Glowacki v. Howell Pub. Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 19 June 2013 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:11-cv-15481 |
| Parties | SANDRA GLOWACKI, on behalf of her minor children, D.K.G. and D.C.G., Plaintiffs, v. HOWELL PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT, and JOHNSON ("JAY") MCDOWELL, individually and in his official capacity as a teacher in the Howell Public School District, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Hon. Patrick J. Duggan
Mag. Judge David R. Grand
This case highlights a tension that exists between public school anti-bullying policies and the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. Far from being irreconcilable, however, this tension merely illustrates the well-established principle that public schools must endeavor to balance competing interests: public schools must strive to provide a safe atmosphere conducive to learning for all students while fostering an environment that tolerates the expression of different viewpoints, even if unpopular, so as to equip students with the tools necessary for participation in a democratic society. This delicate balancing act has led the Supreme Court of the United States to recognize that while the First Amendment undoubtedly applies to students in public schools, school officials have greater authority to regulate speech than government officials in other settings.
The events giving rise to this action occurred on October 20, 2010, a day that people around the nation recognized as "Anti-Bullying Day." After an in-class exchange, a Howell High School teacher removed a student from class after the student made statements disapproving of homosexuality on religious grounds. Plaintiffs - the student and his younger brother - filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Defendants Howell Public School District and teacher Johnson ("Jay") McDowell asserting claims arising under the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. As relief, Plaintiffs pray for injunctive relief, a declaration that Defendants' actions violated the Constitution, nominal damages, and costs and fees.
After completing discovery, Plaintiffs and each Defendant separately filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The parties' cross motions for summary judgment are presently before the Court. The Court has reviewed the briefs and evidence submitted by the parties and held a motion hearing on April 25, 2013. For the reasons stated herein, the Court grants Defendant School District's Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety, grants Plaintiffs' Motion with respect to the removed student's First Amendment claim against Defendant McDowell but denies Plaintiffs' Motion in all other respects, and denies Defendant McDowell's Motion with respect to removed student's First Amendment claim against him but grants McDowell's Motion in all other respects.
Plaintiff Daniel Glowacki1 was, at the time of the events giving rise to this action, a junior at Howell High School.2 Plaintiff Sandra Glowacki is Daniel's mother. Ms. Glowacki also has a minor son, Plaintiff D.C.G. D.C.G., who was a freshman at Howell High School during the 2010-2011 school year, still attends the school. Plaintiff D.C.G. files this case through Ms. Glowacki, his next of friend.
Defendant Howell Public School District (hereinafter "School District") is a Michigan public school district. Howell High School is operated by and located within the School District. Defendant McDowell was and remains a teacher at Howell High. During the 2010-2011 academic year, McDowell taught Daniel's sixth hour economics class.
Members of the Howell High School Gay Straight Alliance wanted to participate in a national campaign aimed at raising awareness of the bullying of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered youth on October 20, 2010. As such, the student group submitted a flyer its members hoped to post around the high school with information about Anti-Bullying Day to Principal Aaron Moran. The flyer, which was ultimately approved and placed throughout the school, identified October 20, 2010 as Anti-BullyingDay and asked students and teachers to wear the color purple in recognition of the day.3 Other than approving the posting of the flyer, the school did not sanction activities or events in connection with Anti-Bullying Day.4 (Moran Dep., Pls.' Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 7, at 50-52, 54:11-55:17, 55:18-23.)
Wendy Hiller, a high school teacher with no policymaking responsibilities, independently printed purple t-shirts for Anti-Bullying Day. Having been moved by the well-publicized September 22, 2010 suicide of Tyler Clementi, a Rutgers student whose roommate allegedly live-streamed video of Clementi engaging in a non-sexualhomosexual encounter, Hiller printed purple t-shirts with the slogan "Tyler's Army" on the front and "Fighting Evil with Kindness" on the back.5 (Hiller Dep., Sch. Dist.'s Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 6, at 9:1-3, 9:10-14.) Hiller thought that the t-shirts aligned nicely with Anti-Bullying Day, explaining that the Clementi tragedy was "not . . . really about[]" homosexuality, but "was really about bullying[.]" (Id. at 13:23-25.) Because the t-shirts were intended only to make a statement against bullying, Hiller did not consider the shirts controversial. (Id. at 16:11-13.) She sold some t-shirts at cost to students and teachers who asked for them. (Id. at 14.) Principal Moran was not aware of the Tyler's Army t-shirts until after the events giving rise to this action took place. (Moran Dep., Pls.' Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 7, at 53:1-5.)
