Lawsuit Against Society for Creative Anachronism Thrown Out Because It's Untimely

and also because private clubs generally have broad discretion in interpreting their internal rules.

From Parker v. Society for Creative Anachronism, decided yesterday by Judge Robert Bryan (W.D. Wash.):

The SCA is a nonprofit private club "devoted to the research and re-creation of pre-seventeenth century skills, arts, combat, and culture." The SCA is governed by a board of directors. It is divided into twenty regions called "kingdoms, which, in turn are divided into subchapters." The SCA's medieval structure creates leadership positions in the individual kingdoms called "monarchs," collectively referred to as "the Crown."

The SCA has a handbook containing the "Corpora," by-laws, corporate policies, and articles of incorporation. Pursuant to the SCA's Sanctions Procedures and Policies Manual, "the Crown" may impose temporary sanctions against members for "violations of any provision of the Corpora, SCA Corporate Documents, and/or Kingdom Law." {According to the SCA's By-Laws, the "corpora" are the documents "defining the structure of the medieval organization used by the SCA in its recreations and including minimum requirements and guidelines for that organization."} Sanctions include exile from that kingdom.

If a member is sanctioned by the Crown, the member must be given notice; the board is also sent notice of the sanction. The board may "[u]phold or overturn the sanction" and/or "[e]xtend the sanction and request [an officer] investigate the matter for a determination of the need for additional action up to and including Revocation of Membership and Denial of Participation." The board serves as the final "court of appeals" for disputes. Permanent membership revocation and participation bans may be made by the board for violation of the by-laws or Corpora of the SCA or on a "formal recommendation arising out of procedures for the purpose defined in Corpora for medieval structure of the SCA." …

The Plaintiffs were members of the "Kingdom of An Tir, Barony of Blabtha an Oir" from 2006 to 2021. Plaintiff Lori Parker served in a leadership position for the Kingdom of An Tir's Youth and Family Achievement group. This was an unpaid volunteer position. Id. She contends that she was harassed while in that position and was removed from that position on October 22, 2017. Mrs. Parker moved to a leadership position at the "society" level but testified that she is not basing any harassment claims on events that occurred while she was in that position. When asked to point to other examples of harassing events, Mrs. Parker points to Mr. Parker allegedly being called a "Nazi" and Mrs. Parker being called "abusive" by another SCA member before "the polling for Baron and Baroness" in 2019. Mrs. Parker contends that she and Mr. Parker were being attacked online by several SCA members and that they were subjected to "passive aggressive" behavior by some members.

When Plaintiff George Parker participated in SCA events, and other medieval re-creation activities, he uses the name Hakon Thorgeirsson. On April 1, 2021, Mr. Parker, using his SCA persona Hakon Thorgeirsson, posted the following on another SCA member's SCA Facebook page:

To those who support my stand, thank you. To those who are interferent or don't understand it, I would encourage you to re-read the comments wherein I'm being called "sis dude" and tell me that that term isn't being used as much as an insult as calling a homosexual a homo or fag. All you faggots can stick your reticule and scorn up your collective asses along with everything else you seem to like to stick there.

The SCA received two complaints about Mr. Parker's post. The next day, April 2, 2021, the local SCA leadership, "the Crown," "exiled" Mr. Parker as a sanction for violating the SCA's Core Values and policy against hate speech[:]

{Hate speech is not tolerated in the Society. Hate speech is speech or symbols that offend, threaten, or insult individuals or groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability or other traits. Such symbols and speech have no essential part of any discussion of ideas and are of so little value to the Society that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the harm caused. The use by any participant in the Society may result in possible sanctions up to and including revocation of membership and denial of participation.} …

Mr. Parker's membership in the SCA was [eventually] permanently revoked and he was banned from participating in the SCA….

The Parkers sued for, among other things, a hostile work environment (on the theory that the unpaid volunteer position was covered by the law), but the court rejected the claims because (among other things) they were barred by the three-year statute of limitations under Washington law. The Parkers' negligent infliction of emotional distress claims were rejected on statute of limitations grounds as well. (It's not clear that any of the claims would have been legally sound in any event, but the statute of limitations dismissal made it unnecessary to consider that.)

The Parkers also argued that under "various provisions of the SCA's governing documents," "the SCA board violated those documents when it decided to revoke Mr. Parker's membership and ban him from future events." This could in principle be a valid claim, since private clubs can bind themselves to contracts governing expulsion procedures. But courts tend to be quite deferential to the clubs' interpretation of their own rules:

Washington courts are hesitant to interfere with a private club's decision to expel members and that interference is "applied with considerable judicial restraint."

With that in mind, to the extent that the Plaintiffs argue that the SCA failed to follow the requirements in the governing documents and that failure was unreasonable, the Plaintiffs' negligence claim should be dismissed. The Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the SCA unreasonably failed to follow the requirements of its governing documents. The board was empowered to sanction members for violating the "Corpora," including revoking their membership and permanently banning them. Mr. Parker was sanctioned for violating Corpora Section X.A.4, the provision on hate speech. It is undisputed that Mr. Parker was given notice of the sanctions, and several opportunities to be heard as is required under the governing documents.

The Plaintiffs complain that what constitutes "hate speech" is subjective and Mr. Parker's post was not on an official SCA website. They quibble with other portions of the decision, maintaining that the "just and stated cause" for the revocation of his membership and ban from participation was not met to the Plaintiffs' satisfaction. They further maintain that the SCA board's actions were not "honorable," contrary to the organization's ideals of medieval chivalry. The Plaintiffs' contentions relate to the board's interpretation of its own laws. In Washington, great deference is accorded to a voluntary association's interpretation of its own laws; courts only interfere if such an interpretation is arbitrary and unreasonable. There is no showing that the board's interpretation of its own laws was arbitrary or unreasonable here….

And the court also rejected the claim that the SCA had an obligation to protect the Parkers from "Other SCA Members' Passive Aggressive Behavior, Verbal Attacks and Threats."