California Business Litigation Blog

In a ruling out of Pembroke Pines, Florida, a student who posted a message on her Facebook page complaining about her teacher was allowed to do so, as she was exercising her freedom of speech. Federal Magistrate Judge Barry Garber ruled that the student’s First Amendment rights allowed the student to post negative comments about her teacher.

"Evans' speech falls under the wide umbrella of protected speech," Garber wrote. "It was an opinion of a student about a teacher, that was published off-campus, did not cause any disruption on-campus, and was not lewd, vulgar, threatening, or advocating illegal or dangerous behavior."

The student, Katherine Evans, has filed a lawsuit against the principal of the school who suspended her. However, most important in the case is that the ruling by the judge sets new precedent in such cases in which the Internet and freedom of speech have yet to be defined. Around the country, courts are still trying to work out how social networking websites such as Facebook and free speech limitations interact with each other.

The Florida ACLU filed the lawsuit on the behalf of Evans. The ACLU states that it hoped that this case would do just what it has; set precedent in free speech laws for the Internet and other forms of communication.

Evans posted a message on the Facebook page staying that the teacher was “the worst teacher I’ve ever met.” However, when other students saw the message, they did not react favorably. Rather, other teachers and students defended the teacher. Evans later removed the message from the page. The principal learned of the message, then suspended Evans from the student’s Advanced Placement classes, and instead placed the student in less prestigious classes. Principal Peter Bayer also suspended the student for three days.

In 2008, Evans filed a lawsuit against the principal in the case in the hopes of having the suspension ruled unconstitutional and to have it removed from her record. As an honor student, she did not want her record tarnished. However, the principal tried to get the case dismissed and asked for immunity in the case.

The ruling by Magistrate Judge Barry Garber declined the motion to toss out the case and said that the principal may be forced to pay damages and attorney's fees if found guilty of violating the student’s rights.

Of particular concern was the fact that it was two months after Evans removed the Facebook message about the teacher that the principal decided to punish the student. The lawsuit is not yet settled and will head back to court.

In a related note, The US Supreme Court previously ruled to uphold a California Law which gives students even more Freedom of Expression rights. You may read our blog post about that case by clicking HERE.

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Education , Education Law , Freedom of Speech , School District Law , School Lawsuit

Bookmark:

The California Science Center in Los Angeles canceled its screening of the documentary, "Darwin's Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record." The documentary promotes the theory of intelligent design rather than the theory of evolution for the creation of human beings. The documentary specifically criticizes Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. Moreover, because of this cancelation, the museum is being sued.

The American Freedom Alliance says it has no position on intelligent design but does say that the filing of the lawsuit against the science center is necessary since the center is stifling debate on the topic by canceling it. The organization brought the lawsuit against the California Science Center in October, in Los Angeles Superior Court.

The science center was set to show the program in October of 2009. However, it pulls it after being pressured to do so by the Smithsonian and other scientific academies.

This is not the first time that this topic has come up in a court of law. In 2005, for example, the case of Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District resulted in a federal judge issuing a ruling that public school classes cannot present intelligent design as an argument for the creation of humans because it is a form of Creationism. It also occurred in 2005, when The Smithsonian approved auditorium space in its National Museum of Natural History to screen another intelligent design type of documentary. The scientific community opposed this, but The Smithsonian was unable to back out of the previously signed contract. It did refund the rental fee for the space and publically stated it was not endorsing the screening of the documentary.

The pretrial hearing in this case is scheduled for January 26th, 2010. The American Freedom Alliance claims that the cancelation of the screening was done under a false pretext and therefore that the science center committed contract fraud. It is seeking punitive damages.

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Contract Litigation , Education , Education Law , Freedom of Speech

Bookmark:

University of California Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco refuses to recognize, and thereby help fund, a Christian group of students because they exclude non-Christians, lesbians and gays. The U. S. Supreme Court will determine if that is legal.

The U.S. Supreme Court, which chooses not to hear most submitted cases, has decided to hear this one as it will likely affect public universities around the country. The battle is not a new one. Conservative Christian groups believe these limitations violate their constitutional rights. They are being forced, they say, to tolerate views that violate their religious beliefs.

Christian Legal Society filed a lawsuit against the school in October of 2004. This group limits those who may join the society based on one clear statement. The student is unable to join if he or she "advocates or unrepentantly engages in sexual conduct outside of marriage between a man and a woman." The group's members must sign documentation stating they are committed evangelical Protestant or Catholics.

