Plaintiffs in monument case want names kept private
The attorney representing the Freedom From Religion Foundation and two anonymous plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit against the Connellsville Area School District over a Ten Commandments monument is asking the court to keep the names of the plaintiffs confidential.
Attorney Marcus B. Schneider, on behalf of the Wisconsin-based religious freedom organization and the two Does, a Connellsville Junior High School student and her parent, reasoned that the Does should be allowed to proceed using pseudonyms “due to the highly personal and sensitive religious matters involved, the age of the student plaintiff, the animus expressed by the public regarding the plaintiffs and this case, harassing remarks about the plaintiffs and the potential for physical harm.”
The plaintiffs filed a complaint against the school district in federal district court in September, shortly after a very similar lawsuit was lodged against the New Kensington-Arnold School District by the FFRF and unidentified Does. Both complaints ask for the removal of monuments displaying the Ten Commandments from public school grounds on the basis that the placement of such monuments violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. That clause essentially holds that government can’t establish a particular religion.
Schneider contended that while parties in judicial proceedings are typically identified, courts have allowed plaintiffs to proceed anonymously when they demonstrate fear of severe harm, and evidence that the fear is reasonable.
Particularly in this type of case, he argued, intense emotional reactions can emerge.
“There is an alarming history of violence and threats of violence against Establishment Clause plaintiffs,” he wrote, and went on to illustrate several examples nationally and in Pennsylvania in which plaintiffs received threats for vocalizing their religious views contrary to the beliefs held by others in their communities.
Schneider said the plaintiffs in the case against CASD have been intimidated by the community in response to the litigation and believe the vocal opponents intend to push them out of the community.
“A number of intimidating comments and remarks have been made on social media websites and in the ‘comments’ sections of news articles regarding this case,” Schneider wrote. “A person by the name of ‘Danny Budia’ stated on the WPXI-TV Facebook page regarding a Sept. 7, 2012, story about the case, ‘These people need drug into the nearest street and shot.”
Schneider went on to say the Doe plaintiffs are also aware of the hostility expressed against the plaintiffs in the New Kensington-Arnold School District case. On a Facebook page supporting the monument in that school district, a commenter wrote, “I’m sure if we look up the (expletive) she probably has a Facebook account or a Facebook page for her ridiculous group and we can slam the (expletive) out of the (expletive),” referring to the lone named plaintiff in that case.
Schneider indicated that as counsel for the plaintiff, he too has received harassing messages, including emails indicating that he would suffer God’s wrath for representing the plaintiffs.
Arguing that there is a substantial public interest in allowing the plaintiffs to maintain their anonymity, Schneider wrote, “Permitting plaintiffs, especially in situations where, as here, minor plaintiffs are involved, to proceed under pseudonyms helps ensure that religious minorities and other categories of aggrieved citizens will not be deterred from bringing actions to vindicate their rights in the future out of fear that they will face harassment, physical harm, invasions of privacy, or other forms of retaliation.”
A judge will rule on the motion to proceed using pseudonyms at a later date.