Altman v. Bedford Cent. School Dist.

• Decision Date: 21 May 1999
• Docket Number: No. 96 Civ. 7791(CLB).,96 Civ. 7791(CLB).
• Citation: 45 F.Supp.2d 368
• Parties: 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, 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.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

45 F.Supp.2d 368

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, 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.

No. 96 Civ. 7791(CLB).

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

May 21, 1999.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

James M. Bendell, Port Townsend, WA, Joseph P. Infranco, Miglore & Infranco, PC, Commack, NY, Christopher a. Ferrara, American Catholic Lawyers Assn., Fairfield, NJ, for plaintiffs.

Warren Richmond, Lawrence W. Reich, Neil Block, Ingerman, Smith, LLP, North-port, NY, for defendants.

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, and ORDER

BRIEANT, District Judge.

This action filed October 15, 1996 for declaratory and injunctive relief under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article I, § 3 of the New York State Constitution, and for redress of the Plaintiffs' rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 2000bb(b)(1); 20 U.S.C. § 1232(f); 34 C.F.R. § 98.1; 20 U.S.C. § 1232(h)(b); and 34 C.F.R. § 98.4. was tried before this Court without a jury on February 22, 1999, continuing on February 24, 1999, March 1, 2 and 4, 1999, concluding on March 4, 1999. Post verdict submissions were received on March 29, 1999. Subject matter jurisdiction is established pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(3). The Court now makes its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law after Trial.

The Parties

Plaintiffs Robert M. Altman and Victoria L. Altman are parents of minor children. They are residents and taxpayers in that portion of the Town of Pound Ridge which is within the area served by the Defendant Bedford Central School District. Their child, Russell Altman, age 14 at the time of trial, had attended Pound Ridge Elementary School until the fifth grade, but was removed by his parents by reason of the controversy set forth in the Complaint, and will attend St. Patrick's parochial school until the case is resolved. Ross Altman, a younger child of the Altman Plaintiffs, attended third grade at the Bedford Central School District, and is now also at St. Patrick's.

Plaintiff Mary Ann DiBari is also a resident and taxpayer, and legal guardian of her two granddaughters. Her granddaughter Krystal, age 15 at trial, attends Fox Lane High School. Formerly, she attended Fox Lane Middle School. Her granddaughter Tiana (Niki), age 14 at trial, attends Fox Lane Middle School. She attended Pound Ridge Elementary School in fourth and fifth grade.

Plaintiffs Joseph M. DiNozzi and Cecile D. DiNozzi, are the parents of Jon, Daniel, Steven and Joseph. The DiNozzi's are also resident taxpayers. Their child, Jon, age 17 at trial, was attending Fox Lane High School, and had attended Pound Ridge Elementary School. Daniel, age 15 at trial, was withdrawn by his parents from the Fox Lane Middle School in the Fall of 1995 and now attends parochial school, "where he will remain until the matters in controversy are resolved." (Complaint at 6(b)). Steven DiNozzi, age 13 at trial, attended the Pound Ridge Elementary School but was removed in September 1995 for the same reasons. Joseph DiNozzi, age 13 at trial, also attended the Pound Ridge Elementary School and was likewise removed by his parents, to attend St. Patricks.

Defendants are the officials administering the Bedford Central School District, including the Superintendent of Schools, Assistant Superintendent in charge of curriculum and instruction, the President and Members of the Board of Education, and the Principals of the Elementary School, the Middle School and the High School. They are responsible for the curriculum, instructional materials and teaching practices attacked by this lawsuit.

The Dispute

Plaintiffs all allege that they are adherents of Roman Catholicism, "whose sincerely held religious beliefs have been violated" by the acts alleged in the Complaint, with further violations imminently threatened. Plaintiffs allege that they became aware of exposure of their children by the Defendants to, "objectionable activities on school premises, either without parental consent or under circumstances which render parental consent ineffective to protect Plaintiffs' children." (Complaint at 7). The Complaint pleads five separate claims or so-called "causes of action." Pleading facts common to all of the claims, Plaintiffs allege that a totality of "methodologies, exercises, materials and presentations" have been used, implemented and promoted by the School District, which violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, or alternatively violate The Establishment Clause thereof. Particularly, Defendants are accused of having developed the so-called "Bedford Program" which allegedly involves, "the promotion of Satanism and occultism, pagan religions and a New Age Spirituality."

Detailed allegations in the Complaint which comprise 74 paragraphs, beginning at ¶ 20, concern the implementation of the Bedford Program, and teaching practices which are claimed to violate Plaintiffs' rights and disparage their own religious faith. Little purpose will be served by detailing all the religious and quasi-religious events which Plaintiffs claim their children were compelled to join, nor by a complete reiteration of the Complaint. Some of the conduct complained of does not seem to have religious overtones, but much of it does. Other facts alleged are intrusive but apparently without religious connotations. The underlying facts are pleaded separately as violations of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (First Claim); a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Second Claim)¹; and violations of Fourteenth Amendment parental and privacy rights (Third Claim). The Fourth Claim pleaded alleges a violation of Article I, Section 3 of the New York State Constitution, which essentially tracks the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Separate discussion of this claim is unnecessary. The Fifth Claim pleaded alleges that to the extent federally funded programs are involved, 20 U.S.C. § 1232(h)(b), and 34 C.F.R. § 98.4 et seq., commonly referred to as the Pupil Protection Rights Amendment, are also violated. The Sixth Claim alleges that psychological testing, examination and counseling and treatment of students is a health service for which prior parental consent is required under § 2504 of the New York State Public Health Law.

Overview of the Case

This is agenda driven litigation, from both sides. Plaintiffs' agenda is to obtain judicial adoption of a single standard for the treatment of religion in the school system:

It has been the Plaintiffs' position all along that what this case is really about is applying the same draconian limitations imposed by the federal courts on Judeo-Christian religious practice in the public schools to Eastern religions and religious-type practices.

(Plaintiffs' submission filed March 29, 1999, Doc. 68 at p. 8). Also, "without consistency in the application of the law, there is no law at all. This case is a plea to end a double standard of religious influence in the public schools and bring consistency." Id. p. 19.

Defendants' agenda is to defend and extend their premise:

A school district has a statutory obligation to prepare students to assume the responsibilities of citizenship. A cramped or stilted curriculum distorted to meet the heightened sensibilities of individuals such as Plaintiffs herein, necessarily deprives the students of the broader information base and experiences which they require in order to participate fully in today's society.

(Pretrial brief filed February 16, 1999 [Doc. 65 at 30].)

Litigation is a blunt, Procrustean and generally ineffective means to satisfy either of these goals. The proof at trial shows that there is no such thing as the "Bedford Program." At most, the proof shows that numerous activities, many of them random acts initiated by individual school teachers luxuriating in their academic freedom, may have offended the Establishment Clause or the Free Exercise Clause, or both. This Court lacks the power to reconstitute or to approve or disapprove an entire school curriculum, and could not as a practical matter administer any injunctive decree which would seek to enforce any such determination.

Furthermore, it is not the function of this Court to determine whether any particular school practice is "offensive to Catholic parents." This criterion was employed throughout the trial by the Plaintiffs' expert witness, Father Mitchell Chester Pacwa, a Roman Catholic priest belonging to the Society of Jesus. Since 1996, Father Pacwa has served as Assistant Professor of Sacred Scripture at the University of Dallas, Texas, Institute of Religious and Pastoral Studies.² With due respect to the witness, the issue in the case is not one of offensiveness to...