The school enforced its policy on barring discrimination based on race, national origin, sexual orientation or religion and refused the society. The group then took the matter to federal courts. U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White then ruled that the school was justified in its refusal and said the school could require that organizations "accept all comers as members." This was later upheld in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

However, the group appealed to the Supreme Court. Their opinion is that the school is forcing the society to abandon their identity or shut down the society altogether.

The answers to these concerns will not come soon. The case is likely to be heard in March of 2010 and a ruling may come down by June.

The argument that the society is making is that if all members had to be accepted, this would restrict the progress of the group since valuable time would be repeatedly spent discussing the fundamentals of members’ various religious beliefs. The school, however, believes the issue is whether or not universities and other public schools should subsidize discriminatory groups.

Other cases like this have been heard. In 2007, a lawsuit by Christian Legal Society against Southern Illinois University was settled in which the school said it would recognize the group. More so, the Boy Scouts of American was upheld in its decision to exclude gays and atheists from its membership roles, as a private organization's right to free association. However, the California Supreme Court upheld another incident with the Boy Scouts in 2006 in which Berkeley denied a rent subsidy to the Sea Scouts, a Boy Scout Subsidiary.

Continue reading "Can UC Hastings College of the Law Refuse Christian Student Group Based On Group's Beliefs?" »

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Education , Education Law , Freedom of Speech , School Lawsuit

Bookmark:

With the ever-changing rules on being equal, questions are arising questioning whether it is appropriate for boys to wear girls clothing. Most schools have dress codes, such as girls having a proper length skirt. However, what if a boy was wearing the skirt, if it was the proper length, could he?

Cross-dressing teens are testing the boundaries around the country. For example, in Houston, a senior was sent home because his hair violated the length rules, which stated that the hair could be no longer than the bottom of a regular shirt collar. In Cobb County, Georgia, a school sent a boy home because he wore makeup, wigs and skinny jeans. Another case occurred in August in Mississippi, in which a senior’s photo was banned from the yearbook because she was wearing a tuxedo.

This is not the story everywhere, though. For example, in a Tucson high school, a freshmen girl who identifies as a male was nominated as the homecoming prince. A gay male student in Los Angeles was crowned prom queen.

Schools and the public are changing viewpoints on these types of scenarios. In many cases, the adults become the police of the dress code, and follow cultural trends. In some cases, younger generations are simply more willing to accept such changes.

Schools regularly ban things that may be gang or sex related, or promotes drug use. However, when schools try to put in place codes that limit expression of sexual orientation of gender variance, the schools are forced to consider antidiscrimination policies.

Schools will eventually need to take these matters head on with more than 4000 gay and straight alliance clubs in high schools around the country. Even elementary schools are seeing these topics come up. In some high schools, educators are stating that schools should not be the public stage for working out private identity issues. Rather, high schools are supposed to be places for academic and social training. Administrators often rely on the dress code to help keep structure in the day. Cross dressing students cause disruptions, which is counterproductive to the instructional day.

In other schools, such as those in Pima County, Arizona where anti discrimination policies have been put in place, it is not uncommon to see boys wearing makeup and girl clothing, nor is it uncommon to see girls wearing big t-shirts and basketball shorts.

At the same time, educators have to take into consideration the student’s overall safety. If a child comes to school wearing clothes of another gender, and that child is harassed, it is up to the educators to help protect the student. That is not always easy. Even using the bathroom as a transgender student can be incredibly worrisome. Defining this fine line is something that schools across the country will need to do.

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Education , Education Law , Freedom of Speech , School District Law , School Lawsuit

Bookmark:

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana has filed a lawsuit on behalf of two students who were suspended from athletic activities after their principal found sexually suggestive photos from a slumber party. In the lawsuit, the ACLU claims that Smith Green Community School Corporation and the Churubusco High School Principal, Mr. Austin Couch violated the students' rights by suspending them for out of school activities. The photos were posted to the student's MySpace pages.

According to the lawsuit documentation, the pictures were taken during a slumber party that occurred during the summer months. The students took photos of themselves kissing and licking a novelty lollipop and pictures of themselves wearing lingerie with dollar bills stuck within the clothing. There was no identification with the photos suggesting that the students attended the high school. The lawsuit states that the students were being humorous and that the actions were "irrelevant" to school functions.

After someone accessed, copied and supplied the photos to the principal, the principal suspended the students from all extracurricular activities for the school year. After parents spoke to the principal, the principal agreed to reduce their suspensions if the students attended several counseling sessions and apologized to the athletic board.

Although the school and principal stated they are unable to comment, they did release a statement stating that the pictures "caused a disruption within our athletic teams at the beginning of this year's sessions." The school states the students did not meet extracurricular expectations.

