Child Evangelism Fellowship v. Anderson School
| Decision Date | 07 July 2006 |
| Docket Number | C.A: No. 8:04-1866-HMH. |
| Citation | 438 F.Supp.2d 609 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
| Parties | CHILD EVANGELISM FELLOWSHIP OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff, v. ANDERSON SCHOOL DISTRICT 5, Defendant. |
Samuel Darryl Harms, III, Harms Law Firm, Greenville, SC, Joel Lee Oster, Erik William Stanley, Liberty Counsel, Longwood, FL, Scott Edwin Thompson, Liberty University School of Law, Lynchburg, VA, for Plaintiff.
Kenneth Paul Woodington, Davidson Morrison and Lindemann, Columbia, SC, for Defendant.
On June 14, 2004, Child Evangelism Fellowship of South Carolina ("CEF") filed a verified complaint and a motion for preliminary injunction. The case was assigned to the Honorable Henry F. Floyd, who recused himself on May 2, 2006. The case was reassigned to the undersigned on May 16, 2006.
In its complaint and motion for preliminary injunction, CEF alleges that Anderson School District 5 (the "District") violated CEF's rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by contravening the Establishment Clause and CEF's rights to free speech, free exercise of religion, and equal protection. (Compl. ¶ 1.) CEF seeks a declaratory judgment, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, and damages. Because CEF alleges its constitutional claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
A hearing was held on May 24, 2006. Because the District had previously requested additional time for discovery, and Judge Floyd had set the discovery deadline for June 30, 2006, the court inquired about the additional discovery requested by the District. The District's sole remaining discovery request was to depose Dawn Badger ("Badger"), the district director of CEF. Badger was present in the courtroom, and the court directed the parties to take her testimony at the hearing. After a direct examination and a brief cross-examination, both parties agreed that no additional discovery was necessary, that the issues in the case had been adequately briefed to the court in the parties' memoranda in support of and opposing preliminary injunctive relief and summary judgment, and that the case was ripe for a decision. Although both parties initially requested a jury trial, both later withdrew their requests and submitted the matter to the court for a decision. At the parties' request, the court allowed the parties to submit briefs on any remaining issues, which both parties submitted on May 31, 2006. Each party filed a reply brief on June 2, 2006.
After consideration of all of the relevant evidence of record and the arguments of the parties, the court now declares its findings of fact and conclusions of law. Should a finding of fact constitute a conclusion of law, or vice versa, the court adopts it as such and directs that it be treated accordingly.
1. CEF is a nonprofit religious organization incorporated in Missouri, with a chapter office in Taylors, South Carolina. The District is the governing body for public schools in District Five of Anderson County. The Good News Club ("Club") is a nondenominational club for children ages 5-12 which encourages learning, spiritual growth, and service to others through religious and moral education by teaching lessons from the Bible, singing hymns, reading stories, and memorization of Bible verses. CEF sponsors the Club. The Club does not collect fees or donations from attendees. It conducts meetings on elementary school campuses after school for convenience to the parents and for safety reasons, and only meets when school is in session.
2. On or about June 27, 2003, Badger wrote the Superintendent of the District, Betty Bagley ("Bagley"), requesting permission to use the District's facilities to host Club meetings. Bagley responded on July 8, 2003, informing CEF that if it wished to use the facilities, CEF had to follow the procedures set forth in District Policy KG-R ("policy KG"). Further, Bagley informed CEF that, based on a preliminary review, she thought that CEF's application to use the facilities would be approved.
3. On July 29, 2003, Badger wrote the Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Operations for the District, David Brooks ("Brooks"), requesting that the fee for using the facilities be waived.
4. At the time of the initial application, policy KG set forth the District's policy concerning fee waiver. Policy KG expressly provided free access to the District's facilities to three groups. First, the policy permitted free access to "district schools and school-related organizations," designating such use as "school use" and noting that "[p]arent-teacher organizations/associations, district organizations, band and athletic booster clubs, SADD, 4-H clubs, FFA and FHA organizations, and other similar organizations are considered school organizations and will not be charged for facility use." Second, policy KG permitted free access for usage "as a result of joint business/education partnerships" with the District. (Id. Ex. A (Policy KG at 2).) Third, and finally, the policy permitted governmental bodies or agencies to use the facilities, but only if the proposed use was when the "building is normally open and staffed," the school's "educational program is in no way disrupted[,] and ... no special custodial service are [sic] required." (Id.)
5. In addition to the three groups allowed free use of the facilities, policy KG also specified that
[t]he district reserves the right to decline any rental application and/or to waive any or all charges as determined to be in the district's best interest. In determining whether to waive a fee, consideration may be given to nonprofit organizations providing programs/activities for students which are determined to be in the best interest of the district. (Id. Ex. A (Policy KG at 1).)
6. Brooks replied to CEF on August 6, 2003, denying CEF's request for a fee waiver due to "the extent and frequency of [CEF's] planned use of [the District's] facilities." (Compl. Ex. D (Letter from Brooks to Badger of 8/6/03, at 1).)
7. The District approved CEF's application to use the facilities on October 1, 2003, subject to the District's schedule of user fees. (Def.'s Mem. Supp. Summ. J. 2.) Brooks informed CEF that it would be charged a minimum of $48.00 per week for usage of the facilities. (Compl. Ex. F (Letter from Brooks to Badger of 10/1/03, at 1).)
8. On November 13, 2003, Badger again wrote Brooks, requesting that he reconsider his decision to charge CEF for using the facilities. Brooks responded on November 20, 2003, citing policy KG, informing CEF that the only groups which have used the facilities without paying the fee are the Boy and Girl Scouts (collectively "Scouts") and the YMCA after-school program, an organization that operates in a partnership with the District to provide "a day care or after school program." (Hr'g Tr. 29.) Brooks noted the District's long-standing practice to waive fees for these three groups, that the District had done so for many years, and that other groups which routinely use District facilities are charged a usage fee for doing so. (Compl. Ex. H (Letter from Brooks to Badger of 11/20/03, at 1-2).)
9. After CEF filed its verified complaint and motion for preliminary injunction on June 14, 2004, the District revised policy KG, re-designating it as policy KF on August 17, 2004.
10. Policy KF retained the same language as policy KG in granting free access for school use, and use by District partners and governmental bodies and agencies. (Pl.'s Mem. Supp. Summ. J. Ex. I (Policy KF at 1).) Policy KF also granted free use of the facilities to groups which began using the facilities "at a time when fees were not charged for such uses or to organizations or groups who have made use of the district's facilities for at least twenty years." Id. Ex. I (Policy KF at 1-3).) However, policy KF does not contain the fee-waiver provision in policy KG allowing the District to waive the fee if the organization provides programs or activities for students which are determined to be in the District's "best interest."
11. CEF did not qualify for a fee waiver under any of the provisions listed above and paid to use one school's facilities to host Club meetings for part of the 2003-2004 school year and part of the 2004-2005 year. In total, CEF paid $1,545.00 to use the facilities.
12. CEF was unable to continue to use the school facilities or expand to use other school facilities because of financial hardship. The District's facility usage fee prevented or at least delayed CEF from attaining its goal to have the Club meet in all of the elementary schools in the District.
13. The District's requiring CEF to pay a fee to use its facilities was due to CEF's not meeting the District's criteria for a fee waiver under the District's policies. There is no persuasive evidence that CEF's religious viewpoint, the religious content of CEF's message, or CEF's identity had any bearing on the District's decision to require CEF to pay fees for using its facilities.
CEF alleges that the District's practice and policy of charging CEF for use of school facilities, while allowing other similar groups to use school facilities for free, violates CEF's rights as protected by the United States Constitution. CEF challenges the District's practices and policies KG and KF both on their face and as applied. Ultimately, CEF raises five constitutional challenges to the District's practices and policies: (1) the District violated CEF's equal protection rights guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment; (2) the District violated CEF's First Amendment rights as viewpoint-based,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Child Evangelism Fellowship v. Anderson Sch. Dist.
...to stop holding meetings at Midway Elementary School and prevented CEF from organizing clubs at additional district schools. 438 F.Supp.2d 609, 617 (D.S.C.2006). After the parties withdrew requests for trial by jury, they submitted the case to the district court for decision. The district c......
-
S.H. v. Bd. of Trs. of The Colleton Cnty. Sch. Dist.
... ... Board of Trustees of the Colleton County School District, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No ... 7:13-cv-2020, 2014 WL 1159406 (D.S.C. 2014); Child ... Evangelism Fellowship of S.C. v. Anderson Sch ... ...
-
Anderson v. Dorchester Cnty.
...to differing conclusions with respect to different school districts in South Carolina: In Child Evangelism Fellowship of South Carolina v. Anderson School District 5, 438 F. Supp. 2d 609 (D.S.C. 2006), Judge Herlong noted that "[t]here are conflicting opinions . . . from the District of Sou......
-
Terry v. Beaufort Cnty. Sch. Dist.
...conflicting as to whether a school district is an arm of the State of South Carolina. In Child Evangelism Fellowship of South Carolina v. Anderson School District 5, 438 F. Supp. 2d 609 (D.S.C. 2006), Judge Herlong noted that "[t]here are conflicting opinions . . . from the District of Sout......