California Business Litigation Blog

The prayer banner (see photo) that has graced Cranston West High School for nearly five decades still hangs on a wall of the school. Although the banner is now covered, the Cranston School Committee put off making a decision about what to do with it at a meeting following a court order to remove it. A rally that had been planned to show support for the banner never got off the ground, but local residents crowded a school committee meeting to express their points of view on the matter.

Police officers attended the meeting as a precaution as angry residents who disagree with the court’s ruling voiced their disappointment. Many residents also expressed their anger towards Jessica Ahlquist, the student who sued the school to have the banner taken down. Ahlquist herself spoke at the meeting in between Tweeted communications with fellow students who were also upset by the decision.

Ahlquist, who is an atheist, has been the target of online threats. Cranston West’s superintendent, Peter Nero, said in an interview that a police officer accompanied Ahlquist throughout the day as students returned to school on Tuesday, Jan. 16, 2012, which was the first regular school day after the ruling. However, he said, Ahlquist has not been the target of any threats or violence inside the school.

In a video posted online, Ahlquist said she never expected what she saw as a simple request to have the banner removed to turn into such a firestorm.

"I'd just say, 'Guys, it's a prayer in a public school. Obviously, that doesn't belong.' And the grownups would be like, 'Yeah, obviously, it's separation of church and state. That makes sense.' And it would just come right down," Ahlquist told viewers.

The school committee is planning another meeting on Jan. 24. Residents will be welcome to express their opinions. However, the decision about whether to remove the banner or to appeal the court ruling will be made by the school committee in a private meeting.

Continue reading "Prayer Banner Still Hangs on Cranston West High School Wall" »

A special education teacher has been placed on paid administrative leave after a parent discovered he had posted derogatory pictures and comments about his students on Facebook. Jeremy Hollinger, who is employed by the Mobile (Alabama) County Public School system to teach special education at Eichold-Mertz Elementary School, posted the comments and pictures on his public Facebook page.

Celeste Dennis, who saw Hollinger's site, was upset enough to insist her son, a second-grader at Eichold-Mertz, be transferred out of the school. Although she says there were plenty of derogatory comments on the page, including posts about students soiling themselves and eating crayons, she says that one insult hit especially close to home. "It hurt. It genuinely hurt me, said Dennis."My son wears a helmet for seizures during P.E. He had a picture of himself with my son's helmet on making fun of him like that was some type of a joke."

Dennis responded to the cruel postings by reporting Hollinger to the school system and insisting that her son be transferred. The school was slow to take action against Hollinger, however, and he remained in his position at the school until after the incident caught the attention of the press. Initially, the school system refused to explain why Hollinger was still at his post. Nancy Pierce, the school's representative, initially declined to discuss the matter, saying, “Because it's a personnel matter, I can't discuss that with you. The appropriate measures were taken by our Human Resources Department."

However, on Tuesday, October 18, it was revealed that Hollinger had been suspended with pay as a result of the incident. In the meantime, Dennis hopes the suspension becomes permanent. "It takes a special type of person to deal with special children, and he is not that person," said Dennis. "I just want him out of there."

A federal court recently ruled in the infamous Indiana “slumber party lawsuit” we highlighted in 2009 (CLICK HERE). Two female students sued school officials following their respective athletic suspensions for posting sexually suggestive pictures of themselves online. Captured during a summer-break slumber party, the depictions displayed no indication of the subjects' academic or athletic affiliations.

U.S. District Chief Judge Philip P. Simon U.S. District Court for the District of Northern Indiana found in favor of the minor female plaintiffs. Remoteness of the girls' “guilty act” to their respective athletic and academic qualifications was the apparent lynchpin of the court's legal analysis.

The court's legal reasoning relied heavily upon that articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 1969 landmark decision, Tinker v. Des Moines. Tinker involved a legal challenge by two students who were disciplined for wearing black armbands to school as a show of anti-Vietnam sentiment. An absence of any potential disruption within the academic arena was the main factor that clinched the case.

Judge Simon also assigned substantial significance to prior Pennsylvania precedent in the instant action. He cited the grave inherent dangers of permitting public school officials to reach beyond educational boundaries to exert undue influence in extracurricular matters.

In its final analysis, the court also noted the very vague pupil handbook verbiage that prohibits actions that “discredit” or “dishonor” the school or its students. This over breadth was found to be violative of students' Constitutional rights to free expression.

The court repeatedly deemed plaintiffs' postings as obscene absurdities. To its credit, however, it also noted that official sanctions based upon subjective judgments are precisely what First Amendment framers sought to prevent.

ACLU attorney Ken Falk is plaintiffs' legal counsel. Falk expressed personal pleasure with the precedential value of this case for filling an ever-widening legal void in today's high-tech communicative environment. He further posited that the ruling offers all public school officials a valuable lesson by delineating educators' permissible legal boundaries.

A federal appeals court has refused to order the reinstatement of a student suspended for cyber bullying. Kara Kowalski was a senior at Musselman High School in West Virginia when she launched her vicious attack against a classmate. Kara’s weapon of destruction was a personalized MySpace page entitled “S.A.S.H.”

