Barr v. Tucker
| Decision Date | 21 February 2023 |
| Docket Number | CV422-226 |
| Parties | LINDSEY M. BARR, Plaintiff, v. HEATHER TUCKER, in her official and personal capacities as Principal of McAllister Elementary School; DEBI MCNEAL, in her official and personal capacities as Director of Human Resources for Bryan County Schools; and PAUL BROOKSHER, in his official and personal capacities as Superintendent of Bryan County Schools; Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia |
Before the. Court is Plaintiff Lindsey M. Barr's Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Expedited Hearing (Doc. 8), which Defendants Heather Tucker, Debi McNeal, and Paul Brooksher have opposed (Doc. 17). Plaintiff's Request for Hearing (Doc. 16) is also before the Court. For the following reasons, Plaintiff's . motions (Docs. 8, 16) are DENIED.
This case arises from Plaintiff's removal as a substitute teacher in Bryan County Schools ("BCS") allegedly for expressing her religious views about a book containing same-sex families being presented to her children at McAllister Elementary School ("MES"), a Bryan County elementary school located in Richmond Hill, Georgia. (Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 1, 10, 11 55.) As alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint, Plaintiff and her husband are "professing Christians who desire to raise their children according to their sincerely held religious beliefs, including their beliefs that marriage should be between one man and one woman, and that family formation should occur within the confines of heterosexual marriage." (Id. at ¶ 23.) Plaintiff and her husband have three children, and two of them attend MES. (Id. at ¶ 22.) After previously working as a full-time teacher with BCS from 2008 through 2018, Plaintiff was hired by BCS as a substitute teacher in January 2022. (Id. at ¶¶ 19, 24.)
In April 2022, when Plaintiff was working as a substitute at MES in the classroom of one of her children (Doc. 8, Attach. 2 at 11; Doc. 18, Attach. 1 at ¶ 3),[1] Plaintiff took a picture of a poster hanging in the classroom (Doc. 1 at ¶ 43) . The poster included a drawing of two men with "a heart floating between them" and the caption: "All adults have the right to marriage and to raise a family." (Doc 1 at ¶ 43; Doc. 1, Attach. 6 at 3.) Plaintiff sent the picture to another parent.[2] (Doc. 17, Attach. 1 at 2; Doc. 18, Attach. 1 at ¶ 3.) No MES official raised any concern about the picture to Plaintiff at that time or during the 2021-22 school year. (Doc. 18, Attach. 1 at ¶ 3.)
At the beginning of the 2022-23 school year, Plaintiff learned of a "read-aloud program" at MES, in which the school's librarian would present the same book to every class in the school. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 34.) Plaintiff learned that one book to be used in the read-aloud program was "All Are Welcome," a picture book that contains "illustrations [that] picture same-sex couples with school-age children[.]" (Id. at ¶¶ 34, 36.)
On the night of Monday, August 15, 2022, Plaintiff sent a message to her child's teacher regarding the read-aloud program. (Doc. 18, Attach. 1 at 3, 7.) Plaintiff inquired into the conversations surrounding the "book, story and various illustrations[.]" (Id. at 7.) When Plaintiff discovered the librarian had not read the book to her child's class, she responded that she was glad and that it was "[g]oing to be a hard pass for the Barr fam." (Id. at 7-8.)
On Tuesday, August 16, 2022, when Plaintiff was working at the school as a substitute, but at a time Plaintiff contends she was not performing any duties as a substitute,[3] Plaintiff asked her other child's teacher to excuse him or her from the read-aloud program. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 39.) According to Defendant Tucker, Plaintiff did so in the presence of students (Doc. 17, Attach. 1 at 2), but Plaintiff contends no one was around at the time (Doc. 18, Attach. 1 at 4). That same day, at 11:53 a.m., Plaintiff emailed MES principal, Defendant Tucker, to request a conversation. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 38; Doc. 1, Attach. 5 at 2.) In a subsequent email to Defendant Tucker at 4:25 p.m., Plaintiff explained that she was concerned about the "read aloud for the week" and that she "wanted to chat with [Defendant Tucker] about the illustrations and potential conversations." (Doc. 1 at ¶ 38; Doc. 1, Attach. 5 at 3.)
