Jennifer Styczinski and Thomas Styczinski v. City of Eden Prairie

Background

Plaintiffs Jennifer and Thomas Styczinski, suing on behalf of their minor son A.S., brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — the federal statute that allows individuals to sue state or local government officials for constitutional violations — against the City of Eden Prairie, Community Center Manager Valerie Verley (in her individual and official capacities), and Parks and Recreation Director Amy Markle (in her official capacity). The suit arose from the Eden Prairie Community Center's (EPCC) revocation of the family's Aquatic Center access in July 2022.

Key Facts

The Styczinskis became EPCC members in 2015 and agreed to the EPCC's "Behavioral Guidelines: Verbal Abuse" policy (the Policy), which prohibits threatening or personalized abusive behavior toward staff or other patrons and defines verbal abuse to include name-calling, condescension, threats, and blatantly ignoring staff enforcing building policy.

Two incidents preceded the revocation. First, on April 5, 2022, A.S. wore outside shoes into the Fitness Center, ignored a fitness instructor's directions, and walked away while she was speaking to him. Thomas asked to speak with a manager. Two days later, Verley emailed Jennifer, warning that continued issues could jeopardize the family's membership. Jennifer did not share the email with Thomas.

Second, on July 15, 2022, at the Aquatic Center, A.S. broke diving-board rules and climbed on the ladder and railing after the board was closed. Jennifer intervened in a separate matter — a group of teenagers being asked to leave — becoming visibly angry, gesturing, and waving her arms. Thomas, while in the pool, pointed, shook his finger and fist at head lifeguard Mayia Melchert, then followed two minor female lifeguards out the door and called out that he would be complaining about one of them. Melchert reported feeling physically threatened. Five lifeguards submitted incident reports. Lifeguards were in tears and expressed reluctance to return to work if the Styczinski family came back.

On July 20, 2022, Verley revoked the family's Aquatic Center access after reviewing reports and speaking with staff. Plaintiffs subsequently met with then-City Parks and Recreation Director Jay Lotthammer on August 12, 2022. Lotthammer declined to reverse any actions. Thomas asked how to appeal; Lotthammer offered to bring it to City Manager Rick Getschow, but Plaintiffs did not pursue that route. Nearly a year later, Getschow informed Plaintiffs he would not discipline staff but that Plaintiffs were welcome to rejoin the EPCC and use the Aquatic Center.

Legal Claims

Plaintiffs raised both facial and as-applied challenges under the First Amendment (free speech) and Fourteenth Amendment (due process), seeking declaratory relief, injunctive relief, damages, and attorney's fees.

Court's Analysis

I. As-Applied First Amendment Claim

The court first classified the EPCC as a nonpublic forum — government property not held out by tradition or designation as a place for public discourse — noting no evidence that the City designated the EPCC for public communication. Because the EPCC is a nonpublic forum, the government may impose content-based restrictions so long as they are viewpoint neutral and reasonable in light of the forum's purpose. The court found the Policy reasonable because disruptions at a pool could distract lifeguards and endanger swimmers, and Plaintiffs offered no contrary argument.

The court further held that the Policy was applied to Plaintiffs' conduct, not their speech. The First Amendment does not prohibit restricting conduct that incidentally burdens speech. The court identified three specific conduct violations: (1) A.S. wore outside shoes and ignored staff; (2) Thomas behaved in a threatening manner toward Melchert and followed minor lifeguards; and (3) Jennifer interfered with lifeguards enforcing rules with other swimmers. The court concluded there is no First Amendment right to wear wet shoes in a fitness center, ignore staff, invade someone's personal space while screaming, or interfere with lifeguard safety enforcement.

II. Facial First Amendment Challenge

Applying the Supreme Court's framework from Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, 603 U.S. 707 (2024), the court asked whether a substantial number of the Policy's applications are unconstitutional relative to its legitimate sweep. The court assessed the Policy's text and found it restricts only threatening or abusive behavior inside the EPCC, regardless of the patron's viewpoint. Plaintiffs argued the Policy was not viewpoint neutral because it restricted criticizing staff but was silent on complimenting staff. The court rejected this, explaining that the Policy limits the manner — not the content or viewpoint — of patrons' communications: patrons remain free to complain or compliment so long as they do not do so in a threatening or demeaning way. Because Plaintiffs failed to show the Policy leads to speech suppression, the facial First Amendment claim failed.

III. Due Process Challenge

On the Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim, the court held that Plaintiffs had no constitutionally protected property interest in unrestricted access to a public building, citing Royer ex rel. Est. of Royer v. City of Oak Grove, 374 F.3d 685, 689 (8th Cir. 2004). Even if a property interest existed, the court found Plaintiffs received adequate due process: pre-deprivation notice through their membership agreement and Verley's warning email, and post-deprivation process through written communications, a meeting with the City's Parks and Recreation Director, and the City's ultimate offer to restore full membership. Because the as-applied due-process claim failed, the facial due-process claim also failed. The court noted it need not address Verley's immunity argument given the absence of any constitutional violation.

Disposition

- Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 29): DENIED - Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 33): GRANTED - All of Plaintiffs' claims: DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE