially invited to a regional college fair at Martz Hall along with two private Catholic schools. Gillingham submitted its registration form and planned to bring 27 students. But in September 2024, Pottsville Area officials informed Gillingham that the invite had been sent by mistake and that their students could not attend.
When Gillingham students and staff showed up anyway, Pottsville Area officials blocked them from entering, physically restrained some of them, and eventually allowed them limited access under restrictive conditions, including limiting phone use for photos only—a restriction not applied to others at the fair.
Plaintiffs Had Standing to Sue
Pottsville Area School District argued that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing to bring the suit because they were eventually allowed to attend the fair and could have attended other similar events. The judge rejected that defense.
“An injury is considered concrete when it is a harm specified by the Constitution itself,” Mehalchick wrote. “Discriminatory treatment is itself a recognized injury which can confer standing.”
She found the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged they were treated differently than others based on their charter school affiliation. In addition, the court noted that both Gillingham staff members and students were affected by Pottsville Area’s actions.
“The complaint repeatedly alleges constitutional injuries to ‘Plaintiffs’ as a whole, not just the Student Plaintiffs,” the order reads. “Plaintiffs clarified during oral argument that Plaintiff Herbert and Plaintiff Martin attended the College Fair as chaperones and as such, they were subject to the same mistreatment.”
First Amendment Claims Survive
The judge refused to dismiss the claims related to free speech, free assembly, and retaliation under the First Amendment. Even if Martz Hall were considered a nonpublic forum, as Pottsville Area argued, the judge emphasized that viewpoint discrimination is unconstitutional in any setting.
“Viewpoint discrimination is unconstitutional regardless of the kind of property or forum at issue,” she wrote. “Allegations that a government entity ‘unevenly enforced its policies’ support an allegation of viewpoint discrimination.”
She pointed to allegations in the complaint that Pottsville Area enforced rules selectively against Gillingham students and staff, including forcing college representatives to leave the gym floor while the plaintiffs walked through alone, which the plaintiffs characterized as a humiliating “fishbowl” experience.
Fourth Amendment Seizure Claim to Proceed
The court also allowed claims under the Fourth Amendment to move forward. Plaintiffs allege they were physically pushed and restrained by Pottsville Area School District Superintendent Sarah Yoder and other district officials.
The judge noted, “Plaintiffs allege more extensive and prolonged physical contact than just being struck once in the back, slapped and briefly grabbed by the collar, or having their arm momentarily grabbed. At this early stage of the litigation, the Court finds that the complaint sufficiently alleges that Defendants used force to restrict Plantiffs’ movements such that the Plaintiffs were seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment.”
Equal Protection Violation Plausible
Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection Clause claim under the Fourteenth Amendment was also upheld. Pottsville Area had argued that charter school students were not “similarly situated” to public school district students, and that their exclusion followed a neutral policy of only inviting IU 29 member districts.
But the court was not persuaded. “At this stage of the litigation, the Court finds Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged they were similarly situated to the attendees of the College Fair, even if they were not identically situated,” the judge wrote.
She added that the question of whether there was a rational basis for excluding Gillingham students was not appropriate to resolve at the dismissal stage.
Some Claims Dismissed
Mehalchick did dismiss three claims:
- Substantive due process (excessive force): Dismissed without prejudice. The judge said the plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged serious enough injuries to meet the high threshold required.
- Eighth Amendment: Dismissed with prejudice. The court ruled this protection applies only to criminal punishments, not to alleged humiliation at a school event.
- Civil conspiracy: Dismissed with prejudice. The judge wrote that “the alleged animus towards Gillingham does not appear to be based on an immutable characteristic, but rather political opposition to Gillingham as a charter school,” which is not protected under that statute.
Plaintiffs were given 21 days to revise and refile the excessive force claim.
Subscribe to Coal Region Canary
Get email updates from Coal Region Canary by becoming a subscriber today. Just enter your email address below to get started!Support Coal Region Canary
Like our reporting and want to support truly local news in Schuylkill County? Your small donations help. For as little as $5, your contribution will allow us to cover more news that directly affects you. Consider donating today by hitting the big yellow button below ...
Fedupconseravtive
June 18, 2025 at 3:32 pm
The way that Pottsville school district and their superintendent Yoder handled this was not right. All kids deserve the same freedom to choose for their future education. I guess Yoder left because the heat in the kitchen was getting too hot with her actions against Gillingham.