McDowell wore a purple Tyler's Army t-shirt to school on Anti-Bullying Day. (McDowell Dep., Sch. Dist.'s Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 7, at 145:24-146:1.) Before proceeding with his lesson plans that day, McDowell engaged his students in a brief discussion about bullying and showed a short video about an individual who committed suicide as a result of being bullied due to his sexual orientation. (Id. at 148:12-14, 144:16-21.) This presentation caused no problems until McDowell's sixth hour class. (Id. at 144:22-25.)
As students began filtering into McDowell's economics class, McDowell noticed a female student wearing a Confederate flag belt buckle and asked that she remove it. (Id.at 149:12-20.) Daniel, who arrived to class a "little late," witnessed this interaction. (Daniel Dep., Pls.' Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 1, at 58:9-11.) From this point forward, the events in question become muddled as the participants and witnesses have different versions.
During his deposition, Daniel testified that after the student removed her belt buckle, class began and McDowell "started to explain about Tyler's Army, his purple shirt, what it represented and what it meant." (Id. at 58:14-15.) At this time, Daniel "calmly raised [his] hand" and asked McDowell why the female student could not wear a Confederate flag belt when students and teachers could wear purple shirts and display rainbow flags. (Id. at 58:16-19; McDowell Dep., McDowell's Mot. Summ. J. Ex B, at 153:23-24.) McDowell responded by explaining "the difference in symbolism between the Confederate flag and the rainbow flag." (McDowell Dep., McDowell's Mot. Summ. J. Ex B, at 154:1-2.) According to Daniel, this explanation included statements "that the [C]onfederate flag represented [the] hanging and slashing of [African Americans], [] that it wasn't allowed in his classroom[,] [a]nd that it was discrimination against blacks[.]" (Daniel Dep., Pls.' Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 1, at 58:21-24.) Daniel then apparently voiced his concern that the purple shirts discriminated against Catholics.6 (Id. at 58:24-59:1.)
McDowell testified that after providing the symbolism explanation Daniel said "I don't accept gays." (McDowell Dep., McDowell's Mot. Summ. J. Ex B, at 154:16.) According to McDowell, he told Daniel that he could not say that in class, to which Daniel responded "I don't accept gays because I'm Catholic." (Id. at 154:23-155:2.) In awritten statement concerning what transpired in his classroom, McDowell indicated that he conveyed to Daniel that it was fine if Daniel's religion was opposed to homosexuality but that saying such things was inappropriate in a classroom setting. (McDowell Statement, Pls.' Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 5.) McDowell admits that he became emotional during this discussion but tried to illustrate the statement's inappropriate nature by analogy. (Id.) McDowell explained that one cannot say "I don't accept gays" any more than one can say "I don't accept blacks." (Id.) McDowell (Id.) At this point, "[McDowell] threw [Daniel] out of class and wrote up a referral for unacceptable behavior." (Id.) At this point, another student asked, "I don't accept gays either[,] can I leave[?]" (Id.) McDowell said yes. (Id.)
In a slightly modified version of events, Plaintiffs rely on the affidavits of two students in the classroom. Danielle Kollath's affidavit indicates that "[a]s Mr. McDowell was getting ready to show the movie clip on anti-bullying, Daniel [] raised his hand and said that it was against his religion to accept gays." (Kollath Aff., Pls.' Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 3, at 2.) Then, "Mr. McDowell told Daniel that if he did not accept gays to get out of his class." (Id.) Brandon Szuch's affidavit explains that after "Mr. McDowell started talking about gay rights and how gays are discriminated against[,] Dan [] said it was against his religion to be gay." (Szuch Aff., Pls.' Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 2, at 1.) After Daniel said this, (Id.)
After Daniel and the other student departed, those remaining in the classroom asked "why [McDowell] had thrown them out and why didn't they have free speech." (McDowell Statement, Pls.'...
To continue reading
Request your trial