Altman v. Bedford Cent. Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 11 May 2000 |
| Docket Number | Docket Nos. 99-7969 |
| Citation | 245 F.3d 49 |
| Parties | (2nd Cir. 2001) ROBERT M. ALTMAN and VICTORIA L. ALTMAN, his wife, individually and as parents of minor children, RUSSELL ALTMAN and ROSS ALTMAN; MARY ANN DIBARI, individually and as lawful guardian of minor children KRYSTAL M. DIBARI and TIANA N. DIBARI; JOSEPH M. DINOZZI and CECILE D. DINOZZI, his wife, individually and as parents of minor children, JON M. DINOZZI, DANIEL J. DINOZZI, STEVEN M. DINOZZI, and JOSEPH A. DINOZZI, Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants, v. BEDFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT; DR. BRUCE DENNIS, in his capacity as Superintendent of Schools of the Bedford Central School District and Agent/Administrator of its Board of Education; JANE DOE (name unknown, post currently vacant), in his or her capacity as Assistant Superintendent in charge of Curriculum and Instruction for the Bedford Central School District and Agent/Administrator of its Board of Education; DEBORAH TIMBERLAKE, in her capacity as President of the Board of Education of Bedford Central School District; BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE BEDFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT; JAMES YOUNG, in his capacity as Principal of the Pound Ridge Elementary School; JAMES ALLOY, in his capacity as Principal of Fox Lane Middle School; and RICHARD KRAEMER, in his capacity as Principal of Fox Lane High School, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees. (L), 99-9001 Argued: |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
CHRISTOPHER A. FERRARA, Ramsey, New Jersey (James M. Bendell, American Catholic Lawyers Association, Inc., Ramsey, New Jersey, on the brief), for Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants.
WARREN H. RICHMOND, Northport, New York (Lawrence W. Reich, Neil M. Block, Ingerman Smith, Northport, New York, Gerald A. Rosenberg, Frances K. Brown, Stacey B. Creem, Rosenman & Colin, New York, New York, on the brief), for Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees.
ELLIOT M. MINCBERG, Washington, D.C. (People for the American Way Foundation, Washington, D.C., of counsel), filed a brief on behalf of Amicus Curiae Bedford Parents, in support of defendants-appellants-cross-appellees.
JAY WORONA, Albany, New York, filed a brief on behalf of Amicus Curiae New York State School Boards Association, Inc., in support of defendants-appellants-cross-appellees.
JAMES R. SANDNER, New York, New York (Katherine A. Levine, New York, New York, of counsel), filed a brief on behalf of Amicus Curiae New York State United Teachers, in support of defendants-appellants-cross-appellees.
MARC D. STERN, New York, New York, filed a brief on behalf of Amicus Curiae American Jewish Congress, principally in support of defendants-appellants-cross-appellees.
ARTHUR N. EISENBERG, New York, New York (Beth Haroules, New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York, New York, on the brief), filed a brief on behalf of Amicus Curiae New York Civil Liberties Union, principally in support of defendants-appellants-cross-appellees.
Before: WALKER, Chief Judge, KEARSE and POOLER, Circuit Judges.
Appeal from so much of a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Charles L. Brieant, Judge, as declared certain school activities to be in violation of plaintiffs' rights under the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment to the Constitution, enjoined such activities, and awarded plaintiffs attorneys' fees. Cross-appeal by plaintiffs from parts of the judgment dismissing their challenges to other activities. See 45 F.Supp.2d 368 (1999).
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and reversed in part.
Defendants Bedford Central School District et al. ("Bedford" or "School District") appeal from so much of a final judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Charles L. Brieant, Judge, as (a) declared that certain school activities violated plaintiffs' rights under the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, (b) enjoined the School District and certain of its administrators and other personnel from sponsoring or encouraging those activities, and (c) awarded attorneys' fees to plaintiffs. Following a bench trial, the district court found, to the extent pertinent to Bedford's appeal, that the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses were violated by certain activities involving a Hindu god ("Ganesha" or "Ganesh"), "worry dolls," and celebrations of the Earth and nature. On appeal, Bedford contends principally that the court should have dismissed all challenges to activities at one of its schools because at the time of trial no plaintiff had standing to challenge those activities, and that the court erred in its application of First Amendment principles to the enjoined activities. Plaintiffs cross-appeal from other parts of the judgment, contending that the court erred in dismissing their challenges to certain other activities.
For the reasons that follow, we conclude principally that the judgment should be (1) vacated insofar as it dealt with activities at two schools as to which plaintiffs no longer have standing; (2) reversed insofar as it declared School District programs to violate the First Amendment, ordered the School District to issue guidelines and cease certain activities, and awarded plaintiffs attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988 (1994 & Supp. IV 1998); and (3) affirmed to the extent that it dismissed plaintiffs' challenges to other activities.
The following description is taken principally from the district court's posttrial findings of facts and conclusions of law. Except as indicated, the facts are largely undisputed.
Bedford, located in Westchester County, New York, operates public schools including the Pound Ridge Elementary School ("Pound Ridge Elementary"), the Fox Lane Middle School ("Fox Lane Middle"), and the Fox Lane High School ("Fox Lane High"). The individual defendants are School District administrators sued in their official capacities.
