Caudillo v. Lubbock Independent School Dist.
| Decision Date | 03 March 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. Civ.A.5:03-CV-165-C.,Civ.A.5:03-CV-165-C. |
| Parties | Yvonne CAUDILLO, by next friend Brenda CAUDILLO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LUBBOCK INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
Brian F. Chase, Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund, Carla M. Burke, Chris J. Panatier, Kevin D. McHargue, Monty Wade Sullivan, Scott L. Frost, Baron & Budd, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiffs.
Ann Manning, Michael R. McCauley, Jr., McWhorter, Cobb & Johnson, Lubbock, TX, for Defendants.
On this day the Court considered both the Plaintiffs' and the Defendants' respective Motions for Summary Judgment filed on October 20, 2003. Defendants filed their Response on November 7, 2003, and the Plaintiffs filed their Response on November 9, 2003. After considering all the evidence and arguments, the Court is of the opinion that Defendants' Motion should be GRANTED and Plaintiffs' Motion should be DENIED.
On July 8, 2003, Plaintiffs filed their complaint in this Court. The Plaintiffs in this case are (1) Yvonne Caudillo, by next friend, Brenda Caudillo; (2) Mirah Epstein Curzer, by next friend, Howard Curzer; and (3) Lubbock High School Gay Straight Alliance, an unincorporated association. Defendants filed their Original Answers on July 30, 2003. The Defendants are (1) Lubbock Independent School District ("LISD"); (2) Wayne Havens, in his official capacity as Acting Superintendent of LISD ("Defendant Havens"); (3) Dr. Jack Clemmons, individually ("Defendant Clemmons");1 and (4) Fred Hardin, in his official capacity as Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Schools of Lubbock ("Defendant Hardin"). On August 4, 2003, Defendant Clemmons filed his Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support based on qualified immunity. Plaintiffs filed a Response on September 29, 2003. After obtaining leave from this Court, Defendant Clemmons filed a Reply on October 1, 2003. This Court granted Defendant Clemmons' motion and dismissed him from this lawsuit in an order and judgment dated November 10, 2003. As stated above, the parties' respective motions and responses relating to summary judgment on the non-qualified immunity issues are now before this Court and are the subject of this order.2
Although the parties have not been able to agree upon all facts, in their Joint Status Report filed August 14, 2003, the parties agreed upon and stipulated to the following facts:
LISD, by and through its Board of Trustees, adopted a limited open forum by virtue of its Board Policy FNAB (LEGAL). By doing so, the Equal Access Act, 20 U.S.C. § 4071(a) et seq., applies. LISD has adopted an abstinence policy applying to all matters concerning sexual activity. On or about September 9, 2002, Joseph Schottland ("Schottland"), an LISD faculty member at Lubbock High School ("LHS"), wrote a letter to Defendant Hardin, the then Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Education, seeking permission for the Gay and Proud Youth Group ("GAP Youth") to post notices at LHS about their off-campus meetings. GAP Youth is now known as Lubbock Gay Straight Alliance ("LGSA").
On or about September 12, 2002, GAP Youth members Ricky Waite ("Waite") and Rene Caudillo ("Caudillo"), both LHS seniors who have since graduated, wrote to Roy Grimes, Board Trustee, for permission to advertise their group via the posting of fliers in the halls of LHS as well as making announcements over the school's PA system. On or about September 20, 2002, Waite and Caudillo, along with some of their relatives, made a presentation to Hardin requesting permission to post their fliers in the school's hallways and to make announcements over the school's PA system. On or about November 6, 2002, Waite and Caudillo made a formal written request to Defendants and the members of the School Board asking to be placed on the November 14, 2002 Board agenda so that they could request permission to post fliers. The letter included a list of goals, description of meeting, services to the community, and further included a paragraph as follows:
A FEW WORDS:
We are not in any way, "recruiting." Anyone who attends our functions does so of their own free will. We will use diplomatic tactics to provide guidance to youth. We will not be the ones making the decision about their sexuality and we will be working with other organizations, councilors [sic], etc. to provide the best help possible.
In addition, the stated goals in the letter included:
(1) Provide guidance to youth who come to us to the best of our ability and when we cannot provide help[,] relay them to those who can.
(2) Educate those willing about non-heterosexuals.
(3) Improve the relationship between heterosexuals and homosexuals.
(4) Help the community.
(5) Increase rights given to non-heterosexuals.
(6) Educate willing youth about safe sex, AIDS, hatred, etc.
(7) Enhance the relationship between youth and their families.
On November 6, 2002, Havens, then Deputy Superintendent, corresponded with Waite, Caudillo, and the GAP Youth founders acknowledging their request to address the Board of Trustees. They were placed on the November 14, 2002 agenda. On November 14, 2002, Waite addressed the Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees took no action; however, GAP Youth was not allowed to post their fliers. On November 20, 2002, Schottland wrote Mark Griffin, President of the LISD Board of Trustees, expressing his concern with this decision. Schottland suggested that LISD allow the students to post notices in the school hallways, but that the students not have use of the school's PA system. On or about December 19, 2002, Waite made a request to Doyle Vogler ("Vogler"), Principal of LHS, to allow GAP Youth to meet on campus. Vogler denied the request. On or about December 19, 2002, Waite also made a written request to Defendant Hardin requesting that GAP Youth be allowed to meet on campus. Thereafter, Defendant Hardin phoned Waite and responded that the request was denied.
LGSA, formally GAP Youth, is a non-curriculum-related group.3 At this time, the status of posting the fliers, making announcements, and meeting on the LHS campus remains the same for LGSA. LISD receives federal financial assistance. LISD maintains a policy that "the District shall not prohibit student expression solely because other students, teachers, administrators, or parents may disagree with its content."
Defendants submit additional "uncontroverted facts." Defendants further submit that principal Vogler reviewed GAP Youth's website prior to denying their requests. Defendants submit that Hardin also reviewed the website of the group prior to making his decision that the content and material were inappropriate for students and the LISD campuses. LISD's secondary schools were made up of minors from as young as twelve to seventeen years of age. Defendants allege that Hardin denied GAP Youth's request based upon the LISD abstinence-only policy, federal law, State law, and the well-being and disruption exceptions to the Equal Access Act. Defendants further submit that Vogler and Hardin again reviewed the website prior to denying the group's later request in December of 2002 to meet on campus. Hardin made the decision to deny the request after reviewing the website, which still contained links to material with sexual content. The GAP Youth website was created by Rene Caudillo. The fliers that the group requested to post on the Lubbock High School campus contained the address for GAP Youth's website. Caudillo was responsible for the content of the website. See Caudillo Dep. p. 135. The GAP Youth website included direct button links to www.gay.com and later to www.youthresource.com. The www.gay.com content was accessible when the group requested to post its fliers. Topics on the website included "New Sexy Gay Game Pics" and "Favorite Questions." The latter included articles on (1) Why Am I Having Erection Problems?; (2) How Safe is Oral Sex?; (3) The Truth About Barebacking; (4) First Time With Anal Sex; (5) Kissing and Mutual Masturbation; (6) How Safe Are Rimming and Fingering?; (7) The Lowdown on Anal Warts. Caudillo admitted in his deposition testimony that such content was inappropriate for a school campus.4 See Caudillo Dep. at 92. Caudillo further testified that the www.gay.com content was removed from its website some time after requesting to post the fliers and use the P.A. system; however, the www.youthresource.com content was still on the web page when Hardin reviewed the website in January of 2003 before making his final decision denying the GAP Youth group permission to meet on campus.
At the time of the requests, Texas law banned sexual acts between homosexuals. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.06 (Vernon 2003). Texas law also makes it a crime for minors to engage in sexual acts if they are of the same sex, or if they are of opposite sex and more than three years apart in age. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.11(a) (Vernon 2003).
This lawsuit was brought for alleged violations of the Equal Access Act, 20 U.S.C. § 4071 et seq., and of the First Amendment pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988. Suit was also brought for declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201-02.
Summary judgment is appropriate only if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any," when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, "show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (internal quotations omitted). A dispute about a material fact is "genuine" if the evidence is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gonzalez v. School Bd. of Okeechobee County
...Alliance v. Bd. of Educ. of Salt Lake City Sch. Dist., 81 F.Supp.2d 1166, 1198 (D.Utah 1999); contra Caudillo v. Lubbock Indep. Sch. Dist., 311 F. Supp.2d 550 (N.D.Tex.2004) (relying on the well-being exception to deny recognition of non-heterosexual student group, where Texas law criminall......
-
Gay-Straight Alliance v. School Bd. of Okeechobee
...of students and would disrupt order and discipline on the school premises. Def. Resp. at 9-15. Defendant relies on Caudillo v. Lubbock Independent Sch. Dist., which held that a school could deny a Gay and Proud club's application based on the fact that the club's website included links to w......
-
Gay-Straight Alliance v. School Bd. of Nassau
...ever found that a school could permissibly ban a club for this reason and the relevant facts in that case were unique. In Caudillo v. Lubbock Independent Sch. District, the court held that the school district could permissibly deny access to a similar club because, inter alia, the group's w......
-
Redefining due process analysis: Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and the concept of emergent rights.
...2005) (finding no support in Lawrence for privacy claim involving sexual conduct with minor); Caudillo v. Lubbock Indep. Sch. Dist., 311 F. Supp. 2d 550, 566 n.9 (N.D. Tex. 2004) (discussing the Kansas Court of Appeals' distinction between laws applicable to minors and the law invalidated i......
-
Challenges facing LGBTQ youth
...P.A. 102-557 and P.A. 102-662 of the 2021 Sess. of the 102nd Legis.). 238. Caudillo ex rel. Caudillo v. Lubbock Indep. Sch. Dist., 311 F. Supp. 2d 550, 556–57, 563 (N.D. Tex. 2004). 239. Id. at 563–64 (quoting Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 266 (1988)). 240. 241. CAL. HEAL......
-
Challenges facing LGBTQ youth
...and replaced by LGBTQþ-inclusive laws 105 ILCS 5/27-9.1a and 27-9.1b. 233. Caudillo ex rel. Caudillo v. Lubbock Indep. Sch. Dist., 311 F. Supp. 2d 550, 556–57, 563 (N.D. Tex. 2004). 234. Id. at 563–64 (quoting Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 266 (1988)). 235. Sex Ed State L......
-
Morse v. Frederick's new perspective on schools' basic educational missions and the implications for gay-straight alliance First Amendment jurisprudence.
...the speech at such meetings. 20 U.S.C. [section] 4071(a). (3) U.S. CONST. amend. I; see, e.g., Caudillo v. Lubbock Indep. Sch. Dist., 311 F. Supp. 2d 550 (N.D. Tex. 2004) (alleging that a school district violated the Equal Access Act and the First Amendment when it prohibited a GSA from mee......