Doe v. Indian River Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 21 February 2010 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 05-120-JJF. |
| Citation | 685 F.Supp.2d 524 |
| Parties | Jane DOE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. INDIAN RIVER SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Delaware |
Thomas J. Allingham II, Esquire, Robert S. Saunders, Esquire, Brian G. Lenhard, Esquire, and Timothy S. Kearns Esquire of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP, Wilmington, DE, Richard S Horvath, Jr., Esquire of Skadden, Arps Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiffs.
Warren Pratt, Esquire of Drinker Biddie & Reath LLP, Wilmington, DE, Jason P. Gosselin, Esquire, Katherine L. Villanueva, Esquire, and Elizabeth L. McLachlan, Esquire of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendants.
Presently before the Court are the parties' cross-Motions for Summary Judgment on the constitutionality of the Indian River School District's policy of opening public School Board meetings with a prayer or moment of silence. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant Defendants' Motion, deny Plaintiffs' Motion, and enter summary judgment in favor of Defendants.
Plaintiffs Mona and Marco Dobrich, individually and as the parents of Alexander Dobrich, and Jane and John Doe, individually and as the parents of Jordan and Jamie Doe, 1 filed the instant action on February 28, 2005, pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983, against (1) the Indian River School Board Members, the District Superintendent, and the Assistant Superintendent, in both their individual and official capacities and (2) the School Board and the District themselves. Plaintiffs brought claims based on alleged violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution arising out of the alleged school sponsored prayer at school functions and School Board meetings in the Indian River School District. As relief, Plaintiffs sought (1) compensatory and nominal damages for the alleged emotional distress and pecuniary loss suffered by Plaintiffs; (2) an injunction (i) banning Defendants from promoting, conducting, or permitting religious exercises or prayer at school functions, including but not limited to graduation ceremonies, athletic activities, holiday festivals, awards presentations and School Board meetings, and (ii) requiring the District to distribute its school prayer policies publicly and to establish procedures for reviewing violations of the policy; and (3) a declaratory judgment that the customs, practices, and policies of the District with regard to prayer at School Board meetings and school functions are unconstitutional, both facially and as applied.
In August 2005, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants in their individual capacities.2 Thereafter, the Court bifurcated the discovery process, with the first phase to focus on the issues surrounding the School Board's policy of opening its public meetings with a prayer or moment of silence, and the second phase to cover Plaintiffs' remaining constitutional claims.3In January 2008, the Parties agreed to settle all claims except those related to the Board's prayer policy. The Court approved that settlement in February 2008.4In March 2008, the Dobriches voluntarily dismissed their claims after they moved outside the District.
The Does and Defendants have each moved for summary judgment on the constitutionality of the Board's Prayer Policy. The matter has been fully briefed and is ripe for decision.
The Indian River School District (the "District" or the "School District") is located in Southeastern Sussex County and serves the towns of Selbyville, Frankford Dagsboro, Gumboro, Fenwick Island, Bethany Beach, Ocean View, Millsboro, and Georgetown.5 The District was formed in 1969 through the consolidation of five different school districts.6 The District is composed of fourteen schools (including several elementary schools, two middle schools, two high schools, and an arts magnet school), with approximately 8, 400 students and 650 full-time teachers.7
The District is governed by a School Board (the "Board") composed of ten unpaid members elected by qualified electors from the five districts into which the District is divided.8 Each Board Member serves a term of three years.9 Before assuming office, Board Members are required to take an oath, similar to that taken by members of the Delaware General Assembly, 10 affirming that they will "support the Constitution of the United States of America [and] the Constitution of the State of Delaware." 11 As of this writing, the School Board Members are: Robert D. Wilson and Shelly R. Wilson (District 1); Patricia S. Oliphant and Vice President Kelly R. Willing (District 2) Randall L. Hughes II and Nina Lou Bunting (District 3); President Charles M. Bireley and Dr. Donald G. Hattier (District 4); and Donna M. Mitchell and Reginald L. Helms (District 5).12
Delaware law grants the School Board broad powers to manage and establish policy for the District.13 By statute, the Board is vested with the authority to "administer and to supervise" public schools within the district and "determine policy and adopt rules and regulations for the general administration and supervision" of public schools.14 Pursuant to its policy making authority, the School Board is specifically charged with: (1) determining the hours of daily school sessions; (2) setting "education policies" for the District, and prescribing "rules and regulations for the conduct and management of the schools"; (3) enforcing school attendance; (4) "grad[ing] and standardizing]" the public schools in the District; (5) adopting courses of study; (6) selecting and distributing textbooks and other educational materials; (7) appointing personnel; and (8) making "all reports required" by the Delaware Secretary of Education.15
In addition to these responsibilities, the Board exercises "control, management and custody" over "[a]ll property, estate, effects, money, funds, claims and state donations vested by law in the public school authorities of any public school." 16 The School Board holds in trust any "real or personal estate granted, conveyed, devised or bequeathed" for the use of any public school.17 Through referendum, the School District may "levy and collect additional taxes for school purposes," and the School Board may, "without the necessity of a referendum," levy any taxes necessary to support the School District's contribution where such a contribution is required by state law.18 Finally, the School Board controls the School District's budget, and manages "[a]ppropriations for the support, maintenance and operation" of schools, including appropriations for employee salaries, school costs and energy, and educational advancement.19
The Board is required to hold public meetings at least once a month, 20 and may hold "[s]pecial meetings... whenever the duties and business of the school board [so] require."21 Before the Board may conduct business in any regular meeting, a quorum of a majority of active Board Members must be present.22 Public Board Meetings are held in the cafeterias or gyms of public schools within the School District. In addition to conducting the business of the School District, the Board has added a public comments segment to the agenda for each of its regular public meetings.23
The Board's practice of opening its regular public meetings with a moment of prayer dates back to the Board's formation in 1969.24 Until 2004, it was the Board's practice that the President would designate one person at each meeting to give a prayer.25 Before this time, only a few of the Board's ten members alternated the responsibility of offering a prayer at meetings.