Plaintiffs are members of three families who, when the present action was commenced in 1996, were residents and/or taxpayers in the School District. Robert M. Altman and Victoria L. Altman (collectively "the Altmans") are the parents of Russell and Ross Altman. Russell had attended Pound Ridge Elementary until fifth grade; Ross had attended a Bedford elementary school until third grade. In or about 1996, the Altmans enrolled Russell and Ross instead in parochial school pending resolution of the family's criticisms of certain Bedford school activities.
Plaintiff Mary Ann DiBari is the grandmother and legal guardian of Krystal M. DiBari and Tiana N. DiBari. At the time of trial, Krystal attended Fox Lane High and previously had attended Fox Lane Middle. Tiana N. DiBari attended Fox Lane Middle at the time of trial and previously had attended Pound Ridge Elementary.
Plaintiffs Joseph M. DiNozzi and Cecile D. DiNozzi (collectively the "DiNozzis") are the parents of Jon M. DiNozzi, Daniel J. DiNozzi, Steven M. DiNozzi, and Joseph A. DiNozzi. At the time of trial, Jon attended Fox Lane High and previously had attended Pound Ridge Elementary. Daniel had previously attended Fox Lane Middle; Steven and Joseph had previously attended Pound Ridge Elementary. In 1995, the DiNozzis had removed Daniel, Steven, and Joseph from their respective public schools and sent them to parochial school pending resolution of the present controversy.
Plaintiffs brought the present action in October 1996 principally under 42 U.S.C. §1983, seeking injunctive relief and alleging that they are sincere practitioners of the Roman Catholic religion and that a large number of programs in the Bedford schools exposed impressionable children to activities that plaintiffs characterized as
(a) The promotion of satanism and occultism, pagan religions and "New Age spirituality", the latter being a religion which promotes as the goal of spiritual progress the full actualization of the human person as the godhead;
(b) Instruction in techniques of meditation, yoga, guided-imagery and self-hypnosis; "crystal power", use of the "right-brain" and other "self-realization" techniques;
(c) Psychological evaluation and treatment by means of contrived incidents for self-revelation, psychodrama, role-playing, "stress management", so-called "stress thermometers", relaxation and deep-breathing, blindfold walks, encounter groups and other techniques designed to modify human behavior or to pry into the student's innermost thoughts and family life;
(d) Instruction in "decision-making" by which matters of morality are reduced to a process of choosing options divorced from objective moral norms, in which process the child, not the parents or God, is the final arbiter of what is right or wrong conduct in a given situation;
(e) Transpersonal "affective" teaching methods by which students are subjected to "learning" intuitively by "sharing" innermost fears, dreams, likes, dislikes, aversions, failures, insecurities and the intimate details of their personal and family lives with strangers in a classroom.
(Amended and Supplemental Complaint ¶18.) Plaintiffs asserted principally that the challenged activities, including those described in Parts I.B. and I.C. below, violated the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment rights of plaintiff parents to raise their children as they see fit, and the Fourteenth Amendment rights of the minor plaintiffs to privacy.
When this action was tried in early 1999, Ross Altman was the only plaintiff who was not beyond elementary-school age. Approximately one year prior to trial, however, as discussed in Parts I.E. and II below, the Altman family had relocated to the State of Connecticut, leaving no plaint...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Citizens for Quality Educ. San Diego v. Barrera
...in a pluralistic society, "the Establishment Clause does not prohibit schools from teaching about religion." Altman v. Bedford Cent. Sch. Dist ., 245 F.3d 49, 76 (2d Cir. 2001) (citing Stone , 449 U.S. at 42, 101 S.Ct. 192 ). And the Establishment Clause does "not mean that the Constitution......
-
DOES 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 v. Enfield Pub. Sch.
...prong two of Lemon by addressing endorsement); Agostini, 521 U.S. at 232, 117 S.Ct. 1997 (entanglement); Altman v. Bedford Cent. School Dist., 245 F.3d 49, 75 (2d Cir.2001) (coercion).a. Endorsement “The concept of endorsement is not limited to government coercion or efforts at proselytizat......
-
Hilsenrath ex rel. C.H. v. Sch. Dist. of the Chathams
...394, 96 L.Ed. 475 (1952) (Bible reading in class); Donovan , 336 F.3d at 216 (policy prohibiting Bible club); Altman v. Bedford Cent. Sch. Dist. , 245 F.3d 49, 73–74 (2d Cir. 2001) (various classroom activities and lesson plans); Wood v. Bd. of Educ. of Charles Cnty. , No. GJH-16-00239, 201......
-
Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow
...nor unimaginative in challenging government practices as forbidden "establishments" of religion. See, e. g., Altman v. Bedford Central School Dist., 245 F. 3d 49 (CA2 2001) (challenging, among other things, reading of a story of the Hindu deity Ganesha in a fourth-grade classroom); Alvarado......
-
Seeing government purpose through the objective observer's eyes: the evolution-intelligent design debates.
...for example, has specifically held that it reviews a reasonable observer's conclusion de novo. Altman v. Bedford Cent. Sch. Dist., 245 F.3d 49, 75 (2d Cir. (301.) As the Supreme Court accepts an average of eighty to eighty-five cases per term, the federal courts of appeals in this country e......