By The Watertown Daily Times staff

WATERTOWN — Two parents of seventh-graders in the Watertown City School District have filed a federal lawsuit against the district claiming their children were exposed to pornographic and sexually explicit material during an art lesson.

The parents, Watertown residents identified in court documents only as Jessy R. and Stephanie B., filed action Monday in U.S. District Court, Syracuse, against the district, Superintendent Larry C. Schmiegel and Case Middle School teacher Bridgette R. Gates.

The complaint states that Jessy R. is a practicing Christian whose religious beliefs require that she, not the state, direct the moral and spiritual formation of her child. Stephanie B. is a parent who places tight restrictions on the content her son views so as to protect her son’s emotional well-being.

According to the complaint, on Sept. 13, Gates, at the time a seventh-grade art teacher, assigned about 100 students a project involving the artist Keith Haring and provided a link to a website containing galleries of the artist’s work. Students accessed this website using their school-issued Chromebooks during class time.

It is alleged that the galleries contained numerous images, including explicit sexual acts, bodily mutilation, and other graphic content inappropriate for 11- and 12-year-old children.

The complaint claims that Gates acknowledged that “some of the images were inappropriate” and instructed students to “ignore them and be mature” before continuing with the lesson.

It is claimed, among other things, that despite having acknowledged that the images were inappropriate, Gates did not notify parents of the incident, try to find other resources about the artist that did not contain explicit sexual imagery or block or filter the content and continued to show the images to students over an about two-week period.

It wasn’t until Sept. 22 that the parents discovered the allegedly pornographic images after reviewing Google Classroom assignments on their children’s Chromebooks. When contacted about the images, Gates allegedly “deflected blame to the school’s IT department,” stating that the content “should have been blocked,” according to the complaint.

Stephanie B. contacted school administrators to report the incident and express her concerns and also contacted local law enforcement to report the incident. On Sept. 22, a city police officer who also serves as a school resource officer met with both parents outside the school.

The complaint states school administrators claimed that the district had not been aware of the sexually explicit content until the parents brought it to their attention. The parents were not permitted to enter the school building or meet directly with Gates, who the complaint says was placed on paid administrative leave on Sept. 23 pending investigation.

It is claimed that the district did not officially notify any of the students’ parents about any action against Gates, who the complaint says is now teaching English at Case, or about the investigation of the incident, although the assignment link to the Keith Haring website was removed from Google Classroom shortly after the parents complained.

Soon after, the district put out a ParentSquare message saying students had “come across inappropriate content” during an art class assignment, which it is contended in the lawsuit was “deliberately misleading and false.”

“It suggested that students had accidentally or inadvertently stumbled upon inappropriate content, rather than acknowledging the truth: that a teacher had deliberately assigned students to view a website containing pornographic imagery, had acknowledged its inappropriateness to students, and had required students to analyze such content for a graded assignment over a two-week period,” the lawsuit states.

The parents attended an Oct. 7 Board of Education meeting to express their concerns. They claim that prior to the meeting, Kevin Todd, president of the Watertown Education Association, called for teachers to attend the meeting “in solidarity with Gates.”

The parents claim in the suit that during the meeting Todd publicly compared the parents’ concerns about pornography being shown to their children to vandalism of his personal “Little Free Library” outside of his home. It is stated that Todd described concerned parents as “internet warriors,” dismissing the parents’ concerns.

It is further claimed that during the meeting, the Board of Education did not respond to any of the parents’ concerns or acknowledge any alleged wrongdoing by the district or its employees.

“The Board’s silence in the face of parents’ legitimate concerns, combined with the orchestrated show of support for the offending teacher, sent a clear message: the District would not hold Gates accountable and would not take steps to prevent similar incidents in the future,” the lawsuit states.

On Nov. 21, an attorney for the parents sent Superintendent Schmiegel a demand letter outlining the alleged Constitutional violations, requesting specific policy changes, and demanding assurances that similar incidents would not occur in the future.

The demand letter specifically requested that the district: place a letter of reprimand in Gates’ employment file; adopt a policy prohibiting the showing of sexually explicit content to children without parental notification; implement clear opt-out policies when curriculum includes sexually explicit material; and provide and pay for counseling for students psychologically affected by viewing pornographic images.

As of Monday, the parents’ had received no response, according to the suit.

It is contended in the suit that the district violated Jessy R.’s First Amendment Right to Free Exercise of Religion by, among other things, undermining her religious beliefs and practices by exposing her child to sexual content contrary to her faith and presenting such content as acceptable educational material from trusted authority figures (teachers), as well as by usurping her parental role in educating her child about sexuality in accordance with her Christian faith.

Both parents claim their actions violated their Fourteenth Amendment Rights to Substantive Due Process and Procedural Due Process, claiming, among other things, that they were never given advance notice of the nature of the art lesson or given an opportunity to opt out of the instruction.

They are asking the court for a declaratory judgment finding that their Constitutional rights were violated and injunctive relief preventing the district from exposing students to sexually explicit or pornographic material without prior parental notification and the ability to opt out, and also without providing an alternative assignment for parents who object.

They are also seeking an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, or else nominal damages, for the claimed violations of their rights, including, among other things, “the loss of parental autonomy” and “the chilling of religious and parental liberty.”

The suit is brought by attorneys for The American Center for Law & Justice, Washington, D.C.

Superintendent Schmiegel declined comment on the litigation Wednesday.