SIOUX CITY, Iowa (KCAU) — The Sioux City Community School District (SCCSD) and members of its board have asked a judge to strike portions of a lawsuit filed against them.

Dr. Paul Gausman, a former superintendent of SCCSD, has filed a lawsuit against his former employer. Gausman alleges that members of the school board met in secret to file a complaint against him to the state’s board of educational examiners. However, the school district said that Iowa Law prohibits professional complaints from being used in lawsuits.

“The Plaintiff’s references to pending and former complaints before the Iowa Board of Educational Examiners and information related to the complaints and the complaints attached to his Petition are not admissible evidence in this judicial proceeding,” the district wrote in their motion to strike.

The district and the four individual members of the school board named in the lawsuit, Dan Greenwell, Jan George, Taylor Goodvin, and Bob Michaelson, are all represented by Cedar Rapids-based Brett Nitzschke, who is part of the firm Lynch Dallas.

Under Iowa Law, only the facts relevant to the case, and permissible under the law, may be included in initial filings. However, the district said in its motion that because the complaint is not legally allowed to be included in lawsuits it should be stricken from the lawsuit.

The district also took issue with Gausman’s specific request that the four members of the school board named in the suit be removed from their positions as members of the school board. However, the district claimed that even if the four members were found to have violated the law, it would still be counter to Iowa Law to remove them.

According to the district’s motion, not only have the defendants never been found to have violated the portion of Iowa Law that would call for their removal, but Gausman also has not claimed that they did. The district, therefore, asked that all references to the board members being removed from office be stricken.

As of Friday afternoon, court records did not show that the district had filed a response to the rest of Gausman’s claims.