At subsequent court hearings, Kara stated that S.A.S.H was an acronym for “Students Against Sluts Herpes.” She went on to allege that another student started a false rumor that the title really represented “Students Against Shay’s Herpes.”

Nonetheless, numerous youth immediately posted images of Shay on S.A.S.H. All of the intentionally altered pictures suggested that Shay had a venereal disease. Shay suffered severe harassment and ostracism as a direct and proximate cause thereof.

When Shay’s parents complained to authorities about this offensive content, school administrator deemed that S.A.S.H. was indeed a “hate website.” Official school policy prohibits cyber bullying. Accordingly, Kara received a five-day disciplinary suspension.

The ensuing litigation posited that this punishment violated Kara’s constitutional rights to due process and free speech.

The court rejected those claims, however. The sole purpose of S.A.S.H. as a forum for defamatory publication and derogatory depictions seems to have been the underlying rationale.

Thus, the Fourth Circuit jurists ruled that school officials did not usurp their legal authority by suspending Kara. Judge Paul V. Neimeyer penned the majority view. In it, he opined that school officials acted appropriately by taking Kara’s callous disregard for a fellow student very seriously.

In addition to being suspended, Kara was prohibited from crowning her successor to the “Queen of Charm” throne. She also lost a cheerleading post.

Ironically, Kara also claimed to have suffered severe depression and social isolation as collateral consequences. The court was apathetic to those assertions, however.

This is a great example of school authorities doing the right thing for the right reasons.

The last paragraph of the Court’s decision says it best: “Rather than respond constructively to the school’s efforts to bring order and provide a lesson following the incident, Kowalski has rejected those efforts and sued school authorities for damages and other relief. Regretfully, she yet fails to see that such harassment and bullying is inappropriate and hurtful and that it must be taken seriously by school administrators in order to preserve an appropriate pedagogical environment. Indeed, school administrators are becoming increasingly alarmed by the phenomenon, and the events in this case are but one example of such bullying and school administrators’ efforts to contain it. Suffice it to hold here that, where such speech has a sufficient nexus with the school, the Constitution is not written to hinder school administrators’ good faith efforts to address the problem."

The entire decision may be viewed HERE.

Continue reading "Federal Appeals Court Rules Against High School Cyberbully" »

Earlier this month, a former Bourne, Massachusetts firefighter filed suit against the Town and municipal administrator, his former employer and a municipal administrative official in a Boston federal court. Former firefighter Richard Doherty alleged that the defendants violated his First Amendment rights by terminating his employment after he posted certain comments on Facebook.

The 47-year-old Mattapoisett resident had been a Bourne Fire Department paramedic and firefighter for 16 years prior to his dismissal last February.

Doherty was quoted as having posited that recovering his employment and reputation were his primary motivations for commencing the litigation. Doherty’s grim observation that “[I] have a family to take care of” also echoed apparent pecuniary considerations. Doherty’s claims include back pay, reinstatement, legal fees, and compensation for emotional distress.

The main point of contention in the case seems to center around the alleged retaliatory motive underlying Doherty’s discharge. Per court pleadings, Town officials allegedly violated Doherty’s First Amendment free speech rights by firing him in retaliation for private postings he made on his personal Facebook page.

Ostensibly, Doherty’s remarks were highly critical of various practices and issues of concern within fire department. A representative speaking on behalf of Doherty’s attorney likened such commentary to a worker who vents by steam about his or her employment conditions while visiting a local bar. The lawyer observed quite aptly that such utterances have traditionally constituted legally protected speech.

The Town’s termination ruling found that Doherty’s posts “ridiculed and disparaged” various police and fire department officials. Doherty says that he was mainly concerned about his fellow firemens’ safety and welfare, as the department took a lackadaisical approach to such issues.

This case is reminiscent of the old adage, “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Historically, First Amendment Free Speech rights have been the “holiest of holies” in American jurisprudence. Courts have been justifiably reluctant to limit the free expression of diverse ideologies and opinions.

Some contexts do constitute legally valid prior restraints on free speech, however. A famous example is a man’s false scream of “fire” in a crowded theater.

Case law analysis portends that the ultimate outcome of this case will likely hinge upon the court’s factual findings of Doherty’s true motivation for the disputed postings.

If the court finds his primary motivation to have been legitimate concern over vital matters of public interest, he will likely prevail. If, however, it finds his motivations were personal, he may be left without legal recourse.

A student complaining about a grade is certainly not a new development but threatening to file a lawsuit against a student for disputing a grade is a different story. As hard as it is to imagine such a thing, that's exactly what happened to young Monserrat Ramirez of California. The girl contested her grade after her teacher gave the group she was in a C+.

Ramirez went through the proper channels, first appealing to her teacher, then to the administrators of the school. Finally after finding no suitable resolution elsewhere Ramirez turned to the Basset Unified (La Puente, CA) school board to have the matter resolved and that's when the young woman was issued a letter from the teacher's lawyer, Michael Feinberg.

In a letter sent from Feinberg's law firm, Ramirez was told that her comments and communication with the school board were classified as "actionable slander" and was advised that further comments from her could result in "costly litigation". Initially the letter had the desired impact, essentially silencing Ramirez.

"I was going to give up as soon as I saw that." Ramirez said.

This would be the end of the story in most cases, but 18 year old Ramirez isn't like most people. The honors student with a 3.5 GPA couldn't just stand by and let this go; her grades were hard earned and one teacher shouldn't be able to put a black mark on an otherwise excellent student record.

The teacher, Tom Covington, taught Ramirez's yearbook class. While the other students in her group were goofing off or failing to show up at all, Ramirez showed up faithfully and completed all work assigned to her within the time allotted. When an editor for the yearbook quit Ramirez was responsible for the work of that editor in addition to her own.

Bassett Unified Superintendent Marty Galindo confirmed that Ramirez followed proper channels when contesting her grade and said he feels Covington's actions were "unfortunate and overboard".

Tom Covington defended his actions by stating that: "My intent was to have this little girl stop dragging my name through the mud. As a teacher, what I have to go on is my reputation and false accusations can wreak havoc on a career."

The threatened lawsuit against Ramirez may be a potential suppression of First Amendment rights. Covington's lawyer declined to comment on the matter.

Continue reading "Student Threatened With Lawsuit for Complaining About Grade" »

Five teens in southern Nevada have been charged with the distribution of child pornography stemming from an incident of apparent sexting.

Nationwide efforts are being made to establish sexting as a legitimate crime in the minds of youngsters.

All five teens are under the age of 15 and will be facing disciplinary action at school as well as in a court of law.

According to police, two teens were discovered viewing nude images of three different girls, ages 12 and 13. The pictures were apparently taken by the girls themselves, texted to another boy, and then distributed by the boy via text message.

The charges will be reviewed and punished after an assessment by the District Attorney, a judge, and a juvenile probation officer.

According to Nye County Sheriff Tony DeMeo, parents and communities nationwide should consider the incident a wakeup call. Teens are not always mature enough to handle cell phones responsibly, nor are they able to gauge the impact of such actions on their futures, DeMeo adds.

Unfortunately, such practices are growing in popularity.

Eli Cline, an eighteen-year old female, claims that teens are only thinking in the moment. According to Cline, middle and high school kids are only worried about being accepted in the now, and the future isn’t given much thought.

Cline thinks that the best way to address the problem is through shared responsibility and suggests that law enforcement officials give seminars in the school to warn of the dangers of sexting.

Sheriff DeMeo agrees that something must be done, noting that he would be more than willing to assist the school district in educating students about the consequences of sharing sexual material via texting.

The following is the new "invocation" disclaimer added by the Polk County (Florida) School Board to all meeting agendas:

"Voluntary invocation may be offered before the opening of the School Board meeting by a private citizen. The views or beliefs expressed in the invocation have not been reviewed nor approved by the School Board, and the Board is not allowed, by law, to endorse the religious beliefs or views of this, or any other speaker."

The addition of the disclaimer comes after the attorney for the school board, Wes Bridges, received a letter from the Freedom From Religion Foundation. The organization threatened a lawsuit if the members of the school board continued to include prayers in its meetings. The disclaimer helps to ensure that the school board is not working to promote or to establish any type of religion.

If the school board were to face the lawsuit, it could cost the school board up to $500,000 in legal fees to fight the lawsuit and even more if the school board loses the legal fight. As a way to bridge the gap, Bridges used the aforementioned disclaimer and to allow these types of prayers to only occur prior to the start of the meeting, which officially begins at the sound of the gavel dropping.

Bridges states that it is not unconstitutional for a school board to have invocations, but this disclaimer helps ensure the school board is not stepping outside of the laws otherwise. He proposed other options for avoiding the litigation as well, but this is the remedy the school board decided upon.

The Vice Chairman of the School Board, Tim Harris, stated that he was concerned with why the school board was the target of the Freedom From Religion Foundation when state legislators and Congress open meetings with prayers as well.

In La Quinta, California, the Desert Sands Unified School District is being sued in federal court because the school will not include bricks bearing Bible verses in the sidewalk. The bricks were part of a fundraiser used to build the sidewalk. The Alliance Defense Fund is suing the school district on behalf of two people, Lou Ann Hart and Sheryl Caronna. The two claim that the school violated the First Amendment Rights of the individuals when the bricks were rejected based on religious merit.

The attorney representing the Alliance Defense Fund believes that the government is signaling out religious viewpoints. He is quoted as saying, "Christians have the same First Amendment -protected rights as everyone else does on public school campuses and their messages are no less worthy of exposure than other individuals."

The bricks were rejected, according to the lawsuit, by the district based on constitutional "separation of church and state." The complaint also stated that neither woman received a refund. The Alliance Defense Fund wants the district to pay monetary damages to the women, and pay attorney fees, and to include the bricks in the sidewalk.

Resident of Palm Desert, Hart, purchased the bricks, which measured four by eight inches, and Caronna, from Rancho Mirage, purchased an eight by eight inch brick. The two purchased the bricks to provide a message of hope for students.

After the bricks were made, the women were notified by the school district that the bricks would not be displayed in the project. That was in August of 2010. The school district claims it is looking into the situation and believes the filing of the lawsuit was premature.

The case, Hart V. Tomack, was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Tomack is a member of the school board.

