Griffith v. Butte Sch. Dist. No. 1

Decision Date19 November 2010
Docket NumberNo. DA 10-0109.,DA 10-0109.
Citation2010 MT 246,358 Mont. 193,244 P.3d 321
PartiesRenee GRIFFITH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BUTTE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, Charles Uggetti and John Metz, Defendants and Appellees.
CourtMontana Supreme Court

For Appellant: William J. O'Connor, II (argued), O'Connor & O'Connor, PC, Billings, Montana.

For Appellees: Debra A. Silk, Tony C. Koenig (argued), Aaron Navin Bouschor, Montana School Boards Association, Helena, Montana.

Justice PATRICIA O. COTTER delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶ 1 Renee Griffith (Griffith) appeals from an order entered by the Thirteenth Judicial District, Yellowstone County, granting summary judgment in favor of Butte School District No. 1 (School District), Charles Uggetti (Uggetti), and John Metz (Metz). She appeals the District Court's conclusion that her claims were barred by the Montana Human Rights Act and argues the court erred in finding the School District's action did not violate her rights to free speech and to freedom of religion under the United States and Montana Constitutions. We reverse and remand.

ISSUES

¶ 2 We consider the following issues:

¶ 3 1. Did the District Court err in ruling the exclusivity provision of the Montana Human Rights Act barred Griffith's claims for violation of her state and federal constitutional rights to free speech and freedom of religion?

¶ 4 2. Did the District Court err in concluding that the School District's refusal to permit Griffith to state her personal religious views during her valedictory speech did not violate Griffith's state and federal constitutional rights to free speech and freedom of religion?

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶ 5 The parties do not dispute the material facts. During the 2007-2008 academic year, Griffith was a senior at Butte High School (BHS), which is a school in the School District. Metz was the principal of BHS and Uggetti was the superintendent of the School District. Griffith, along with several classmates, achieved the distinction of being named valedictorians of the class of 2008, and was invited tospeak at the May 29, 2008 graduation ceremony. Griffith was one of the valedictorians who expressed a desire to deliver a speech.

¶ 6 Neither the School District nor BHS had written guidelines for student speakers addressing the content of valedictory speeches. The students were told their remarks had to be "appropriate, in good taste and grammar, and should be relevant to the closing of [their] high school years." The style and topic of the speech was left to each speaker. Since there were several valedictorians, Griffith was asked to give her remarks jointly with another student, Ethan Keeler. Together, Griffith and Keeler decided to give a speech in an alternating fashion on the topic of what they learned in high school.

¶ 7 Among the remarks Griffith wrote and intended to deliver at the graduation ceremony, she included the following passage:

I learned to persevere these past four years, even through failure or discouragement, when I had to stand for my convictions. I can say that my regrets are few and far between. I didn't let fear keep me from sharing Christ and His joy with those around me. I learned to impart hope, to encourage people to treat each day as a gift. I learned not to be known for my grades or for what I did during school, but for being committed to my faith and morals and being someone who lived with a purpose from God with a passionate love for Him.

Griffith felt she could not accurately convey her high school experience without mentioning these motivations for her accomplishments, actions, and life purpose.

¶ 8 In the days prior to the graduation ceremony, the student speakers met with Stephen Riordan, a speech coach asked by the school to assist the students with their speeches. During their second meeting, Riordan relayed a message from Superintendent Uggetti to Griffith—she must omit the references to "God" and "Christ" in her speech because religious references were not permitted in graduation speeches.

¶ 9 Two days before the graduation ceremony, Griffith and her father met with Uggetti, who gave them a copy of the School District's policies. Uggetti reiterated that religious references would not be allowed in students' graduation speeches. The two policies that relate to graduation ceremonies and speeches, and that are issue in this case, are School District Policies Nos. 2333 and 2332.

¶ 10 The relevant text of School District Policy No. 2333 is found under the heading Organization and Content for Commencement Speeches and states:

The school administration shall not censor any presentation or require any content, but may advise the participants about appropriate language for the audience and occasion. Students selected to participate may choose to deliver an address, poem, reading, song, musical presentation, prayer, or any other pronouncement of their choosing.

This policy also requires the printed graduation ceremony program to include the following paragraphs (hereinafter the "Disclaimer"):

Any presentation by participants of graduation exercises is the private expression of the individual participants and does not necessarily reflect any official position of the District, its Board, administration, or employees, or indicate the views of any other graduates.
The Board recognizes that at graduation time and throughout the course of the educational process, there will be instances where religious values, religious practices, and religious persons will have some interaction with the public schools and students. The Board, however, does not endorse religion, but recognizes the rights of individuals to have the freedom to express their individual political, social or religious views, for this is the essence of education.

Under the heading of Graduation Ceremonies, the pertinent section of School District Policy No. 2332 says:

Graduation is an important event for students and their families. In order to assure the appropriateness and dignity of the occasion, the District sponsors and pays for graduation ceremonies and retains ultimate control over their structure and content.

...

