Did Olathe school board unfairly kick parent out of meeting? A jury could decide

A former Olathe school board candidate filed a lawsuit against the board and district last year after she was removed from a meeting for hurling accusations about her election opponent. Now a federal judge has ruled that the lawsuit can go to a jury trial this fall.

U.S. District Court Judge Holly Teeter on Wednesday threw out most claims brought by the former candidate, Olathe parent Jennifer Gilmore. But the judge sided with Gilmore on her primary claim, saying that a jury could reasonably conclude she was prevented from speaking during the meeting because officials did not like her views.

Linus Baker, Gilmore’s attorney, said the parties will now return to mediation. They could either settle or move to a jury trial, scheduled for October.

“I’m not sure my client is going to go away quietly into the night. They’ve publicly humiliated her,” Baker said. “So I’m not so sure where she’s going to be at in light of this ruling. But all things can be settled, I guess.”

Olathe district spokeswoman Erin Schulte did not offer an opinion on the case in an email to The Star, but simply said, “The United States District Court Judge’s Memorandum and Order dismissed all claims brought against all defendants in the lawsuit, except for one claim.”

At the start of 2022, Gilmore filed the lawsuit against school board member Joe Beveridge, as well as Brent Kiger, the district’s director of safety services, and Jim McMullen, assistant superintendent of operations.

The previous fall, she had campaigned against mask mandates and critical race theory as part of a slate of conservative candidates.

Gilmore lost in a tight race that was called days after election night. Board member Julie Steele ultimately won by 65 votes. Gilmore questioned the integrity of the election in social media posts but did not request a recount.

As new board members were sworn in at a January meeting, Gilmore spoke during public comments.

She started: “Good evening. I didn’t buy my board seat, but I’m still here because I care about this district.“

Mid-sentence, Beveridge, who was board president at the time and tasked with maintaining order during meetings, interjected, “You know what,” but let her continue.

“Don’t interrupt me, please,” Gilmore said. “We were told prior to enrollment that masks would be optional. We’re doing the same thing year after year. I agree that liars lie, but the only liar that lied in this election was Jim Randall.”

Randall, a former Olathe City Council member, is Steele’s father. He is also Beveridge’s father-in-law.

Beveridge cut her off again and said, “OK, you’re done. You’re done. Uh, Dr. McMullen, remove her.”

Beveridge continued to tell Gilmore that she was done talking, and said that she “mentioned a person.” The school board’s public comment rules at the time stated that the board will not hear “personal attacks, or rude or defamatory remarks of any kind about any employee or student of the School District or any person connected with the School District.”

And the policy allowed the board president to interrupt statements that were disruptive or “not germane to the business activities of the board.”

“Your father-in-law … that spent $37,000 for her (Steele’s) board seat?” Gilmore replied to Beveridge. Steele raised nearly double the amount that Gilmore did leading up to the November election, reporting about $60,000 in contributions, more than half coming from loans Steele made to her own campaign.

Beveridge then called for a five-minute break. McMullen told Gilmore during the break that Beveridge had asked him and Kiger to remove her from the building, according to the lawsuit.

The judge’s ruling says that Beveridge stated in an email after the meeting that he had “zero misgivings about (his) decision,” that no other board members complained about his action, and that “as long as I am board president, no one will attack family members of any of our board members during public comments.”

Gilmore contends that school officials violated her First Amendment rights by restricting her speech during the meeting. But the district argues that the public comment portion is a limited forum, and that Gilmore’s speech fell outside the parameters allowed by board policy.

The judge said in her ruling that regardless of the forum, Gilmore’s “speech undoubtedly fell within the broader protections of the First Amendment. Her speech at a minimum addressed a public election and Plaintiff’s contention that Randall lied in the context of that election. The outcome and integrity of an election is unquestionably a matter of significant public concern.”

Governmental officials, she wrote, cannot “pick and choose what viewpoints people are allowed to express,” meaning Gilmore’s rights were violated if Beveridge blocked her from speaking because of her viewpoint.

Beveridge’s intent in stopping Gilmore from speaking is the crux of the issue. Beveridge did not return The Star’s request for comment.

The judge, Teeter, said a reasonable jury could conclude that Beveridge “acted in anger” and silenced Gilmore because of her criticism of his father-in-law, rather than because of board policy.

That’s because, Teeter said, Beveridge “had a history” with Gilmore since she ran against his sister-in-law. Gilmore’s speech specifically targeted Beveridge’s father-in-law and accused Randall of lying. The judge said Beveridge also interrupted Gilmore almost immediately after she began speaking before the content of her speech was clearly known.

In addition, “significantly, Beveridge did not simply silence Plaintiff, but he went the additional step and had her entirely removed from the public meeting even though (board policies) contain no provision authorizing removal.”

And Beveridge did not “reference any specific aspect” of the policy, but “instead stated that he would not tolerate negative comments about family members of the Board, which is notable because a jury could find that this statement implicitly suggests that he would not have removed Plaintiff had she said positive things about a family member.”

Teeter also allowed Gilmore to pursue punitive damages against Beveridge, but denied her request to pursue damages against the district and school board.

The judge ruled in favor of the district on several other points, rejecting Gilmore’s claim of retaliation and claim that her equal protection rights were violated, saying that they lacked evidence. And she threw out Gilmore’s challenge to board policy.

Teeter also previously rejected Gilmore’s attempt to prevent the school board from enforcing its new public comment policy at meetings. The new policy, adopted in April 2022, months after Gilmore filed her suit, still includes a requirement that topics be “germane to the business of the board.” But board rules no longer include the provision about personal attacks or defamatory remarks.

Baker, the Stilwell lawyer representing Gilmore, a couple of years ago represented the families of 16 children in the Blue Valley and Olathe districts, arguing that their students should be allowed to attend school during the pandemic without wearing masks.

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, Baker sued the Blue Valley district, the Kansas Department of Children and Families, as well as a charter school, over school immunization requirements on behalf of his son, who was not vaccinated.