During the 2004 graduation ceremony at Sussex Central High School, Reverend Jerry Fike offered an invocation and benediction that explicitly invoked Jesus Christ. For example, in the benediction, Reverend Fike stated: "Heavenly Father... direct [graduates] into the truth, and eventually the truth that comes by knowing Jesus." 26The prayer upset Plaintiff Mona Dobrich whose daughter was among those graduating. Accordingly, Ms. Dobrich complained about the graduation prayers during a June 15, 2004 public Board meeting.27
On August 23, 2004, the Board convened a special meeting to discuss prayer at the beginning of Board meetings.28 According to the minutes of that session, which lasted several hours, "several board members expressed that their constituents d[id] not want the Board to change its practice of opening the meetings with a prayer."29
The Board held its next regularly-scheduled public meeting on August 24, 2004 which attracted more than twice the attendance of a typical public meeting.30 At the beginning of the meeting, then-Board President Walls asked Board Member Hattier to "lead the Board in a moment of prayer."31 Several members of the crowd applauded. President Walls gaveled the room back to order.32 Member Hattier then gave a prayer composed by George Washington and contained in a 1783 letter to the Governors of the newly-freed states.33 During the portion of the meeting devoted to public comments, several attendees spoke in favor of continuing the practice of having an invocation at public school graduations and other school events.34
Following the August 2004 Board Meeting, the Board solicited legal advice regarding the constitutionality of the Board's practice of opening its regular meetings with a moment of prayer.35 In October 2004, the Board adopted a new policy governing "Board Prayer at Regular Board Meetings."36 This policy (the "Prayer Policy") provides as follows:
1. In order to solemnify its proceedings, the Board of Education may choose to open its meetings with a prayer or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Susan Galloway v. Greece
...v. Forsyth County, N.C., No. 1:07CV243, 2009 WL 3787754 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 9, 2009) (" Joyner" ) and Doe v. Indian River Sch. Dist., 685 F.Supp.2d 524 (D.Del.2010) (" Indian River" ). In Joyner, the plaintiffs alleged that a county board of commissioners violated the Establishment Clause by "sp......
- Doe v. Indian River Sch. Dist.
-
Rubin v. City of Lancaster
...Corp., 159 F.3d 1227 (10th Cir.1998) (en banc); Galloway v. Town of Greece, 732 F.Supp.2d 195 (W.D.N.Y.2010); Doe v. Indian River Sch. Dist., 685 F.Supp.2d 524 (D.Del.2010); Doe v. Tangipahoa Parish Sch. Bd., 631 F.Supp.2d 823 (E.D.La.2009); see also Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 112 S.Ct. ......
-
Rubin v. City of Lancaster
...159 F.3d 1227 (10th Cir. 1998) (en banc); Galloway v. Town of Greece, 732 F. Supp. 2d 195 (W.D.N.Y. 2010); Doe v. Indian River Sch. Dist., 685 F. Supp. 2d 524 (D. Del. 2010); Doe v. Tangipahoa Parish Sch. Bd., 631 F. Supp. 2d 823 (E.D. La. 2009); see also Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992)......
-
Between a Rock and a Hard Place: the Struggle to Analyze School Board Prayer and a New Method of Establishment Clause Analysis
...Doe v. Indian River Sch. Dist., 653 F.3d 256, 261 (3d Cir. 2011).224. Id. at 265.225. Id. at 262.226. Doe v. Indian River Sch. Dist., 685 F. Supp. 2d 524, 539 (D. Del. 2010) ("In sum, a school board does not implicate the same concerns as the coercive effect of classroom prayers, graduation......
-
Expression of Religion in Public Schools
...120. Id. at 171. 121. Doe v. Duncanville Indep. Sch. Dist., 70 F.3d 402, 406 (5th Cir. 1995). 122. Doe v. Indian River Sch. Dist., 685 F.Supp.2d 524, 534 (D.Del. 2010). But see John Doe #2 v. Tangipahoa Sch. Bd., 631 F.Supp.2d 823, 838 (E.D.La. 2009) (noting that the Sixth Circuit has decli......