The District may not prefer the beliefs of some students over the beliefs of others, coerce dissenters or nonbelievers, or communicate any endorsement of religion.

¶ 11 The School District contends that its practice is to follow Policy No. 2332 and not No. 2333, even though both policies are current and remain in effect. Thus, while the School District prints the Disclaimer set out in Policy No. 2333 in the graduation program, it also requires students to submit their remarks for review prior to the graduation ceremony. Contrary to the written non-censorship language in Policy No. 2332, it is the practice of the School District to prohibitreligious references of any kind in student speeches.

¶ 12 Consequently, one day before the graduation ceremony, Uggetti summoned Griffith to his office and proposed the following changes toher remarks:

I learned to persevere these past four years, even through failure or discouragement, when I had to stand for my convictions. I can say that my regrets are few and far between. I didn't let fear keep me from sharing my faith with those around me. I learned to impart hope, to encourage people to treat each day as a gift. I learned not to be known for my grades or for what I did during school, but for being committed to my faith and morals and being someone who lived with a purpose derived from my faith and based on a love of mankind. (Emphasis added.)

¶ 13 Griffith informed Uggetti she would not change her original remarks because she believed she could not speak of what she had learned in high school without acknowledging Christ and God. Uggetti told Griffith that, while he was ultimately in charge of the School District, he would defer to the judgment of Principal Metz concerning whether or not Griffith would be allowed to speak. He repeated, however, that it was unlikely she would be allowed to speak unless she removed the religious references.

¶ 14 At the graduation practice, Metz called Griffith and Keeler aside and told Griffith she had to either remove the religious references from her remarks or not speak at all. Griffith responded that she would not change her speech.

¶ 15 In accordance with Policy No. 2333, the Disclaimer was printed in the May 29, 2008 BHS graduation program. During the graduation ceremony, Keeler gave his valedictory speech with another partner. Griffith was not permitted to speak because she would not remove the religious references from her speech.

The Human Rights Bureau Administrative Proceedings

¶ 16 On July 23, 2008, Griffith filed a timely complaint with the Montana Human Rights Bureau (HRB). She alleged Uggetti, Metz, and the School District had discriminated against her in her education on the basis of creed or religion in violation of the Montana Human Rights Act (MHRA), specifically § 49-2-307, MCA. Pursuant to § 49-2-504(1), MCA, an HRB investigator conducted an informal investigation of Griffith's allegations of discrimination in education based on her religion. The investigator took statements from all of the parties, reviewed pertinent documents, and interviewed witnesses.

¶ 17 The investigator filed a Final Investigative Report with the HRB recommending a finding of "no cause to believe unlawful discrimination occurred as set forth in Griffith's complaint." On January 20, 2009, Griffith received a two-page letter from the HRBentitled "Notice of Dismissal and Notice of Right to File Civil Action in District Court."

The District Court Proceedings

¶ 18 Upon receipt of the notice of dismissal from the HRB and pursuant to § 49-2-511, MCA, Griffith filed a timely complaint in the Thirteenth Judicial District, Yellowstone County. Griffith claimed the School District, Uggetti, and Metz violated her state and federal constitutional rights to free speech and freedom of religion. Her...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • Spillers v. Mont. Third Judicial Dist. Court
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • January 21, 2020
    ...Mallory v. McDonald’s Rests. of Mont., Inc. , 2008 MT 63, ¶ 39, 342 Mont. 29, 179 P.3d 481 ; see also Griffith v. Butte Sch. Dist. No. 1 , 2010 MT 246, 358 Mont. 193, 244 P.3d 321. If the agency dismisses a discrimination claim, the charging party "may commence a civil action for appropriat......
  • Progressive Direct Ins. Co. v. Stuivenga
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • April 10, 2012
    ...Hence, mootness is a threshold issue which we must resolve before we may address the substantive merits of a dispute. Griffith v. Butte Sch. Dist. No. 1, 2010 MT 246, ¶ 23, 358 Mont. 193, 244 P.3d 321. ¶ 18 Stuivenga argues that, due to an intervening event or change in circumstances, this ......
  • Big Sky Colony, Inc. v. Mont. Dep't of Labor & Indus.
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • December 31, 2012
    ...substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs, a burden upon religion exists.Griffith v. Butte Sch. Dist. No. 1, 2010 MT 246, ¶ 62, 358 Mont. 193, 244 P.3d 321 (quoting Valley Christian Sch. v. Mont. High Sch. Ass'n, 2004 MT 41, ¶ 7, 320 Mont. 81, 86 ......
  • BNSF Ry. Co. v. Feit
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • July 6, 2012
    ...“ ‘We determine the substantive rights between the parties according to the law in effect at the date of injury.’ ” Griffith v. Butte Sch. Dist. No. 1, 2010 MT 246, ¶ 26, 358 Mont. 193, 244 P.3d 321 (quoting Boettcher v. Mont. Guar. Fund, 2007 MT 69, ¶ 14, 336 Mont. 393, 154 P.3d 629 (citat......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT