Leebaert ex rel. Leebaert v. Harrington
| Decision Date | 30 March 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 3:99-CV-2046 (RNC).,3:99-CV-2046 (RNC). |
| Citation | 193 F.Supp.2d 491 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
| Parties | Turk LEEBAERT, in his own right and on Behalf of his minor son, Corky LEEBAERT, Plaintiffs, v. Carol A. HARRINGTON, in her personal and official capacity as Superintendent of Schools, Fairfield Board of Education, and Town of Fairfield, Defendants. |
Vincent P. McCarthy, McCarthy Law Offices, New Milford, CT, US Court of Appeals, Office of the Clerk, New York City, for Plaintiffs.
Steven A. Levy, Noel R. Newman, Friedman, Newman, Levy, Sheehan & Carolan, Fairfield, CT, Michael J. Rose, Howd & Ludorf, Hartford, CT, for Defendants.
RULING AND ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff Turk Leebaert brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Superintendent of Schools in Fairfield, Connecticut, the Fairfield Board of Education, and the Town of Fairfield claiming that they have violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution by refusing to excuse his minor son Corky from a mandatory health education course and by giving his son an "F" in the course after he failed to attend.1 Plaintiff also alleges that defendants have violated Conn.Gen.Stat. § 10-16e, which provides that no student shall be required to participate in a family life education program, and Conn.Gen.Stat § 52-571b, which prohibits the State from burdening a person's exercise of religion.2 Plaintiff's complaint seeks an order directing defendants to remove the "F" from his son's school transcript, an injunction prohibiting them from failing students who have exercised their right under § 10-16e to opt out of any family life course, an order requiring defendants to "further clarify and separate Health and Family Life and their respective curricula," and an award of attorney's fees and costs.
The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment. They agree that plaintiff's federal constitutional claims can and should be decided on the basis of their written submissions without an evidentiary hearing. Though the relief sought in the complaint is quite broad—extending to the rights of all students to opt out of other courses and the right of all parents to require defendants to clarify the line between, and separate, the health curriculum from the family life curriculum—the issue briefed by the parties is limited to whether the First and Fourteenth Amendments required defendants to honor plaintiff's request to exempt his son from the mandatory parts of the seventh grade health course as alleged in plaintiffs first and second claims for relief. Plaintiff contends that he is entitled to summary judgment because defendants have not shown that their refusal to grant the exemption was justified by a compelling state interest. Defendants respond that they are entitled to summary judgment because plaintiff has not shown that requiring his son to attend the course imposed a significant burden on his free exercise or parental rights and requiring his son to take the course reasonably served legitimate educational objectives.3
After careful consideration, I agree with defendants that they were not required to exempt plaintiff's son from the mandatory parts of the seventh grade health course and therefore grant their motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's first and second claims for relief under federal law. I do not reach any issue raised by plaintiff's third and fourth claims for relief under state law, which are dismissed without prejudice to their pursuit in state court.4
The parties have stipulated to the following facts. Plaintiff and his son Corky reside in Fairfield, where Corky attends public school. In December 1998, when Corky was in seventh grade, plaintiff sought an exemption for his son from the fourth quarter of a mandatory health education course.
Defendants require all pupils to complete a health education curriculum in accordance with Conn.Gen.Stat. § 10-16b(a), which provides in pertinent part:
In the public schools the program of instruction offered shall include at least the following subject matter, as taught by legally qualified teachers, . . . health and safety, including, but not limited to, human growth and development, nutrition, first aid, disease prevention, community and consumer health, physical, mental and emotional health, including youth suicide prevention, substance abuse prevention, safety, which may include the dangers of gang membership, and accident prevention.
The curriculum also includes instruction about alcohol, nicotine and drugs, as required by Conn.Gen.Stat. § 10-19(a), which provides:
The knowledge, skills and attitude required to understand and avoid the effects of alcohol, of nicotine or tobacco and of drugs ... on health, character, citizenship and personality development shall be taught every academic year to pupils in all grades in the public schools; and, in teaching such subjects, textbooks and such other materials as are necessary shall be used.
