Daugherty v. Vanguard Charter School Academy

• Decision Date: 25 September 2000
• Docket Number: No. 198-CV-897.,198-CV-897.
• Citation: 116 F.Supp.2d 897
• Parties: Megan DAUGHERTY and Donald Sweeny, and Jeffrey A. Seaver and Catherine A. Seaver, and Michelle D. Kintz, individually, and as next friends of their minor children, Plaintiffs, v. VANGUARD CHARTER SCHOOL ACADEMY, a Michigan public school academy, and National Heritage Academies, a Michigan corporation, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

116 F.Supp.2d 897

Megan DAUGHERTY and Donald Sweeny, and Jeffrey A. Seaver and Catherine A. Seaver, and Michelle D. Kintz, individually, and as next friends of their minor children, Plaintiffs, v. VANGUARD CHARTER SCHOOL ACADEMY, a Michigan public school academy, and National Heritage Academies, a Michigan corporation, Defendants.

No. 198-CV-897.

United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division.

September 25, 2000.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Kary Love, Kary Love, Attorney at Law, Holland, MI, for plaintiffs.

William F. Mills, Gruel, Mills, Nims & Pylman, Grand Rapids, MI, Terry J. Mroz, McShane & Bowie, PLC, Grand Rapids, MI, for defendants.

OPINION OF THE COURT ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

McKEAGUE, District Judge.

Plaintiffs are parents of minor children who either attend or have attended elementary school at defendant Vanguard Charter School Academy, a public school managed by defendant National Heritage Academies. Plaintiffs allege that defendants have, through various policies and practices, violated the United States and Michigan constitutional prohibitions against the establishment of a religion. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and injunctive relief. Now before the Court is defendants' motion for summary judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

Vanguard Charter School Academy ("Vanguard") is a public school academy in Grand Rapids organized under Part 6A of the Michigan Revised School Code, M.C.L. § 380.501(1). It offers elementary education for kindergarten through eighth grade students. Vanguard has entered into a contract with National Heritage Academies ("NHA"), a Michigan corporation, under which NHA is "responsible for all of the management, operation, administration, and education at the Academy."

Plaintiffs are parents of students who either currently attend or who have attended Vanguard in the past. Four children of plaintiffs Megan Daugherty and Donald Sweeny attended Vanguard during the 1998-99 school year, in the second, third, fifth and sixth grades, but the family has since moved to New Jersey.¹ Jordan Seaver, son of plaintiffs Jeffrey A. and Catherine M. Seaver, attended second grade at Vanguard during the 1999-2000 school year and presumably continues there in third grade this year. Plaintiff Michelle D. Kintz's daughter Alicia attended seventh grade at Vanguard during the 1998-1999 school year and presumably completed eighth grade there in June 2000.²

Plaintiffs chose to send their children to Vanguard, they contend, in order to obtain for them an excellent academic education. In this action, plaintiffs allege that their children received more than they bargained for and more than they wanted. Plaintiffs allege that their children have been subjected to numerous and various Christian influences at Vanguard. These influences are alleged to have emanated from actions of school administrators, teachers, volunteers, other students' parents, and students; actions taken pursuant to either policies or customs of defendants tending to promote or condone the endorsement of religion at Vanguard. The actions are thus alleged under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to have been taken under color of state law, resulting in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs also allege the actions resulted in violation of Article 1, section 4 of the Michigan Constitution of 1963, which prohibits the expenditure of State funds for the support of any teacher of religion or religious institution.³

Defendants' motion for summary judgment identifies various defects in plaintiffs' claims. The details of plaintiffs' claims are discussed below in connection with resolution of the summary judgment issues.

II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Defendants' motion for summary judgment requires the Court to look beyond the pleadings and evaluate the facts to determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact that warrants a trial. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). See generally Barnhart v. Pickrel, Schaeffer & Ebeling Co., 12 F.3d 1382, 1388-89 (6th Cir.1993). That is, the Court must determine "whether the evidence presents sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The Court must consider all pleadings, depositions, affidavits, and admissions on file, and draw all justifiable inferences in favor of the party opposing the motion. Matsushita Elec. Ind. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).

An issue of fact is "genuine" if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmovant. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. Once the moving party identifies elements of a claim or defense which it believes are not supported by evidence, the nonmovant must present affirmative evidence tending to show a genuine dispute of fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324-25, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Production of a "mere scintilla of evidence" in support of an essential element will not forestall summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505. The nonmovant must "do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348.

The substantive law identifies which facts are "material." Facts are "material" only if establishment thereof might affect the outcome of the lawsuit under governing substantive law. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. A complete failure of proof concerning an essential element necessarily renders all other facts immaterial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548.

"One of the principal purposes of the summary judgment rule is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims." Id., at 323-24, 106 S.Ct. 2548. The rule thus allows the Court, in furtherance of the policy of "securing the just, speedy and inexpensive determination" of civil actions, Fed.R.Civ.P. 1, to conduct a sort of trial on the paper record and exercise some discretion in determining whether a claim or defense is plausible. See Barnhart, 12 F.3d at 1389; Street v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472, 1480-81 (6th Cir.1989).

III. STANDING

Defendants first challenge plaintiffs' standing to sue in connection with many of the alleged abuses. To demonstrate standing, plaintiffs must show an "actual injury caused by defendants' conduct which can be remedied by a court." Washegesic v. Bloomingdale Public Schools, 33 F.3d 679, 682 (6th Cir.1994).

A. Taxpayer Standing

Defendants maintain plaintiffs have not expressly asserted taxpayer standing and therefore may not rely on it in seeking relief. Plaintiffs have alleged that Vanguard is a public school that receives federal and state tax dollars. Plaintiffs have not expressly alleged, however, that they are relying on federal or state taxpayer standing. Nor have they alleged that the conduct challenged in this case results in any substantial expenditure of federal or state tax funds, a prerequisite to taxpayer standing. See Taub v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 842 F.2d 912 (6th Cir.1988).

When the Court identified these omissions at a hearing on plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, February 16, 1999, their counsel expressly acknowledged on the record that plaintiffs were not claiming standing as taxpayers. Yet now, in response to defendants' motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs purport to assert taxpayer standing and request leave to amend their complaint accordingly, if necessary.

In support of the requirement that defendants' challenged conduct be shown to have resulted in a substantial expenditure of tax funds, plaintiffs point to the loss of revenue to the public treasury resultant from defendants' practice of permitting the Lighthouse Baptist Church to use Vanguard School building space after school hours, twice weekly, rent-free. At the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, however, plaintiffs expressly withdrew their claims to the extent they were based on Vanguard's relations with Lighthouse Baptist Church. Review of the existing record reveals no reason to believe that any of the other challenged activities requires any additional expenditure of public funds.

Thus, it appears that granting plaintiffs leave to amend so as to expressly assert taxpayer standing would be futile. Considering this futility along with plaintiffs' undue delay in seeking leave to amend, and the unfair prejudice to defendants that would result if the amendment were allowed, the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, denies leave to amend. See Brooks v. Celeste, 39 F.3d 125, 130 (6th Cir.1994) (discussing relevant factors). Plaintiffs are thus deemed not to have standing as federal or state taxpayers.

B. Parental Standing

Plaintiffs also contend that defendants' wrongful practices have caused them direct injury in the form of interference with their right to inculcate their own religious views in their children. Further, they assert standing to sue on behalf of their minor children, whose freedom of conscience has been infringed by defendants' actions.

The Supreme Court has recognized parents' constitutionally protected interest in guiding the religious future and education of their children. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 232, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972); see also Fleischfresser v. Directors of School Dist. 200, 15 F.3d 680, 683-84 (7th Cir.1994). It is also clear that school children who are subjected to unwelcome religious exercises or are forced to assume special burdens to avoid them have standing to complain of an Establishment Clause violation. See Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, ...