Leebaert v. Harrington
| Decision Date | 13 June 2003 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 02-7399. |
| Citation | 332 F.3d 134 |
| Parties | Turk LEEBAERT, in his own right and on behalf of his minor son Corky Leebaert, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carol A. HARRINGTON, in her personal capacity and official capacity as Superintendent of Schools, and Fairfield Board of Education, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Vincent P. McCarthy, American Center for Law and Justice Northeast, Inc. (Kristina J. Wenberg, of counsel), New Milford, CT, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Steven A. Levy, Friedman, Newman, Levy, Sheehan & Carolan, P.C. (James A. Mahar, of counsel), Fairfield, CT, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: NEWMAN, KEARSE, and SACK, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff-Appellant Turk Leebaert ("Leebaert") argues that his constitutional right to direct the upbringing and education of his child requires the defendants, upon his request, to excuse his minor son, Corky Leebaert, from attending health education classes at a public school administered by the defendants. Leebaert further argues that the right so to excuse his son is, as a matter of constitutional law, "fundamental." His son may therefore be required to attend classes teaching the health curriculum only if the requirement that he do so withstands constitutional "strict scrutiny" which, Leebaert contends, it does not. The defendants assert to the contrary that their mandatory curriculum must meet only the lower "rational basis" constitutional standard of review because the right that Leebaert asserts is not properly classified as "fundamental." They also contend — and this Leebaert does not dispute — that required attendance at the health education classes meets the rational basis test. The district court agreed with the defendants, and so do we. We therefore affirm.
Connecticut state law sets forth requirements for Connecticut public-school curricula. Subjects that must be "taught by legally qualified teachers" include "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." Conn. Gen.Stat. § 10-16b(a). State law also provides:
The State Board of Education shall... develop curriculum guides to aid local and regional boards of education in developing family life education programs within the public schools. The curriculum guides shall include, but not be limited to, information on developing a curriculum including family planning, human sexuality, parenting, nutrition and the emotional, physical, psychological, hygienic, economic and social aspects of family life, provided the curriculum guides shall not include information pertaining to abortion as an alternative to family planning.
Id. § 10-16c. Connecticut law does not, however, require "local or regional board[s] of education to develop or institute such family life education programs." Id. § 10-16d. And it provides that "[n]o student shall be required by any local or regional board of education to participate in any such family life program which may be offered within such public schools." Id. § 10-16e.
In addition, Connecticut law provides that "[t]he knowledge, skills and attitudes 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...." Id. § 10-19(a). "The content and scheduling of [this] instruction [is] within the discretion of the local or regional board of education." Id.
Finally, state law provides that:
each local and regional board of education shall offer during the regular school day planned, ongoing and systematic instruction on acquired immune deficiency syndrome ["AIDS"], 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.
The seventh-grade health-education curriculum at the Fairfield Public School System's Roger Ludlowe Middle School, under the aegis of the defendants, includes instruction on health and safety, alcohol, tobacco and drugs, and family life. The defendants, school superintendent Carol A. Harrington and the Fairfield Board of Education,1 maintain that only six of the forty-five days on which the seventh-grade health education classes are taught during the fourth quarter are related to family-life instruction or AIDS education, and that, pursuant to sections 10-16e and 10-19b, the school permits parents, including Leebaert, to excuse their children from those six classes by notifying the school principal of their request. The remainder of the health education program at the school is mandatory and the defendants insist that it is not unconstitutional for the school to require Leebaert's son to attend.
The parties stipulated to the following additional facts: Leebaert and his son Corky are residents of Fairfield, Connecticut. During the 1998-1999 academic year, Corky was enrolled as a seventh-grade student at Roger Ludlowe Middle School, which is administered by the defendants. In a letter dated December 14, 1998, Leebaert informed Harrington that Corky would not take part in the health education program scheduled for the fourth quarter. The letter, incorporated into the stipulated facts, reads in part as follows:
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 of 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.
Leebaert letter to Harrington dated Dec. 14, 1998. Harrington responded to Leebaert by letter, advising him of the mandatory nature of the health curriculum and informing him of the opt-out policy for the six classes relating to family-life instruction or AIDS education.
Over the next few months, Leebaert, Harrington, and Roger Ludlowe Middle School Principal John Boyle continued their correspondence. Leebaert repeatedly told the school officials that Corky would not be attending any part of the fourth-quarter health curriculum. Harrington and Boyle advised Leebaert that while Corky could opt out of the family-life instruction and AIDS education classes, he was required to attend the other health curriculum classes. Corky nonetheless absented himself from all of the fourth-quarter health curriculum classes, and therefore failed the course.
On October 22, 1999, Leebaert filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against Harrington, the Fairfield Board of Education, and the Town of Fairfield, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants deprived him of his right to direct the upbringing and education of his minor child and his right to the free exercise of his religion in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. He also asserted pendent state-law claims. Leebaert requested that the district court issue an order directing the school to withdraw Corky's "F"; a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from giving failing grades to students who have complied with the relevant opt-out provisions; an injunction ordering the defendants to "further clarify and separate Health and Family Life and their respective curricula" (Compl. at p. 6); and attorney's fees.
Incorporated into the stipulated facts was an affidavit in which Leebaert testified that matters in the health curriculum conflicted with his sincerely held religious beliefs:
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, ie, 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 or 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 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 believe that God has empowered human beings with the right to bring their children up with correct moral principles in dealing with the issues taught in this course, not the school system. I claim the right, and responsibility, to impart those religious values which I have been taught to my children to develop...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Farm Bank, F.S.B. v. Burke
...L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Where—as here—the parties agree as to the material facts, summary judgment is appropriate. See Leebaert v. Harrington, 332 F.3d 134, 139 (2d Cir.2003) ("These [summary judgment] standards apply where, as here, the summary judgment motions are based on stipulated B. Degre......
-
Jane Doe v. Franklin Square Union Free Sch. Dist.
...of a fundamental right of every parent to tell a public school what his or her child will and will not be taught." Leebaert v. Harrington , 332 F.3d 134, 141 (2d Cir. 2003). "[R]ecognition of such a fundamental right," it explained, "requiring a public school to establish that a course of i......
-
Gunter v. N. Wasco Cnty. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ.
...the teaching of certain subjects. Meyer v. Nebraska , 262 U.S. 390, 43 S.Ct. 625, 67 L.Ed. 1042 (1923) ; see also Leebaert v. Harrington , 332 F.3d 134, 141 (2d Cir. 2003) (" Meyer , Pierce , and their progeny do not begin to suggest the existence of a fundamental right of every parent to t......
-
We the Patriots USA, Inc. v. Conn. Office of Early Childhood Dev.
...156, 167 (2d Cir. 2001), and held that a stricter standard of review should not be used to analyze hybrid claims. Leebaert v. Harrington , 332 F.3d 134, 143 (2d Cir. 2003) (" ‘[A]t least until the Supreme Court holds that legal standards under the Free Exercise Clause vary depending on whet......
-
CAS Legal Mailbag Question of the Week –2/10/22
...that the district’s mandatory health curriculum was reasonably related to legitimate educational objectives. Leebaert v. Harrington, 332 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 2003). That said, parents have the right to review curriculum materials in public schools. Under the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendmen......
-
CAS Legal Mailbag ' 11/3/22
...with a parent's objection to his son's being forced to participate in the health curriculum in middle school in Leebaert v. Harrington, 332 F.3d 134 (2d. Cir. 2003). There, a parent objected to certain parts of the health curriculum, and he asserted that, as the parent, he has the right to ......
-
CAS Legal Mailbag – 11/3/22
...with a parent’s objection to his son’s being forced to participate in the health curriculum in middle school in Leebaert v. Harrington, 332 F.3d 134 (2d. Cir. 2003). There, a parent objected to certain parts of the health curriculum, and he asserted that, as the parent, he has the right to ......
-
Making Sense of Hybrid Rights: an Analysis of the Nebraska Supreme Court's Approach to the Hybrid-rights Exception in Douglas County v. Anaya
...29. See Grace, 427 F.3d at 789 (surveying the disagreement among the federal courts of appeals). 30. SeeLeebaert v. Harrington, 332 F.3d 134, 144 (2d Cir. 2003) (holding that strict scrutiny does notapply to hybrid-rights claims) Kissinger v. Bd. of Trs., 5 F.3d 177, 180 (6th Cir. 1993) (sa......
-
The Parent as (mere) Educational Trustee: Whose Education Is It, Anyway?
...where "the interests of parenthood are combined with a free exercise claim"). 342. Pierce, 268 U.S. at 535; cf. Leebaert v. Harrington, 332 F.3d 134, 140-41 (2d Cir. 2003); Swanson v. Guthrie Ind. Sch. Dist. No. I-L, 135 F.3d 694 (10th Cir. 1998); Brown v. Hot, Sexy and Safer Prods., Inc., ......
-
Constitutional law - school's use of books depicting same-sex couples does not violate parents' constitutional rights - Parker v. Hurley.
...Cir. 2005) (distinguishing fundamental parental rights claims from other constitutionally insignificant claims); Leebaert v. Harrington, 332 F.3d 134, 141 (2d Cir. 2003) (reasoning Meyer and Pierce do not provide parents fundamental right to dictate public-school curriculum); Littlefield v.......
-
In Combination: Using Hybrid Rights to Expand Religious Liberty
...Emp't Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 881 (1990). 87. 275 F.3d 156, 160 (2d Cir. 2001).88. Id. at 166-67.89. Leebaert v. Harrington, 332 F.3d 134, 144 (2d Cir. 2003).90. 540 F.3d 231, 244 (3d Cir. 2008).91. Id. at 247.92. McTernan v. City of York, 564 F.3d 636, 647 n.5 (3d Cir. 2009) ("We have......