Continue reading "Desert Sands Unified School District Sued Over Religious Bricks" »

A player on the football team at Simpson County (Mississippi) School District has filed a lawsuit after being kicked off the football team for wearing pink cleats. The lawsuit was filed after an agreement was made previously with the team and the player. The player agreed not to pursue damages against the team if, in return, he was reinstated to the football team out of Mendenhall High School.

However, after that agreement was reached, the student was told he was not allowed to dress out with the team for the next game. He was expecting to join and play with the team and was crushed when he was not allowed to, his attorney stated. According to the attorney, the coach reneged on the agreement made in front of the entire hometown game. This, the attorney states, is a bad faith breach of the settlement agreement. He noted that the coach was not only illegally stopping the player but also costing the district a good amount of money in damages as a result.

The school’s attorney was not able to comment. The student was originally kicked off the team when he wore a pair of brightly colored pink shoes. The shoes were a gift from his great grandmother. The cleats were worn as a way of honoring two of his family members, both of whom were cancer survivors.

The attorneys for the student and for the district did not agree on why the boy was kicked off the team. The deputy superintendent said the student was removed from the team because he did not take orders from the coach and the assistant coaches, which included taking off the cleats. They claim the booting from the team was due to failure to listen to the coaches, not about his support for the cause.

The student and the district came to an agreement prior to the most recent game which allowed the student back on the team. This was the first time in a month he was able to play and he had planned to play in the regular cleats.

Should the current lawsuit go forward, the boy states that any proceeds will go to the American Cancer Society and the Susan G. Komen for the Cure programs.

The National Labor Relations Board (NRLB) has filed a lawsuit against American Medical Response (AMR) of Connecticut claiming the company illegally fired an employee after the employee complained about AMR on the social media site Facebook. This may be the first case in which the board has come forward to argue for the worker, claiming that the remarks on the social networking site are protected activities. Employers, they claim, are violating law if they punish workers for such comments.

The alleged activity involves the firing of a medical technician on the grounds of violating company policy by depicting the company on Facebook.

According to NLRB acting general counsel Lafe Solomon, the employee has the right to talk about working conditions, including the supervisor, which is what occurred in this case. The law in question gives workers the right to discuss working conditions or unionization without fear of punishment by the employer. The board says that the company’s policy in regards to the Facebook page was “overly broad.”

In addition to this, the board also stated that other company policies may also be out of line, including those that stop employees from making disparaging or discriminatory comments when discussing the company, supervisors or the coworkers involved.

American Medical Response of Connecticut denies the allegations made by the labor board. It stated that the employee was discharged for multiple incidents and serious complaints. The employee, according to the company, was also fired due to repeated offenses against other employees.

The employee in question is Dawnmarie Souza. According to the allegations, the employee was required to prepare a response to a customer’s complaint about her work, and complained that the company did not allow the Teamster Union to do this for her. She then mocked the supervisor on Facebook.

Allegedly, she stated, “love how the company allows a 17 to become a supervisor” referring to a 17 as a term for a psychiatric patient. These comments drew support from coworkers on the site.

The hearing is to be held in January to determine the merits of the case. Finding the line of where employees are stepping over their protected rights is likely to be the foundation of the hearing and the ruling to come from it.

Continue reading "NLRB Faces Off With AMR of Connecticut Over Facebook Firing" »

After a student was suspended from school for wearing a nose piercing, a federal judge ruled that the North Carolina school must allow the 14 year old to return to school. The nose piercing, the student says, is a part of her religious beliefs.

The federal judge, US District Judge Malcolm Howard stated his decision which allowed the student, Ariana Iacono to return to school. The Johnston County school system dress code states that any facial piercings are not allowed. However, there are exemptions in place for religious beliefs.

The attorney for the school district declined to comment about the federal ruling.

Another hearing is scheduled for November 3rd and the student will be able to continue classes at Clayton High School until at least that time.

The student’s attorney, Jon Sasser and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the school officials stating that the student’s constitutional rights were violated when she was suspended several times since classes started. The student and her mother state that the nose piercing is not a fashion statement but part of the student’s religious beliefs.

The Iaconos are part of a small religious group called the Church of Body Modification, consisting of 3,500 worshippers, a small clergy, a statement of beliefs, and regular religious practices. The group believes that piercings and tattoos are a religious devotion. The religion was first incorporated in July of 2008 in Pennsylvania.

The school’s dress code allows for exemptions based on “sincerely held religious beliefs” and “the principal or the designees should not attempt to determine whether the religious beliefs are valid but if they are central to religious doctrine and sincerely held.”

Since the start of school Ariana Iacono has been suspended four times missing 20 days of class. The student was told that she would have to attend the South Campus Community School, which is a facility designated for those students who have disciplinary or other problems. She would still not be allowed to wear a nose piercing.

The school, the lawsuit states, stepped over the boundaries.

From Portland, Oregon comes a news story in which a conversation between a student teacher and a fourth grader in his class at Sexton Mountain elementary school, lead to the teacher’s dismissal. The school, in Beaverton School District, says that they do not have any anti gay discrimination occurring in the school.

The incident surrounds student teacher Seth Stambaugh. In a conversation with a fourth grade student, the student teacher was asked about his marital status by the child to which he allegedly replied that it would be illegal for him to get married because if he would, he would choose to marry a man. The student also asked if the student teacher hung out with guys, to which he answered yes. This is an accurate account according to Stambaugh’s attorney.

The student teacher is in the Master of Education program being taught through Lewis and Clark College. He has been student teaching as part of his practicum to getting his degree since the beginning of the school year. Two complaints were filed against the student teacher after the incident occurred.

In a complaint, a father of a student allegedly complained he did not believe the student teacher was dressing appropriately. The teacher was wearing pressed slacks, an oxford style shirt and a cardigan that belonged to his grandfather. That complaint was dismissed by the school itself.

On September 15th, the school district contacted Lewis and Clark to alert them that the student teacher would not be able to return to the school. The student teacher was told nothing more than that his comments were inappropriate. There is no dispute in regards to the facts in the case, but rather if this is an acceptable dismissal.

According to the school district’s spokesperson, Maureen Wheeler, the school district honors diversity and that includes sexual orientation. Although she would not speak about the case in particular, she noted that it was a fourth grader who was 9 years old that the incident revolved around. She also said that this student teacher was just one of some 250 to 350 student teachers who come into the district each year to fulfill this educational requirement.

According to Lewis and Clark, administrators did not follow the usual academic protocols in this case. Problems and “bad fits” between student teachers and districts are common, according to Lewis and Clark. Usually before a move is made, the student teacher, district and college officials discuss what occurred but that did not happen in this case. In this case, the only conversation occurred on Sept 13th, in the evening, with the principal from Sexton Mountain, followed by a series of emails and voicemails the next day. On the 15th, a voicemail stated that the student teacher was no longer allowed back.

According to Stambaugh’s attorney, the sudden change placed the student teacher in jeopardy in regards to his education and career. The student teacher was moved to another school district to complete his practicum.

In a previous post (HERE) we told of a Scranton, PA teenage girl who was suing her school, school district, the county, prosecutors and a detective for illegally searching her cell phone. The search turned up intimate photos of the teen which had never been transmitted to anyone else, or any other cell phone.

The school district has settled the lawsuit without admitting any wrongdoing for $33,000. There is still an active lawsuit against the Wyoming County District Attorney’s Office, which so far has not commented on the suit.

The Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the district attorney could not pursue felony charges against the teenage girl for "sexting".

In a statement released by the Pennsylvania ACLU the teen said "I hope this settlement will lead school officials in the future to consider whether they have valid grounds to search students' private text messages, emails and photos."

The big question remains unanswered. How far can educators go when it comes to fulfilling their obligation to keep sexually explicit images, audio and text from reaching the eyes and ears of minors on school grounds?

Since the case didn’t make it to a federal jury, school districts around the country have a challenge in creating a standard cell phone search or seizure policy that will be acceptable to the courts and privacy groups.

The ACLU recommends that districts adopt cell phone policies that permit educators to seize devices if they disrupt the learning process, but to not search them without express consent from the student or their legal guardian.

At Oneida Middle School in Schenectady, New York, a student's rosary was labeled as gang related beads. The item was banned from the student's use. After complaints, the school dropped the ban, but a civil rights lawsuit filed against school officials rages on. The lawsuit continues because the school officials are accused of retaliating against the student for complaining about the ban.

The lawsuit was brought on by the American Center for Law and Justice. The student involved in Raymond Hoisier. The policy change, the American Center for Law and Justice says, is a victory for religious freedom. The policy, the organization stated, was discriminatory against the student's constitutional right of free speech and the free exercise of religion.

The student wore the rosary to school to express his faith and to honor the memories of an uncle and brother who died with the rosary in hand. The lawsuit states that the student is not part of any criminal gang and does not use the rosary as a way of promoting any gang related activities or belongings. The student's lawsuit states that the student did not cause any disruption to the school environment by wearing the rosary.

The lawsuit remains in effect because, allegedly, the school dean came up to the student when the student returned to school and ordered the student to detention. According to the lawsuit, the dean said, "If you want to play the insubordinate game, we can play, too." The school is also charged with writing the child up numerous times following the period after the student filed the complaint than it had in the year prior. The lawsuit claims that the school is trying to portray the student as a troublemaker.

The judge in the case, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Kahn stated that the student was allowed to continue wearing the rosary until the issue was resolved.

The organization also claims that the policy has come into question in other instances as well, including one incident in which the school required a 12 year old girl to remove the red, white and blue beaded necklace she wore as a way to support her family members serving in Iraq. The school, at that time, banished the necklace. That case was settled out of court.

In US District Court, a judge ruled against McSwain Union Elementary School in Merced, CA. The lawsuit against the school was filed on behalf of Tiffany Amador, by her mother Anna Amador. In 2008 an incident involving the then sixth grader resulted in the school requiring the student to take off a pro life t-shirt. The judge ruled that the school and three officials from the school violated the student's rights, including violations to the First, Fourth and the Fourteenth Amendment.

The case was scheduled to go to trial later this month, but the school settled the claim for $50,000, without admitting any wrong doing in the case.

The T-shirt in the case portrayed several pictures of an unborn fetus in the womb, with the word "Abortion" written in capital letters across the top of the shirt. The first two pictures on the shirt portrayed an unborn child through sonographic images. The final square was black, with the word "gone" under it. The school stated that the t-shirt violated the school's dress code.

According to the lawsuit, the student was required by a staff member to throw away her lunch and immediately report to the main office of the school. Then, according to the lawsuit, another school official grabbed the student by the arm and forcibly took her to another official's office. She was then ordered to remove her t-shirt and to never wear it again.

The Amadors’ attorney stated that the school had done the right thing by avoiding a trial and by allowing the judgment to be entered. According to the attorney, "Student speech at all grade levels is protected by the First Amendment. With few exemptions, such as profanity and lewdness, the Constitution prohibits school officials from picking and choosing what messages they find acceptable."

The school has since revised its dress code. The new code takes effect in the coming school year and it prohibits students from where any clothing with text or graphics, except for small school logos.

Earlier this month a lawsuit was filed in a Florida court in hopes that ban on the the distribution of Bibles currently in place will be lifted. The ban does not allow Bibles to be distributed on public school campuses on Religious Freedom Day, which is January 16 each year. The President of the United States declares it yearly as such.

The Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit litigation and policy organization filed the suit. The group states that the district school board of Collier County allowed a group called the World Changers to distribute the Bibles each year, during off school hours on that day. The group says that the school board changed its policy and no longer believes that the Bibles offer any educational benefit to students and therefore should be banned.

The Collier County School District does allow for nonprofit organization to distribute material, however approval for the process must be obtained from the superintendent and from the Community Request Committee first. In January of 2009, World Changers were denied this approval. The group says that they include a disclaimer in the material of school endorsement or sponsorship and no one is forced to accept a Bible.

According to Superintendent Dennis Thompson, the denial of approval was based on a new legal opinion the school district received.

Liberty Counsel states in their lawsuit that the school district is in violation of the group World Changer’s rights to free speech, press and exercise of religion, as well as the equality protection guaranteed under the 1st and 14th amendment. The organization states that the school board does not understand the distinction of a private speech, which they claim is what World Changers is offering, and how private speeches should not be banned.

Continue reading "Bible Ban Lawsuit In Florida School District" »

According to local reports, a Fort Wayne school district may stop sending students to a religious instruction program on school property. A federal lawsuit has triggered the action by the school district. This after the school board president’s statement that it would be irresponsible for the district to defend themselves in a case where the standard has been previously set by prior court rulings.

In 2008, a similar case was brought before the court against Huntington Schools, where the judge ruled against the schools allowing religious activities on the grounds. In that case, the American Civil Liberties Union was issued a preliminary injunction.

The school board president, Mr. Mark GiaQuinta stated that it was both academically irresponsible and fiscally irresponsible to defend against the case. He stated that several board members agree with this decision.

The case involves a third grade student at Haley Elementary School. The parents of that student sued the district in US District Court in Fort Wayne. The parents stated that the school sent their child to an onsite trailer for Bible studies without their consent. The America Civil Liberties Union is helping to represent the child’s parents. The ACLU states that the action is an infringement on the First Amendment rights of the parents. The lawsuit asks that the judge rule the program unconstitutional and to ban it from operations on school property.

The program offered by the Associated Churches of Fort Wayne and Allen County has been established and operational since 1944. Students take part in Bible education during the school day in mobile classrooms. In some situations, 80 percent of the students will take part in the education, including those in the third, fourth and fifth grade.

Should the school board decide to pull the program, the case could be dismissed. However, assurance that such a program will not be on school grounds is necessary for this to happen.

On Cinco de Mayo, students wearing T-shirts with the American flag on them were asked by the assistant principal to remove them. That controversial move made national news and is now headed to federal court. The parents of three of the students attending Live Oak High School filed federal civil rights lawsuits in US District Court in San Jose. Students say they are fighting for their First Amendment Rights.

The students and parents in the case want a judge to rule that the incident that occurred on May 5th was a violation of their First and Fourteenth amendment rights and that the school district's policy on student speech is not clear. The suit also asks for nominal damages and attorney fees to be paid by the school district. Named as defendants in the case are Morgan Hill Unified School District, the principal Nick Boden and assistant principal Miguel Rodriguez.

The incident involved Rodriguez asking the three boys to take off their t-shirts with the American flag on them or to wear them inside out on Cinco de Mayo. He believed wearing them on the holiday was incendiary. The boys thought this was disrespectful and called their parents. The boys are all part Latino. The case quickly hit news media around the country.

The Superintendent of the school district made a statement the next day that the school district does not prohibit or punish students from wearing clothing that is patriotic nor that students should be disciplined for wearing it.

While the actions of the assistant principal seemed wrong, the school does not have a policy that is in violation of the rights of students. First Amendment Coalition in San Rafael executive director Peter Scheer stated that the federal lawsuit may not be valid since the students do not have a "case or controversy" in policy. The school district claims it made a mistake. This means the controversy is now in the past and may not be able to be a part of a federal lawsuit.

