Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School Dist.

Decision Date04 October 1994
Docket Number92-55644,Nos. 92-55228,s. 92-55228
Citation37 F.3d 517
Parties94 Ed. Law Rep. 1159 John E. PELOZA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CAPISTRANO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; Board of Trustees of the Capistrano Unified School District; Paul B. Haseman; Crystal Kochendorfer; Marlene M. Draper; Annette B. Gude; Kathryn I. Itzel; E.G. Kopp; A. Edward Westberg; Jerome R. Thornsley; William D. Eller; Geraldine Jaffe; Thomas R. Anthony; Ross Velderraine; James Corbett; Paul Pflueger; Ray Panici; Tim Dunn; William Redding, Defendants-Appellees. John E. PELOZA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CAPISTRANO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; Board of Trustees of the Capistrano Unified School District; Paul B. Haseman; Crystal Kochendorfer; Marlene M. Draper; Annette B. Gude; Kathryn I. Itzel; E.G. Kopp; A. Edward Westberg; Jerome R. Thornsley, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Cyrus Zal, Folsom, CA, for plaintiff-appellant.

David C. Larsen and Jeffrey Wertheimer, Rutan & Tucker, Costa Mesa, CA, for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Before: FLETCHER, POOLE and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge POOLE.

PER CURIAM:

John E. Peloza is a high school biology teacher. He sued the Capistrano Unified School District and various individuals connected with the school district under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. He alleges in his complaint that the school district requires him to teach "evolutionism" and that evolutionism is a religious belief system. He alleges this requirement violates his rights under the (1) Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment; (2) Establishment Clause of the First Amendment; (3) Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and (4) Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 1

He also alleges the defendants conspired to violate these constitutional rights and attempted by harassment and intimidation to force him to teach evolutionism. He alleges they did this because they have a class-based animus against practicing Christians, a class of which he is a member, in violation of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1985(3).

He also alleges state law claims for violation of California's Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, Cal.Civ.Code Sec. 52.1 (which provides a cause of action for interference with an individual's enjoyment of rights secured by the United States or California Constitution or by federal or state law), and for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The district court dismissed the federal claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The court then dismissed the state claims for lack of jurisdiction. The court also determined that the action was frivolous. Relying on Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1988, the court ordered Peloza and his attorney to pay approximately $32,000 to the defendants for their attorney fees and costs.

Peloza appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291. We affirm, except as to attorneys' fees.

THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT

The following summarizes the allegations of Peloza's complaint:

Peloza is a biology teacher in a public high school, and is employed by the Capistrano Unified School District. He is being forced by the defendants (the school district, its trustees and individual teachers and others) to proselytize his students to a belief in "evolutionism" "under the guise of [its being] a valid scientific theory." Evolutionism is an historical, philosophical and religious belief system, but not a valid scientific theory. Evolutionism is one of "two world views on the subject of the origins of life and of the universe." The other is "creationism" which also is a "religious belief system." "The belief system of evolutionism is based on the assumption that life and the universe evolved randomly and by chance and with no Creator involved in the process. The world view and belief system of creationism is based on the assumption that a Creator created all life and the entire universe." Peloza does not wish "to promote either philosophy or belief system in teaching his biology class." "The general acceptance of ... evolutionism in academic circles does not qualify it or validate it as a scientific theory." Peloza believes that the defendants seek to dismiss him due to his refusal to teach evolutionism. His first amendment rights have been abridged by interference with his right "to teach his students to differentiate between a philosophical, religious belief system on the one hand and a true scientific theory on the other."

Peloza further alleges he has been forbidden to discuss religious matters with students the entire time that he is on the school campus even if a conversation is initiated by a student and the discussion is outside of class time.

He also alleges that the defendants have conspired to destroy and damage his professional

reputation, career and position as a public school teacher. He has been reprimanded in writing for proselytizing students and teaching religion in the classroom. His inquiries as to whether he is being required to teach evolution as "fact" or "as the only valid scientific theory" have not been answered directly. He has not taught creationism in his classroom. He has been wrongly accused in the school newspaper and in the public press of teaching religion in his science class. He has been harassed by the defendant teachers and has received a formal written reprimand from defendant Thomas R. Anthony, the school principal, wrongly accusing him of proselytizing his students and teaching religion in the classroom, directing him to teach evolution as the only valid scientific theory, and forbidding him from teaching creationism as a valid scientific theory. Anthony further directed him not to discuss religion or attempt to convert students to Christianity while on campus. He has been criticized in a petition signed by faculty members for threatening litigation over the rights of faculty members to speak fully to the news media and each other.

DISCUSSION
I The Section 1983 Claim
A. The Establishment Clause

To withstand an Establishment Clause challenge, 2 a state statute, policy or action (1) must have a secular purpose; (2) must, as its primary effect, neither advance nor inhibit religion; and (3) must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religions. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 2111, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971).