While the parents appealed the ruling, the students attended the counseling sessions so they could participate in fall activities. They also apologized for their behavior in front of the all male athletic board. The ACLU states that this was humiliating and embarrassing.

The ACLU states that this is only one case, out of many similar cases playing out across the country. The organization claims that private moments like these should stay there and out of school administrator's hands.

The school uses a code of conduct that states that the principal "may exclude any student athlete from representing Churubusco High School if his/her conduct in or out of school reflects discredit upon Churubusco High School or the IHSAA or creates a disruptive influence on the discipline, good order, moral or educational environment at Churubusco High School."

The ACLU is hoping to classify the case as a class action suit, since many parents could be part of it. The lawsuit asks for the district to no longer be allowed to punish students for such behaviors and asks that the incident be expunged from the two student's records.

Continue reading "ACLU Files Lawsuit Over Slumber Party Photos" »

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Education , Education Law , Freedom of Speech , School District Law , School Lawsuit

Bookmark:

In Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia, the events occurring on September 11th spurred the public high school cheerleaders to focus on the Bible. They constructed catchy banners with inspirational messages on them and allowed the players to charge through them onto the field before each game. That all ended in September of 2009.

A parent expressed concern that the Biblical phrases may be a breach of the First Amendment rights of church and state separation. The parent was concerned that there may be a lawsuit should the school continue to allow these signs to be placed on the football field. The school board agreed and banned the banners from games.

The barring of the banners did not have a good reception but now, students and fans are filling the stadium with their own banners, filled with Biblical phrases. The town is small, with about 9,600 students in it. The town, including students, took the cause to heart. They call themselves the Warriors for Christ, a play on the school's team name, the Warriors
.
Over the course of the last few months, the group has sold more than 1600 t-shirts bearing a variety of Biblical phrases on them as well as statement such as "You Can't Silence Us" and "Living Faith Outloud."

In federal courts, the rulings have allowed public school students to promote their faith but they may not do so in school-sponsored clubs. Cheerleaders would be considered school sponsored. The woman who brought the attention on the signs, Donna Jackson, says she wanted to protect the school from possible litigation.

The separation of church and state has always been a hazy line, especially in the south where religion is on display that is more prominent. Those in this city are definitely committed. More than 16,000 people have joined a Facebook group favoring the signs to be in use in the game while only 77 have joined a group in favor of the banning.

Although many do favor allowing, the banners to be in use in the game most have stopped pushing the school board to change its mind. Simply, they know that if a lawsuit did come against the board, this already cash strapped county could be in further trouble.

Continue reading "Biblical Signs, Football Fields and Facebook" »

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Education , Education Law , Freedom of Speech , School District Law

Bookmark:

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court held intact a ruling that said Novato school district officials violated a student's freedom of expression when they confiscated a high school newspaper because of an editorial criticizing immigration. The case is Novato Unified School District vs. Smith, 07-783.

A California appeals court in San Francisco ruled last May, upholding a California law that protects freedom of the press in public schools even more strongly than the constitutional rights guaranteed under the First Amendment.

Tuesday's Supreme Court order, which also denied a hearing sought by the Novato Unified School District, means that students in California "will be able to publish very controversial political opinions without fearing retribution," said Paul Beard of the Pacific Legal Foundation, a lawyer for the student who wrote the editorial.

After some students and parents protested High school senior Andrew Smith’s editorial, school district officials pulled remaining copies of the newspaper out of circulation and sent a letter to parents saying the editorial shouldn't have been published.

Along with his father, Smith sued in Marin County Superior Court, claiming that the district had illegally censored the piece and subjected him to public reprimand for expressing unpopular positions.

A judge dismissed the suit, noting that the editorial had been published and that the student hadn't been disciplined. But the First District Court of Appeal said the district had violated Smith's rights by confiscating the paper and sending the message to parents.

The appeals court said state law guarantees freedom of the press on campus unless an article is obscene or libelous, or unless it creates a clear and present danger of lawbreaking or disorder on campus.

The school district "succumbed to the fear of disruption and discontent" when it removed the newspaper from circulation, the state court said. Smith was awarded $1 and a declaration that his rights had been violated.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1988 that public school officials could censor student newspapers and remove sensitive topics without violating the First Amendment. California, however, is one of about a half-dozen states with laws that explicitly protect student expression even if it is controversial.

Continue reading "US Supreme Court Protects California Student’s Freedom of Expression" »

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Education , Education Law , Freedom of Speech , School District Law , School Lawsuit

Bookmark: