Four people being sued for defamation by a Slippery Rock Area School District elementary principal are asking a judge to dismiss the case.

Kristie Shulsky, principal of Moraine Elementary School, filed a complaint in July in Butler County Common Pleas Court seeking more than $500,000 in damages against former Butler County Community College president Nick Neupauer; his wife, Tamatha Neupauer, a paraprofessional at Moraine Elementary School; Billie Douglas, a secretary at the school; and district superintendent Alfonso Angelucci as an individual.

Shulsky’s suit makes claims of defamation, false light invasion of privacy and interference with contract against the Neupauers and Douglas; and breach of fiduciary duty against Angelucci.

In her July complaint, Shulsky claims Douglas started a rumor that she was intoxicated at work on April 24, and spread the rumor to others, including Tamatha Neupauer. Nick Neupauer was contacted by his wife, Tamatha, who told him Shulsky was intoxicated at work that day. He then contacted solicitor Michael Hnath. Hnath told Angelucci who went to the school to evaluate her condition, according to the complaint.

However, after an appeal to the Pennsylvania Department of Education, acting Secretary of Education Carrie Rowe deemed the accusations to be unfounded and ordered the district to reinstate Shulsky in her July 17 opinion.

The school board voted Aug. 11 to file an appeal against the reinstatement in Commonwealth Court.

In the civil suit, Nick Neupauer filed his preliminary objections on Aug. 28, while the other three filed on Sept. 5. Tamatha Neupauer and Douglas filed together.

Tamatha Neupauer and Douglas’s preliminary objection argues the two have testimonial immunity for any statement made in Shulsky’s termination hearings.

The objection argues that the privilege of testimonial immunity has previously extended to “quasi-judicial” proceedings, such as termination hearings, and that any statement made in the hearing regarding Shulsky’s alleged intoxication was “pertinent” to the proceedings.

Outside of the hearings, an objection argues that Tamatha Neupauer “reasonably believed” that Shulsky was intoxicated, and with no contradictory evidence such as a test, her statements aren’t defamatory.

The same filing argues that both Tamatha Neupauer and Douglas were stating their opinions in regards to Shulsky’s alleged intoxication and that opinions cannot count as defamatory statements.

The objections also argue that the two’s comments were privileged. It claims Douglas had reasonable cause to make statements to employees of the district under common interest, while Tamatha Neupauer is protected under spousal privilege.

As for the claim of contract interference, the two’s objection argues that employees of an entity and school districts cannot be the third party required for an interference claim.

The two’s objections also claim that they fall under governmental immunity as school district employees.

As for Nick Neupauer, the first of his preliminary objections argue that several exhibits attached to Shulsky’s suit, all excerpts from termination hearing testimony transcripts, should either be stricken or amended to full transcript copies. It argues that the excerpts attached, being “limited,” either fail to provide wider context or cite other sections of the transcripts.

A second objection argues that Shulsky identified Tamatha Neupauer’s written statement and social media posts from the Butler Eagle and “Families of Slippery Rock” Facebook pages in her complaint, but failed to attach them.

Angelucci’s objections argue that as all of Angelucci’s activities in the complaint were done in the course of his official duties, he is entitled to the immunity.

Angelucci’s objections also claim that he falls under governmental immunity as a school district employee.