On Wednesday, August 17, 2022, when Plaintiff was at home and not working, Plaintiff and Defendant Tucker had a conversation over the telephone. (Id. at ¶¶ 40, 41.) Plaintiff told Defendant Tucker that she believed the book was "inappropriate for young children, conflicted with her Christian faith, and appeared to be an effort to indoctrinate young children into a progressive ideological agenda[]" and asked that her children be excused from the read-aloud program. (Id. at ¶¶ 41, 42.) After the August 17, 2022, phone call, Plaintiff sent Defendant Tucker the picture of the poster she had taken while serving as a substitute in her child's classroom in April 2022 and conveyed:
I'm not trying to make waves with anyone. I'm trying to protect my children. This is an agenda. This is not ok. If I couldn't post bible verses in my newsletters or read scripture to my classes or cover my students aloud • in prayer, this shouldn't be allowed either. It isn't equity and diversity. It's propaganda. You do not have to agree with me, but I appreciate you having the conversation and allowing me to see your perspective as a public school administrator.
(Doc. 1 at ¶ 43; Doc. 1, Attach. 6 at 2.)
On Thursday, August 18, 2022, Plaintiff could not access the system she used to obtain substitute teaching assignments. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 47.) That day, Plaintiff emailed Defendant Tucker and asked whether she had been removed as a substitute teacher at MES and whether she was banned as a volunteer at the school. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 47; Doc. 1, Attach. 7 at 2.) On Friday, August 19, 2022, Defendant McNeal, BCS Director of Human Resources, emailed Plaintiff that Defendants Tucker and McNeal wanted to meet with her regarding her role as a substitute. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 49; Doc. 1, Attach. 8 at 2.)
The group arranged to meet on Tuesday, August 23, 2022. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 50.) Defendant Tucker informed Plaintiff that she had shared biases that she was [4](Doc. 1 at ¶ 51; Doc. 8, Attach. 2 at 8.) Defendant Tucker informed Plaintiff that she had concerns about whether Plaintiff would be able to support "a student that identifies as gay, or has parents that identify as gay" since "those biases are still entering into the workplace as well." (Doc. 1 at ¶ 51; Doc. 8, Attach. 2 at 89.) Defendant Tucker also informed Plaintiff her other concern was that she had "teachers requesting that [Plaintiff] not be subbing in their classroom[,]" and it was becoming more difficult to honor that request. (Doc. 8, Attach. 2 at 9.)
Plaintiff responded to Defendant Tucker that she was expressing her concerns as a Christian mother, not as a substitute teacher, and that she did not think that they "should be pushing same-sex marriage on [her] children." (Doc. 1 at ¶ 52; Doc. 8, Attach. 2 at 9-10.) Defendant Tucker responded that Plaintiff's concerns were not brought "just as a parent" and referenced the picture of the poster taken when Plaintiff was substituting in a classroom the previous year. (Doc. 8, Attach. 2 at 10.) Plaintiff clarified: (Id. at 11.) Later, when discussing the purpose of the meeting, Plaintiff explained that she was (Id. at 12.)
Ultimately, Defendant Tucker informed Plaintiff that she had instructed Defendant McNeal to remove Plaintiff as a substitute teacher at MES, Plaintiff's children would be excused from the read-aloud program, and Plaintiff could continue to volunteer at MES, although another conversation might be necessary if incidents occurred. (Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 53, 65.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant McNeal extended Plaintiff's termination to all Bryan County schools. (Id. at ¶ 5.) Plaintiff further contends Defendant Brooksher, BCS Superintendent, ratified Plaintiff's termination. (Id. at ¶¶ 5, 16, 61.)
Generally courts are permitted to grant a preliminary injunction after considering whether a plaintiff can demonstrate "(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that irreparable injury will be suffered unless the injunction issues; (3) the threatened injury to the movant outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party; and (4) if . issued, the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest." Four Seasons Hotels & Resorts, B.V. v. Consorcio Barr, S. A., 320 F.3d 1205, 1210 (11th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). "It is well-established in this Circuit that a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy not to be granted unless the movant clearly established the burden of persuasion as to all four elements." CBS Broad., Inc, v. EchoStar Commnc'ns Corp., 265 F.3d 1193, 1200 (11th Cir. 2001) (quotation marks omitted) (quoting Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11th Cir. 2000)).
"[A]n evidentiary hearing is not always required before the issuance of a preliminary injunction[.]" Four Seasons Hotels & Resorts, B.V., 320 F.3d at 1211 (citations omitted). "[W]here facts are bitterly contested and credibility determinations must be made to decide whether injunctive...
To continue reading
Request your trial