Lawsuit claims community center ‘verbal abuse’ policy violates rights

A family has sued the city of Eden Prairie in federal court, claiming a verbal-abuse policy at the city’s recreation center is unconstitutional.

Thomas and Jennifer Styczinski allege their First Amendment free-speech rights and their 14th Amendment due-process rights under the U.S. Constitution were violated when the Eden Prairie Community Center (EPCC) used the policy to suspend and then ban them from the facility’s aquatics center after verbal encounters with recreation center staff.

The city denies it acted improperly. Both sides have requested a jury trial in U.S. District Court. No trial date has been set.

The 35-page complaint, filed July 9, 2024, also names the EPCC manager and the city’s parks and recreation director as defendants. The Styczinskis want the policy rewritten or eliminated, according to their attorney, and are asking for nominal damages in the amount of $1. They may also seek punitive damages.

Advertisement

At issue are the recreation center behavior guidelines, a verbal abuse policy that initiates progressive consequences – a warning, followed by possible suspension and, eventually, membership cancellation for one year – for patrons “speaking with the intent to demean, humiliate, blame, or threaten.” The policy’s stated purpose is to ensure the safety of staff and patrons.

The Styczinskis, EPCC members since about 2015, were banned from the city’s aquatics center after two incidents with city staff – one on April 5, 2022, and another on July 15, 2022 – according to the complaint.

The first encounter between the Styczinskis and recreation center staff occurred after a family member who is a minor was alleged to have worn wet or improper shoes in the center’s treadmill area, followed by a conversation between Thomas Styczinski and an unnamed recreation center manager. Days later, the lawsuit says, the city sent the family an email that “threatened the Styczinski family’s membership.”

Three months later, conversations between the Styczinskis and recreation center staff regarding behavior in the swimming pool area resulted in a city email to Jennifer Styczinski “announcing that the Styczinski family were permanently prohibited from access to the aquatics area and further threatening their EPCC membership,” the suit says.

The second incident involved the use of a pool diving board by one of the family’s children and a friend, with the complaint detailing a conversation between Thomas Styczinski and a lifeguard in which Styczinski asked why the lifeguard was repeatedly blowing her whistle as the children used the diving board.

Linked to this encounter, according to the complaint, is an incident minutes earlier between recreation center staff and a group of young men whom the Styczinskis claim were asked by lifeguards to leave the pool.

The lawsuit claims Jennifer Styczinski, who was in the pool area at the time, spoke to a lifeguard and “vouched for the conduct of the young men as having done nothing wrong.”

“Later after leaving the EPCC for the day, Jenny realized that the … exodus demanded by the lifeguards might have been racially motivated,” according to the complaint, which states the young men were Black.

The family maintains in the complaint that they were banned from the aquatics center “when they voiced concerns about EPCC staff misconduct.”

The city’s response alleges that video of the incident shows Jennifer Styczinski interfering with lifeguards as they attempt to enforce community center rules.

The encounters with staff and the subsequent aquatics center ban led to a meeting in August 2022 between the Styczinskis and then-city parks director Jay Lotthammer, who declined to reverse the ban.

The complaint says that about a year later, in September 2023, the city invited the family to rejoin EPCC. But the Styczinskis say in the complaint that they are concerned the policy will be used against them if they rejoin.

In their suit, the Styczinskis allege the recreation center’s verbal abuse policy is ‘irrational and vague’ and ‘regulates them from pointing out EPCC staff or officials’ misconduct.

Further, the family contends the city should have provided an appeals process allowing them to challenge the decision to ban them.

“The Styczinskis are not alleging any instances of verbal abuse or policy violations,” reads a statement provided by one of their attorneys, Elizabeth Nielsen. “Rather, they are claiming that the verbal abuse policy itself is an unconstitutional shield from legitimate criticism of EPCC employees, or government officials.

“Systematically, it’s easy to forget that local public places, like the EPCC, are taxpayer-funded government facilities. And, of course we want those public spaces to be pleasant for patrons and employees alike,” the statement from the attorney continues. “But a government facility comes with an obligation to consider everyone’s constitutional rights, which categorically includes the right to criticize government staff when something is believed to be wrong and requires some sort of due process before depriving someone of use of that facility. A policy that allows staff to take away someone’s access based on accusation of verbal abuse alone doesn’t cut it, constitutionally.”

The city, in its response to the lawsuit, denies many of the allegations and the family’s claim that their constitutional rights were violated.

Through its attorney, John Baker, the city offered the following when asked about the city’s liability in the case: 

“The city asserts that its actions regarding the plaintiffs were legal and constitutional in all respects. The Eden Prairie Community Center (EPCC) has rules governing members’ behavior when they’re at the center. The lifeguards are responsible for safety and proper order. It’s a problem, for example, to interfere with lifeguards’ performance of their duties, including the enforcement of pool rules and watching what’s happening in the water and on the deck. It’s also a problem to ignore their directions. The plaintiffs were informed they would not be allowed to use the aquatics center. At a later point, they were invited by the city to once again become members of the aquatics center if they wished. Instead, they brought this suit.”

The Styczinskis maintain the lawsuit was “a last resort” after their efforts to change the city policy were unsuccessful.