Peloza's complaint alleges that the school district has violated the Establishment Clause "by pressuring and requiring him to teach evolutionism, a religious belief system, as a valid scientific theory." Complaint at 19-20. Evolutionism, according to Peloza, "postulates that the 'higher' life forms ... evolved from the 'lower' life forms ... and that life itself 'evolved' from non-living matter." Id. at 2. It is therefore "based on the assumption that life and the universe evolved randomly and by chance and with no Creator involved in the process." Id. Peloza claims that evolutionism is not a valid scientific theory because it is based on events which "occurred in the non-observable and non-recreatable past and hence are not subject to scientific observation." Id. at 3. Finally, in his appellate brief he alleges that the school district is requiring him to teach evolutionism not just as a theory, but rather as a fact.

Peloza's complaint is not entirely consistent. In some places he seems to advance the patently frivolous claim that it is unconstitutional for the school district to require him to teach, as a valid scientific theory, that higher life forms evolved from lower ones. At other times he claims the district is forcing him to teach evolution as fact. Although possibly dogmatic or even wrong, such a requirement would not transgress the establishment clause if "evolution" simply means that higher life forms evolved from lower ones.

Peloza uses the words "evolution" and "evolutionism" interchangeably in the complaint. This is not wrong or imprecise for On a motion to dismiss we are required to read the complaint charitably, to take all well-pleaded facts as true, and to assume that all general allegations embrace whatever specific facts might be necessary to support them. Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871, 889, 110 S.Ct. 3177, 3189, 111 L.Ed.2d 695 (1990); Abramson v. Brownstein, 897 F.2d 389, 391 (9th Cir.1990).

                indeed, they are synonyms. 3  Adding "ism" does not change the meaning nor magically metamorphose "evolution" into a religion.  "Evolution " and "evolutionism " define a biological concept:  higher life forms evolve from lower ones.  The concept has nothing to do with how the universe was created;  it has nothing to do with whether or not there is a divine Creator (who did or did not create the universe or did or did not plan evolution as part of a divine scheme)
                

Charitably read, Peloza's complaint at most makes this claim: the school district's actions establish a state-supported religion of evolutionism, or more generally of "secular humanism." See Complaint at 2-4, 20. According to Peloza's complaint, all persons must adhere to one of two religious belief systems concerning "the origins of life and of the universe:" evolutionism, or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
116 cases
  • CDK Global LLC v. Brnovich, No. CV-19-04849-PHX-GMS
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Arizona
    • 20 May 2020
    ...assume that all general allegations "embrace whatever specific facts might be necessary to support them." Peloza v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist. , 37 F.3d 517, 521 (9th Cir. 1994). However, legal conclusions couched as factual allegations are not given a presumption of truthfulness, and "c......
  • Dodge v. Evergreen School District #114
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 29 December 2022
    ...school. See Poway Unified Sch. Dist. , 658 F.3d at 967–68 (large religious banners hung up in classroom); Peloza v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist. , 37 F.3d 517, 519–20 (9th Cir. 1994) (teaching creationism over evolutionism). Where Dodge was not taking "advantage of his position to press hi......
  • Faith Center Church Evangelistic v. Glover
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 20 September 2006
    ...government speaker. See Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 120 S.Ct. 2266, 147 L.Ed.2d 295 (2000); Peloza v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 37 F.3d 517 (1994). The distinction to limit certain kinds of religious speech is also made for government employees in the workplace. Se......
  • Guy v. Wyo. Dep't of Corr.
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 9 July 2019
    ...F.3d 1223, 1228 & n.2 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing cases supporting the limited scope of the Torcaso footnote); Peloza v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist. , 37 F.3d 517, 521 (9th Cir. 1994) ("[N]either the Supreme Court, nor this circuit, has ever held that evolutionism or secular humanism are ‘rel......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • High School Academic Freedom: the Evolution of a Fish Out of Water
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 77, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...331 (7th Cir. 1996)(holding that state-subsidized teachers may not inculcate religious beliefs); Peloza v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 37 F.3d 517, 522 (9th Cir. 1994)(stating "[t]o permit [the teacher] to discuss his religious beliefs with students during school time on school grounds w......
  • Stretching the Equal Access Act Beyond Equal Access
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 27-01, September 2003
    • Invalid date
    ...522, 611 P.2d 414 (1980) (teachers cannot require school to allow them to set curriculum); Peloza v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 37 F.3d 517, 522 (9th Cir. 1994) (teacher has no constitutional right to challenge school's evolution curriculum in the 555. Mergens, 496 U.S. at 236. 556. Adm......
  • And then god created Kansas? The evolution/creationism debate in America's public schools.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 149 No. 3, January - January 2001
    • 1 January 2001
    ...and subsequent adoption or rejection of the science textbook Of Pandas and People). (114) See Peloza v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 37 F.3d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1994) (rejecting the appellant's argument that the school district's limitation on the teaching of creationism in public schools ......
  • Evolution and Creation Science in Your School: "the Monkey Business Continues . . . ."
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 79, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...(quoting Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 273 (1988)). 52. Webster, 917 F.2d at 1007. 53. See id. at 1007 n.2. 54. Id. 55. 37 F.3d 517 (9th Cir. 1993). 56. Id. at 517. 57. Id. at 520 (citations omitted). 58. Id. at 521 (citations omitted). 59. Id. at 521-22 (citations omitte......

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