Twelve school districts named as defendants in a recent religious discrimination lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court in Johnstown by Bishop McCort Academy have agreed to extend the deadline for answering the lawsuit so the parties can attempt to resolve the issues out of court.

The districts on Tuesday filed a stipulation with the federal court agreeing that the time deadline for answering the McCort lawsuit be extended to May 20.

McCort’s attorneys, George R. Farneth II of Pittsburgh and Nicholas A. Miller of Bridgeville, late last week also filed a petition seeking the extension.

The lawyers for McCort stated that discussions to resolve the ongoing dispute had been initiated.

“By and through the ‘Meet-and-Confer’ process under this Court’s local rules, the parties have all indicated the existence of an interest in working toward an amicable resolution of (McCort’s) claims without further court intervention,” McCort’s petition stated.

Because of the stipulation, the district judge presiding over the dispute, Christy Criswell Wiegand, dismissed the McCort petition as moot, or irrelevant at this point.

However, despite the deadline extension, attorneys representing seven additional defendants have already filed a petition to dismiss the lawsuit.

Attorneys Thomas W. King III, Thomas E. Breth and Ronald Repak of Butler on Monday contended the McCort lawsuit is unable to support its argument that religious discrimination existed within the Laurel Highlands Athletic Conference, as McCort alleged in its lawsuit filed in the federal court on Feb. 26.

The attorneys filed the dismissal request on behalf of the Penn Cambria, Forest Hills, Greater Johnstown, Bedford Area, Somerset Area and Westmont Hilltop school districts.

Another defendant, the Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association, represented by Dana W. Chilson of Harrisburg, as of Monday, sought dismissal of McCort’s claims.

The uproar that led to the filing of the lawsuit stemmed from a decision by the Laurel Highlands Athletic Conference last fall amending its constitution in which it could remove a school from the LHAC through a two-thirds vote of its members, replacing a former provision that a school district could not be removed without “cause.”

McCort insisted the amendment was a way by which the public schools could remove the Catholic schools from the conference, including McCort of Johnstown, Bishop Guilfoyle Academy of Altoona and Bishop Carroll Catholic High School of Ebensburg.

The three religious-based schools opposed the amendment to the LHAC constitution.

McCort vowed to fight the issue in court, according to a letter sent by PIAA District 6 chairman, Ralph P. Cecere, the superintendent of the Homer-

Center School District, to the 20-plus school districts that comprise the athletic conference.

The school confirmed that it wanted to remain a member of the Athletic Conference from 2027 through 2031, but was concerned that under the new procedure it would be removed from the conference.

It sought a court injunction against its removal, which was initially rejected.

However, when it came time to vote on McCort’s continued involvement in the conference, only two of the public schools cast ballots to discontinue Bishop McCort’s membership.

The vote, however, was by secret ballot, an alleged violation of Pennsylvania’s Sunshine Law, McCort contends.

Although McCort remains in the LHAC, it has decided to continue its lawsuit.

It charges that the public schools have violated the school’s First Amendment right to be protected from religious discrimination, and has charged that the PIAA, which oversees high school sports statewide, has failed to address such discrimination in its oversight.

The lawsuit also charges a violation of equal protection under the law.

The PIAA “has applied its rules in disparate fashion to Bishop McCort compared to non-religious organizations,” the lawsuit charges.

In yet another claim, McCort has charged the LHAC with violating the Pennsylvania’s Sunshine Act by holding a secret ballot when confirming McCort’s continued membership in the conference,

The attorneys arguing for dismissal of the lawsuit, including the PIAA, reply that in order for the lawsuit to continue McCort must show it has suffered injury of some sort (such as removal from the LHAC), and that there is a connection between the injury and conduct by the defendants, and it must also show that a decision in its favor will address the injury.

The answer by the defendant school districts pointed out the vote of Jan. 27 did not result in McCort’s removal from the LHAC, “and thus the ultimate harm (McCort) anticipated was avoided.”

The PIAA answer stated, “Because Bishop McCort has not sustained an injury in fact, Bishop McCort does not have standing to assert any of its claims in this matter, thus the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over (the) PIAA under (federal rules of procedure).”

But, even if the court decides Bishop McCort has standing to proceed with its civil rights action, it has failed to state a claim against the PIAA, according to its answer.