When Craig Kleffman received 11 email messages offering broadband phone services from Vonage and noticed that they came from a variety of domain names, he found a lawyer and filed a lawsuit. Kleffman felt that these emails were spam (also known as junk emails) and as such a violation of a California spam law that prohibits marketers from sending messages with misleading headers.

While the emails might be annoying, the California Supreme Court ruled this week that they were not spam, and did not violate California law.

Justice Ming W. Chin wrote on behalf of a unanimous court: "We find that a single e-mail with an accurate and traceable domain name neither contains nor is accompanied by 'misrepresented … header information' ... merely because its domain name ... is 'random,' 'varied,' 'garbled' and 'nonsensical' when viewed in conjunction with domain names used in other e-mails.”

He continued: "An e-mail with an accurate and traceable domain name, makes no affirmative representation or statement of fact that is false."

And concluded: “…we hold that, on the undisputed facts of this case, sending commercial e-mail advertisements from multiple domain names for the purpose of bypassing spam filters is not unlawful under section 17529.5(a)(2).”

The ruling (which may be viewed HERE) will likely make it more difficult for internet users to sue email marketers in California, which has an anti-spam law that is broader than the federal Can-Spam law. Generally, the federal law (which bars individuals from suing for spam violations) overrules most state spam laws. There's an exception for state laws to be used when dealing with fraud.

Continue reading "CA Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Vonage in Spam Lawsuit" »

In Scranton, PA, a teenage student is suing the principal of Tunkhannock Area high school, the school district, the county, prosecutors and a detective in the case. The student's phone was searched in a sexting case, which has recently been ruled on by a Federal Appeals Court.

More information on that decision may be found HERE. In a nutshell, the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the district attorney may not pursue felony charges against a teenage girl for "sexting".

According to the lawsuit, the teen, who is now 19 years of age, states that the principal illegally searched her phone during the incident, which occurred in January of 2009. Through the search, the principal found nude photos the student had taken of herself. The principal then took the phone and gave it to prosecutors. In the lawsuit, the student states that the photos were never meant to be shared, but were for herself and perhaps her long term boyfriend.

However, due to the nature of the photos, the school's principal, Gregory Ellsworth turned the phone over to the then district attorney of Wyoming County, George Skumanick Jr. After reviewing the images, Skumanick threatened, the lawsuit states, for the student to take a class on sexual violence or to face charges of child pornography, which would be felony charges.

Within the lawsuit documents the plaintiff states, "I was absolutely horrified and humiliated to learn that school officials, men in the DA's office and police had seen naked pictures of me." The student's name is not being released and in court documents she is named only as N.N.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania is representing her in court and through the lawsuit seeks unspecified damages against numerous individuals who were part of the case. The lawsuit also seeks immediate destruction of all remaining images.

Continue reading "Student Sues School After Sexting Incident" »

A Staten Island teacher was given a federal court ruling to allow her lawsuit against the New York City Department of Education to continue. The teacher was suspended after allowing students to use sexually explicit language within the classroom as the class discussed HIV/AIDS.

The teacher, Faith Kramer, was expelled for eight months for allowing the students to discuss sex openly in the classroom. Kramer has 26 years of experience in the teaching field. She held tenure at the school. Parents were outraged when they learned that the teacher had allowed such a conversation to take place. The school district required her to sit out eight months of teaching in one of the infamous "rubber rooms", which have since been shut down.

The ruling from Judge Jack Weinstein was lengthy. It contained some 67 pages of text and even included an appendix of the terms that the students used during the classroom discussion. Many of those terms were explicit and were slang terms. The attorneys representing the school stated that those specific terms were not suitable for use within a school setting.

Within his notes regarding his decision to allow the case to go forward, Weinstein stated, "Executing such a task would require great sensitivity, skill, commitment, and not a little courage…Based on the regulation, this teacher ought never to have been removed from the classroom." His statement was in reference to the way that the teacher interacted with the students, in that she treated the students as adults throughout the conversation.

Kramer has filed a $1 million lawsuit against the school district for their decision to suspend her. The funds also cover lost wages and embarrassment.

Free speech is the topic of discussion in a Greenwood, Indiana high school where the central Indiana school district is trying to allow a graduation prayer that the senior class voted to be allowed to be said. The problem is that the valedictorian of the school has filed a lawsuit in federal court claiming that the prayer and the vote for it are unconstitutional.

The school district says that if the court blocks the prayer, it could be seen as a violation of free speech. The request from the school district is brought on by the lawsuit filed by class valedictorian Eric Workman. He, along with the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed the lawsuit on Monday. He claims that the prayer is unconstitutional because it is a practice of majority rule.

The case looks to the courts to determine where the fine line is for the expression of religious values in schools. The ACLU states the organization’s reasoning behind overturning the earlier blocking of the prayer goes against Supreme Court precedent in similar cases.

The organization plans to allow for the students to have student led prayer unless a judge orders them not to do so. However, a ruling is scheduled to be made on April 30th. The school says that students voted to allow student led prayer during the graduation in September at an assembly. Students did not have to attend the assembly, nor did they have to vote. The practice of allowing prayer in the school setting changes year to year but in most cases, at least one student is allowed to lead a prayer during the opening remarks, though the prayer is said to be nonsectarian.

