Williams v. Vidmar, No. 04-4946 (N.D.Cal. Apr. 28, 2005)
A California federal district court has rejected an elementary school teacher's free speech, due process, and establishment of religion claims against a school district for intervening after receiving complaints about his classroom promotion of his religious views. However, the court ruled that he stated a valid legal claim for violation of his federal equal protection rights, based on his allegation that he was treated differently from other teachers because of his Christian beliefs and because he was required to obtain prior approval from the principal before distributing any supplemental classroom materials. The principal began requiring Steven J. Williams, a teacher at Stevens Creek Elementary School (SCES) in Cupertino, California, to submit any proposed supplemental classroom materials to her for approval before distributing them in the classroom. The principal, acting on a parent's complaint that Mr. Williams was injecting his religious beliefs into the classroom, reviewed supplemental materials and banned him from using materials prepared to teach about Easter. Mr. Williams filed suit, claiming violation of his equal protection, free speech, due process, and establishment clause rights. The district court struck all but the equal protection claim. It concluded that Mr. Williams' allegations were sufficient to state a valid equal protection claim at the pleadings stage of litigation, even though Mr. Williams did not identify a class of "similarly situated" teachers that was as narrow as the class the district suggested, because under federal liberal pleading standards his broad pleading was sufficient to put the defendants on notice. The court rejected the free speech claim, concluding elementary school teachers do not have a free speech right to determine what curriculum will be taught in the classroom. It found that the speech in question occurred in a nonpublic forum, i.e., the classroom, and was, therefore, subject to restrictions based on legitimate pedagogical concerns. Based on its review of the allegations, the court concluded that the principal had legitimate concerns that Mr. Williams' materials were aimed at "teaching religion" rather than "teaching about religion." The district court disposed of the procedural due process claim on the grounds that no underlying constitutional right, such as free speech, was violated. It rejected Mr. Williams' allegation of facial vagueness, concluding that interactions with the principal and accompanying explanations regarding what materials were unacceptable provided him with sufficient notice. Lastly, the court dismissed the establishment clause claim on the grounds that teachers do not have a right under that clause to express their religious beliefs in the classroom. In short, the court applied the three part test established in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), and determined that the principal's actions passed constitutional muster.
Williams v. Vidmar, No. 04-4946 (N.D.Cal. Apr. 28, 2005)
[Link to full opinion]
Los Angeles Times
By Robert Hollis
[Link to full story]
[Editor’s Note: For background on the dispute, see below. For a very thorough case study of the dispute and the political and public relations dynamics visited upon unlucky school districts and communities over such divisive matters, see Peter J. Boyer’s article in The New Yorker. The article is instructive for school board members, administrators, attorneys, communications directors, and reporters. Finally, see the website “We, the Parents,” which Cupertino parents established to attempt to counter some of the misinformation about their community and schools.]
[NSBA School Law pages on dispute]
The New Yorker
By Peter J. Boyer
[Full article]
[We, the Parents]