PITTSBURGH — The Seneca Valley School District is asking a federal court to dismiss a lawsuit against it, arguing that the suit fails to state an actionable claim.

The motion comes less than a month after an amended version of the lawsuit claims the district used selective “gender-biased” enforcement of bullying and sexual assault policies.

The suit, filed by the Flood family of Zelienople on behalf of their minor son, T.F., also lists as defendants David and Christy Sherk as parents of minor K.S.; David and Christine Seaman as parents of C.S.; Cris and Kimberly Salancy as parents of minor E.S.; and David and Lynn Reina, both individually and as parents of H.R.

The three-count complaint states K.S., C.S., E.S. and H.R. falsely accused T.F. of criminal conduct, including sexual assault. As a result, it asserts, T.F. was bullied at school and forced to make numerous court appearances and be placed in juvenile detention. He also suffered a “loss of his liberty, psychological and physical injuries” before the girls “reluctantly” admitted to making false accusations.

The amended complaint argues that despite the admission, Seneca Valley School District failed to discipline the girls. It argues the district and principal have shown a practice or policy of failing to investigate or discipline young women reporting harassment or assault, but do investigate and discipline young men alleged to have committed similar offenses. That policy, the complaint argues, is biased in favor of female students and against male students, and “is so permanent and well-settled as to virtually constitute law.”

The school district is accused of violating the 14th Amendment of the Constitution by selectively enforcing student conduct policies. The amendment ensures equal protection of the law.

In the school district's motion to dismiss filed Monday, attorney Matthew Hoffman writes that the claims against the district in the original complaint filed last October were dismissed without prejudice, with the court concluding there were insufficient facts in the complaint showing that “custom or policy” exists when dealing with such cases.

The amended complaint is similar in that it fails “to allege facts that would establish that Seneca Valley engaged in a policy or custom of gender discrimination against male students,” the motion states. A brief supporting the motion argues the complaint is “devoid of allegations of fact” in showing such a policy exists.

Additionally, it presents that school principals are not given final policymaking authority, and only those with such authority can be held liable for such accusations.

The motion also argues that the complaint fails to show deliberate indifference. Even if school board members — who are the policymakers — had knowledge of the false accusations against T.F., “inaction upon mere notice of a single violation of a constitutional right would be insufficient to establish deliberate indifference.”

Sanctions against and changes for T.F. — such as the changing of his class schedule — after the accusations were made were done so prior to the discovery and admission that they were false.

“There simply is no factual allegation to establish that the lack of discipline of the female students was the 'moving force' behind any injury to have been incurred by T.F.,” the motion states.

The Floods seek to recover damages, plus court and attorney fees.