Also notable is that the school requires that all who speak during the graduation ceremony submit their speeches in advance for approval and that some do use religious themes within those speeches. The school does not forbid them from doing so.

The school district maintains that allowing student led prayer is not a violation as students are not compelled to participate in it. The school says that anyone not praying will be expected to remain quiet and respectful as is the practice when anyone speaks. The ACLU on the other hand, says that students who are still being subjected to the prayer and will feel compelled to participate, which would make it uncomfortable for Workman and others.

A federal judge ruled late last month that the school board from Itawamba County, Mississippi violated a lesbian student’s rights when it canceled the prom because the student challenged a ban at the prom of same sex couples. However, the federal judge did not order the district to reinstate the prom.

Judge Glen Davidson from US District Court did not reinstate the prom because a private prom that some parents are planning will provide the student with the same experience. The late date of the April 2nd prom made it difficult for the judge to require its reinstatement saying it would be too much of an inconvenience for all involved.

The case began when Constance McMillen requested to bring her girlfriend who is a sophomore at the same school, to the dance and she wanted to wear a tuxedo to the event. McMillen, 18, contacted the American Civil Liberties union to sue the school district to allow the same sex couple access to the prom.

Davidson stated a trial would be set for a later date but did not set a date for it. The parents of students at the school are hosting a private prom on the same day the school prom was to take place. All junior and senior students are able to attend, though there was not specific information about whether or not gay students would be allowed to attend. Another prom is being sponsored by the Mississippi Safe Schools Coalition, which is an advocacy group for same sex couples.

The court case furthers the First Amendment rights of same sex couples within the school setting. Kristy Bennett, who is the legal director for the ACL, is preparing the case for trial and plans to ask the judge to list the board’s actions as unconstitutional. They are hoping to be awarded damages plus court costs.

The school board says it canceled the prom because they did not believe the prom could be successful at protecting the safety of students. The school is in a rural northern Mississippi community and has some 715 students in the high school.

Earlier this week Jacob, an openly gay teenager (identified in court documents as “J.L.”) settled his lawsuit against the Mohawk Central School District in upstate New York. The lawsuit was filed last summer claiming the school district did nothing to stop the bullying against Jacob which included throwing him down a flight of stairs.

Under the terms of the settlement filed in federal court, the district agrees to implement changes including additional staff training, to protect students from harassment. The district is also required to report its progress to the American Civil Liberties Union and federal justice officials.

The settlement also calls for the district to pay $50,000 to Jacob's family and to reimburse them for counseling services. The district did not admit to any wrongdoing under the settlement.

Mohawk Central School District superintendent Joyce Caputo said in a prepared statement that district staff would never knowingly discriminate or tolerate bullying and remain committed to fostering a culture of tolerance and respect. "We recognize there is always room to learn and improve - and we intend to do just that," she said.

Additional information on Jacob’s lawsuit may be found in our previous blog posts by clicking HERE and HERE.

Continue reading "UPDATE: Gay Student Resolves Lawsuit Against NY School District " »

In a lawsuit filed in Federal Court in 2008, City of Detroit employee Susan McBride complained she was "chemically sensitive" and suffered migraines, nausea and coughing caused by a co-worker’s perfume and room deodorizer. McBride also stated that it became difficult for her to breathe and do her job.

The city settled for $100,000. Detroit city employees in the three buildings where McBride works are being cautioned not to wear fragrant products, including colognes, aftershave, perfumes, and deodorants. Additionally, employees are no longer allowed to use candles and air fresheners.

The employee handbook and Americans with Disabilities Act training given to all city employees also will bear warnings.

Because this case did not go to trial, it sets no legal precedent. That is unlikely to deter others from filing similar lawsuits in the near future.

The lawsuit filed claims that McBride’s supervisor didn’t respond to her complaints. Had the supervisor taken action to resolve her complaints, such as communicating with the “scented” employee in search of a solution, all of this may have been avoided.

Let this be a warning to all employers. If/when an employee complains about any condition causing substantial interference with that employee’s ability to perform in the workplace, action must be taken promptly to resolve the complaint.

Continue reading "City Employee Settles for $100,000 in Scented Lawsuit" »

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.

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.

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?" »

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.

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" »

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" »

In 2006, Foothill High School graduate Brittany McComb took to the podium to recite her valedictorian speech. During the speech to her Henderson Nevada classmates, she made several comments that administrators state strayed from her preapproved speech. Due to the content of that portion of her speech, Miss McComb believed she was being censored unfairly and that her First Amendment Rights were being violated. And that, took her to court.

In her speech, she made the following statement, "God's love is so great that he gave his only son up to an excruciating death on a cross so his blood would cover all our shortcomings and our relationship with him could be restored." At that point, her microphone was unplugged and the audience was unable to hear the rest of her speech. The video of the commencement has been on YouTube for two years and has since been viewed more than 35,000 times.

McComb learned this month that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals would no longer hear her case. The panel of three judges issued a memo reversing a federal judge decision from 2007 not to grant a district motion to dismiss the case. While they can approve, McComb's attorney did not believe their chances were good. The panel stated that they did not believe the school violated her right to free speech by not allowing the "proselytizing graduation speech" to continue.

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" »