A short excerpt from the long opinion in Pruitt v. Grosse Pointe Public School Sys., decided Friday by Judge Robert White (E.D. Mich.):
Plaintiff Gary Shane Pruitt, a parent, attempted to raise concerns with officials from the Grosse Point Public School System (the District) about the educational environment at the public middle school his child attends. Pruitt objected to the display of rainbow pride flags in classrooms. The District officials could have listened to Pruitt’s concerns and then defended a teacher’s decision to display the flag. Surely, the teacher only aimed to create a welcoming environment for all her students. Instead, Pruitt’s concerns were dismissed.
So Pruitt visited the school to record a video of the flag. He came with his son, after school hours, and only entered the school after receiving permission from a school employee. And despite the fact multiple school officials observed him in the school, he was never asked to leave. Weeks passed without comment or action from school officials.
Then Pruitt took his concern to a public forum—posting a video to social media showing the rainbow pride flag on display. The video included Pruitt’s voiceover calling the display of the rainbow flag political and divisive, and he called on parents to “speak out” about the “radical programing” from “groomer teachers[.]” In response, the school principal initially sent an e-mail to parents, affirming the non-threatening nature of the video and identifying its publication as the “political” speech of a “parent[.]”
But public criticism followed. The District, citing complaints from staff and community members for the “disruption to the educational environment[,]” issued Pruitt a no-trespass order. A picture of Pruitt’s face was posted at the entry to the school and the district threatened criminal prosecution if Pruitt violated the order.
Moreover, the District informed Pruitt in writing that his total ban on attendance at extracurricular activities could only be revisited “at the sole discretion” of the District. Eighteen months passed without so much as a violation from Pruitt, but his requests to lift the order were denied. Finding no resolution, he sued.
At bottom, Pruitt’s video criticizing public-school officials constitutes speech protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The way public schools educate children is a core matter of public concern and debate. The District retaliated against Pruitt for his speech with their after-the-fact imposition of a no-trespass order and threat of criminal prosecution. The timing of the District’s written correspondence in this case, as well as the content of the order itself, confirms as much.
The court therefore issued a preliminary injunction ordering “that Defendants are enjoined from enforcing the no-trespass order, displaying Pruitt’s picture and the related information on school property, or taking any additional retaliatory action in response to Pruitt’s protected speech.”
David A. Kallman (Kallman Legal Group, PLLC) represents Pruitt.
