A Michigan federal district court has ruled that neither a school district nor a principal is liable under Section 1983 for violating a student’s free speech rights. Section 1983 is a federal statute that allows a plaintiff to sue a public official who, acting under color of state law, violates rights secured by the federal constitution or statutes. Joel Curry, a fifth grade student at Handley School, participated in a school project known as "Classroom City," which involved creating, marketing and selling a product from a simulated storefront. Products could be approved for sale only after students conducted a market survey. Joel’s product involved ornaments made from pipe cleaners and beads with a Christian religious message about the origin of the candy cane. When he submitted the prototype for the market survey, the message was not attached. However, it was attached by the time the "Classroom City" event began. When the event manager became aware the ornaments contained a religious message, she told Joel to stop selling them until the principal could be consulted. Principal Irene Hensinger, after consulting with Saginaw School District’s superintendent, informed Joel’s mother that the ornaments could not be sold with the message attached. Joel’s parents sued, naming the school district and the principal as defendants. The suit alleged free speech, free exercise of religion, Establishment Clause, due process, and equal protection violations.
The court began its analysis by noting that a plaintiff suing under § 1983 must show that the defendant (1) deprived the plaintiff of a right; and (2) was responsible for the violation. One way a school district can be found to have violated a constitutional right under § 1983 is by providing inadequate training or supervision. To show a failure to train, the parents had to prove (1) the training or supervision was inadequate for the tasks performed; (2) the inadequacy resulted from deliberate indifference; and (3) the inadequacy was closely related to or actually caused the injury. Although the court found the teacher responsible for managing the project had received no specific training on accommodating religious speech, it concluded the parents failed to show the school district was deliberately indifferent. The parents had presented no evidence of prior violations of religious rights at the school, nor that the school board knew or should have known of the need to train teachers. The parents also failed to present any evidence that the need for training was so obvious that failure to train would result in a constitutional violation. As a result, the court granted the school district’s motion for summary judgment on all claims.
Turning to the principal’s personal liability, the court addressed her defense of qualified immunity. To overcome this defense, the parents had to show: (1) their constitutionally protected right was violated; (2) the right was so clearly established at the time that a reasonable public official would understand her conduct violated that right; and (3) the official’s action was objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established rights. The court focused its analysis on the allegation that the Ms. Hensinger had violated Joel’s right to free speech. After reviewing U.S. Supreme Court precedents, the court concluded she had no justification for restricting Joel’s speech. Her concern that the religious message on Joel’s product would interfere with the pedagogical exercise was not a legitimate justification, nor was concern about disruption, since she presented no real evidence for this concern. As for her argument that she acted to avoid violating the Establishment Clause, the court concluded that a reasonable observer would not view the message on Joel’s product as the school’s endorsement of religion. The court disposed of Joel’s other claims quickly, finding no violation of the rights to due process or free exercise of religion, while forgoing any analysis of the equal protection claim because it was subsumed in the free speech claim.
Although it found that Joel’s rights had been violated, the court concluded that the parents had failed to demonstrate that his right to make religious statements in a quasi-classroom setting was clearly established at the time of the incident. The court noted that "the nature of Classroom City defies an easy categorization as to the type of forum it created, and therefore the [principal] could not be expected to identify the subtle distinctions that differentiate one type of forum that resulted or the appropriate test that should be applied." The facts of the case forced the principal to attempt to balance obligations under the Establishment and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment, leaving her squarely on the "hazy border" dividing acceptable from unreasonable conduct. The court concluded that this was "precisely the type of case for which the qualified immunity defense was intended."
Curry v. School District of the City of Saginaw, No. 04-10143 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 18, 2006)
[Editor’s Note: Any school official confronted with inspirational candy canes should assume there may be a lawsuit in his or her future and proceed cautiously. For three more warning tales, see below.]
[NSBA School Law pages on Walz v. Egg Harbor Township Bd. of Educ.]
[NSBA School Law pages on holiday controversies]
[NSBA School Law pages on Massachusetts lawsuit]