Court advances Boy Scouts suit against the city

A federal judge ruled yesterday that a lawsuit brought against the city by the local Boy Scouts chapter could proceed on First Amendment issues raised in the suit.

The suit was filed in federal district court in May by Cradle of Liberty, the local chapter, just before the city decided to evict the Scouts from a rent-free building it owns on the Ben Franklin Parkway if they didn't fork over $200,000 in annual rent or agree to rescind their national membership policy.

The Boy Scouts' membership policy doesn't permit openly gay people in leadership positions, which the city said is discriminatory and violates its Fair Practices Ordinance.

The local chapter claimed in its suit that the city violated its First Amendment rights, engaging in viewpoint discrimination and conditioning its subsidized rent on giving up its right to associate with whomever it wants.

U.S. District Judge Ronald L. Buckwalter said the complaint provided "sufficient allegations" to conclude the city's actions "may have compromised" the chapter's First Amendment rights.

However, he said the court also "lacked a developed record" at this stage of the litigation and more discovery was needed.

The chapter also claimed the city breached a contract that said, in exchange for a nondiscriminatory statement and other concessions, the city wouldn't seek eviction.

The chapter also claimed that the city was unjustly enriching itself by the eviction.

Although the city owns the building, the scouts have invested $60,000 annually in maintenance and invested more than $1.5 million in 1994 in renovating the building.

The chapter said the city wasn't entitled to the benefits without compensating the chapter.

Buckwalter dismissed the chapter's claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

Both parties claimed victory yesterday.

"This was a significant ruling," said Jason Gosselin, a lawyer for the chapter. "The judge said withholding a benefit could be a violation of [the chapter's] First Amendment rights."

City Solicitor Shelley Smith was pleased that the chapter's claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment were dismissed.

"The court has determined that not enough facts have been developed where a decision can be made on the validity of the First Amendment claims," she said. *