In addition, the health curriculum includes instruction about AIDS, pursuant to Conn.Gen.Stat. § 10-19(b), which provides:
[E]ach local and regional board of education shall offer during the regular school day planned, ongoing and systematic instruction on acquired immune deficiency syndrome, as taught by legally qualified teachers. The content and scheduling of the instruction shall be within the discretion of the local or regional board of education. *** [E]ach local and regional board of education shall adopt a policy, as the board deems appropriate, concerning the exemption of pupils from such instruction upon written request of the parent or guardian.
Certain family life topics, made optional under state law, are integrated into defendants' health education curriculum.5 Those topics relate to family life, personal growth and development. See Ex. 2.
As permitted by state law, defendants have adopted an opt-out policy whereby a parent can exempt a child from attending lessons on family life topics and AIDS by notifying the school principal. See Ex. 1 at 16, 19.
In a written request to defendant Harrington seeking an exemption for his son, plaintiff wrote:
Corky and I are exercising our Fourteenth Amendment rights in this matter as we both prefer him to be home schooled regarding health, morals, ethical and personal behavior. I believe health, sex, and character development education are all necessary in the course of an individual's life and I have been teaching these things successfully to my children since they were toilet-trained, without the need for government assistance. I am sure your health educators are capable teachers and their ability to instruct their students is not in question here. I, however, as the father, and being sufficiently educated in health, sex, and behavioral issues, feel it is more appropriate that as they enter adolescence I handle this facet of my children's personal growth at home.
Harrington responded that, pursuant to Conn.Gen.Stat. §§ 10-16d and 19(b), plaintiff could exempt his son from lessons regarding family life, physical growth and development and AIDS but not from the rest of the course.
Plaintiffs reply took the form of a lengthy letter. Among other things, plaintiff stated:
What is healthy and what is not healthy and how health should be taught are all controversial issues. Rather than leave one of the most important segments of my child's development to fashionable experiments recommended by local government, I choose to continue to educate Corky myself in health, a method which has produced very successful results[.]
Following an exchange of further correspondence, Corky did not attend the health education course and thus received an "F."
The parties have stipulated that "plaintiff desired to opt out of the health curriculum in its entirety" "for the reasons set forth in Paragraph 18" of their stipulation. Stip. Of Facts ¶ 15. Paragraph 18 of the Stipulation states:
The plaintiffs contend that the matters taught in health by defendants, from which plaintiffs seek to opt out, are in conflict with plaintiff[']s sincerely held religious, ethical and moral beliefs. Plaintiffs believe that only the plaintiff father has the right to teach core values in the area of plaintiffs son's religious, ethical or moral beliefs and not the Fairfield School system. Plaintiffs religious beliefs and reasons for not wanting to opt out of health are set forth in his affidavit attached hereto as Exhibit 10.
Plaintiffs affidavit, which is thus incorporated into the Stipulation of Facts, includes the following statements:
While I do not belong to any institutionalized religion, I have religious beliefs which incorporate, in my view, the best from all religions. The basis of my religious beliefs is Christian, I consider myself to be a Christian, and I was baptized a Catholic.
I take an orthodox religious view on moral and ethical issues, i.e., I do not believe that drugs and tobacco are proper subjects that I want my son's school to teach. My view is that children should be taught just do not engage in drugs and tobacco.
Similarly, my religious view on sex before marriage is that it is something I do not want my sons to be involved in. I teach them abstention because my religious view is that sex should be reserved for marriage when it is appropriate.
I believe in a Creator who is an all-powerful, one God. I believe in the power of prayer to God.
The basis of my religious beliefs is the Golden Rule as taught by Christ and the Ten Commandments which I have found to be prevalent in all religions. The Golden Rule, as taught by Jesus Christ, is particularly important to me because I believe that a successful life is based on the practice of these principles.
My objection to the subjects taught in Health, to which I sought to opt my son Corky out of in the last part of his 7th grade, is that I...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leebaert v. Harrington
...motion, dismissing Leebaert's federal claims with prejudice and the state-law claims without prejudice. Leebaert v. Harrington, 193 F.Supp.2d 491, 494 (D.Conn.2002). The court upheld the mandatory nature of the health curriculum on the ground that rational basis, rather than strict scrutiny......