Roberts v. Madigan
| Decision Date | 17 December 1990 |
| Docket Number | D,No. 50,No. 89-1014,50,89-1014 |
| Parties | , 19 Fed.R.Serv.3d 530, 64 Ed. Law Rep. 1038 Kenneth ROBERTS, Marc Nelson, and Zay Nelson, Parents and Next Friends of Kelly Nelson and Amy Nelson, and Debra J. White, Parent and Next Friend of Kelly White, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Kathleen MADIGAN and Adams County School Districtefendants-Appellees, Anti-Defamation League of B'Nai B'Rith, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Colorado, Inc., and American Jewish Congress, Amici Curiae. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Jordan W. Lorence of Concerned Women for America Legal Foundation, Washington, D.C. (Cimron Campbell and Mark N. Troobnick of Concerned Women for America Legal Foundation, Washington, D.C., Wendell R. Bird, Atlanta, Ga., and Roger Westlund, Thornton, Colo., with him on the briefs), for plaintiffs-appellants.
Martin Semple (Franklin A. Nachman with him on the brief), Semple & Jackson, P.C., Denver, Colo., for defendants-appellees.
Phillip S. Figa and Candace C. Figa of Burns & Figa, P.C., Bradley A. Levin of Breit, Best, Richman & Bosch, P.C., Denver, Colo., for amicus curiae.
Jeffrey P. Sinensky, Steven M. Freeman, Richard E. Shevitz, and Meyer Eisenberg of Anti-Defamation League of B'Nai B'rith, and Professor Ruti Teitel, New York Law School, New York City, of counsel, on the brief, for amicus curiae, Anti-Defamation League of B'Nai B'rith.
John Preston Baker of Coghill & Goodspeed P.C., Robert W. Thompson, Jr., and David Miller, Legal Director, American Civ. Liberties Union of Colorado, Denver, Colo., on the brief, for amicus curiae, American Civ. Liberties Union of Colorado.
Marc D. Stern, Lois C. Waldman, Amy Adelson, and Jeremy S. Garber, American Jewish Congress, New York City, on the
brief, for amicus curiae American Jewish Congress.
Before McKAY and BARRETT, Circuit Judges, and O'CONNOR, 1 Chief District Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment by the district court denying plaintiffs' claims for damages and all but one claim for injunctive relief against defendants Kathleen Madigan and the Adams County School District No. 50.
Plaintiff Kenneth Roberts is a fifth-grade school teacher at the Berkeley Gardens Elementary School in Denver, which is part of the Adams County School District No. 50. Kelly Nelson, Amy Nelson, and Kelly White are or were students at Berkeley Gardens Elementary. Plaintiffs Marc and Zay Nelson are the parents of plaintiffs Kelly and Amy Nelson. Plaintiff Debra Jean White is the parent of plaintiff Kelly White. None of the plaintiff students were enrolled in Mr. Roberts' class at the time this suit was filed, although Kelly Nelson was previously in Mr. Roberts' class. Defendant Kathleen Madigan is the principal at Berkeley Gardens.
As part of his classroom curriculum, Mr. Roberts spent a significant amount of time teaching reading skills to his fifth graders. One method he used to teach the value of reading was to devote fifteen minutes each day to a "silent reading period." During this silent reading period, students were allowed to choose their own reading materials; they could have been brought from the students' homes, chosen from the school library, or selected from Mr. Roberts' classroom library. The classroom library was a collection of about 239 books of varying content that Mr. Roberts had compiled over his nineteen years of teaching. In order to set an example for the students, Mr. Roberts silently read his own materials during the silent reading time.
Frequently, the book Mr. Roberts chose to read silently was the Bible, which he kept on his desk throughout the school day. Mr. Roberts never read from the Bible aloud nor overtly proselytized about his faith to his students. Mr. Roberts also displayed a poster in his classroom that read, "You have only to open your eyes to see the hand of God." The trial court found that, in context, Mr. Roberts' Bible reading, the poster, and the presence of two Christian books in Mr. Roberts' classroom library created the appearance that Mr. Roberts was seeking to advance his religious views.
The events leading to this litigation took place during the 1987-88 school year. On September 10, 1987, a parent/teacher open house was held, at which time a parent complained to Principal Madigan about the presence of two Christian religious books on the shelves of Mr. Roberts' classroom library. The two books are titled The Bible in Pictures and The Life of Jesus. 2 That same evening, Ms. Madigan entered Mr. Roberts' classroom, perused the two books, and directed Mr. Roberts to remove them from the classroom library. Ms. Madigan did not ask Mr. Roberts how the books were being used before she ordered their removal. She explained to Mr. Roberts that "separation of church and state" required that the books be removed. Ms. Madigan also noticed the Bible that Mr. Roberts kept on his desk and requested that he keep it out of sight during classroom hours. Mr. Roberts immediately complied with the directive.
Ms. Madigan testified that she had spoken to Mr. Roberts on two previous occasions concerning the Bible on his desk. In September of 1986, Ms. Madigan made a routine visit to Mr. Roberts' classroom and observed him reading his Bible silently. Ms. Madigan told him at that time that she expected him to keep the Bible off his desk between 8:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. Later, in November 1986, Ms. Madigan again visited Mr. Roberts' classroom and found him reading his Bible. She repeated her earlier admonition that he should keep his Bible in his desk during school hours.
On September 14, 1987, a few days after Ms. Madigan ordered Mr. Roberts to remove the two books from his classroom, Mr. Roberts discussed the matter with Principal Madigan. Mr. Roberts questioned the propriety of Ms. Madigan's directive and asked her for any written school district guidelines or policies that he had violated or that would enlighten him as to what types of materials he could keep in his classroom. Ms. Madigan denied his request and simply stated that common sense and her previous remarks were sufficient.
On September 18, 1987, Mr. Roberts gave Ms. Madigan a written memorandum asking her to reconsider her directive. In the memorandum, Mr. Roberts again asked Ms. Madigan for any written guidelines the school district had pertaining to censorship of books and placement of items on teachers' desks. Ms. Madigan discussed the matter with various school officials but did not change her position. On September 24, 1987, Mr. Roberts met with Principal Madigan, Michael Bassett, the head of personnel for the school district, and Anita Ratliff, the other fifth-grade teacher at Berkeley Gardens Elementary. At the meeting, Ms. Madigan and Mr. Bassett gave Mr. Roberts a written directive reaffirming Ms. Madigan's earlier instructions stating: Record, vol. 1, doc. 1, at 14. Mr. Roberts later appealed to the district superintendent, Mr. Masarotti, but Mr. Masarotti did not override the directive handed down by Ms. Madigan.
In addition to the action taken in Mr. Roberts' classroom, plaintiffs alleged that sometime in September 1987, Ms. Madigan visited the school library at Berkeley Gardens Elementary and removed a Bible from the library shelves. Defendants contended the Bible was not removed by Ms. Madigan. They stipulated at trial, however, that the Bible would be replaced and not removed again.
Mr. Roberts, along with the plaintiff students and their parents, brought this action seeking damages and injunctive relief against Ms. Madigan and the school district. Plaintiffs based their claim on the theory that the school district, by ordering the two books off Mr. Roberts' shelf, by directing him to keep his Bible out of sight during school hours, and by removing the Bible from the school library, violated the plaintiffs' first amendment rights of free speech, academic freedom, and access to information. Plaintiffs also asserted that the district's actions violated the Establishment Clause by treating Christianity in a non-neutral, disparaging manner.
After a trial before the district court, the court ordered the school district to return the Bible to the Berkeley Gardens school library. Concerning Ms. Madigan's actions in Mr. Roberts' classroom, however, the court concluded not only that the school district acted properly but that the Establishment Clause required such action. See Roberts v. Madigan, 702 F.Supp. 1505, 1514-17 (D.Colo.1989). Accordingly, the court went on to conclude that the district did not violate the principle of government neutrality toward religion, but that it simply acted appropriately in its effort to prevent Mr. Roberts from teaching religion. See id. As for the plaintiffs' free speech claims, the court held that in the balance between Mr. Roberts' rights to freedom of expression and academic freedom on the one hand, and the students' rights to be free from religious indoctrination on the other, the students' interests must prevail. Consequently, the court rejected Mr. Roberts' free speech arguments and denied the relief he sought. Finally, the court dismissed the student plaintiffs' claims and the claims of their parents for lack of standing. The court noted that none of the student plaintiffs were in Mr. Roberts' class at the time their suit was filed.
The district court dismissed the parents' and students' claims for lack of standing. Plaintiffs now argue that the district court erred in its assessment of the students' and parents' standing to assert claims for both injunctive relief and damages.
At the outset, we note that in order to satisfy the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martinez v. Dart Trans, Inc.
...achieves only partial success in some circumstances. See Howell Petroleum Corp. v. Samson Res. Co., 903 F.2d at 783. In Roberts v. Madigan, 921 F.2d 1047 (10th Cir. 1990), the plaintiffs appealed a district court decision to award the defendants their entire costs under rule 54(d), because ......
-
Hilsenrath ex rel. C.H. v. Sch. Dist. of the Chathams
...There is no indication that C.H. will opt to enroll to that particular course, so any exposure is speculative. See Roberts v. Madigan , 921 F.2d 1047, 1052 (10th Cir. 1990) ("[S]tudents cannot claim First Amendment violations ... for actions against a teacher in whose class they were not en......
-
Axson-Flynn v. Johnson
...that of a student, the case is still relevant for its application of Hazelwood to university curricular speech. In Roberts v. Madigan, 921 F.2d 1047, 1057 (10th Cir.1990), this Court stated that it found, under Tinker and Hazelwood, "no reason here to draw a distinction between teachers and......
-
Vernon v. City of Los Angeles
...of the Establishment Clause have a legitimate secular purpose. Lemon, 403 U.S. at 613, 91 S.Ct. at 2111. In Roberts v. Madigan, 921 F.2d 1047, 1054 (10th Cir.1990), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 3025, 120 L.Ed.2d 896 (1992), the Tenth Circuit recognized that a school's efforts to p......
-
High School Academic Freedom: the Evolution of a Fish Out of Water
...v. Denver Pub. Schs., 944 F.2d 773, 778 (10th Cir. 1991); Bishop v. Aronov, 926 F.2d 1066, 1074 (11th Cir. 1991); Roberts v. Madigan, 921 F.2d 1047, 1057 n.11 (10th Cir. 1990); Webster v. New Lenox Sch. Dist. No. 122, 917 F.2d 1004, 1008 (7th Cir. 1990); Kirkland v. Northside Indep. Sch. Di......
-
Private religious choice in German and American constitutional law: government funding and government religious speech.
...to them, Bavarian officials will likely only remove them when such an objection is lodged. Consider, too, the case of Roberts v. Madigan, 921 F.2d 1047 (10th Cir. 1990), in which a principal required a teacher to remove a Bible from the top of his desk and two religious books from the libra......
-
Academic Freedom in K-12 Education
...Comm. of Sandwich, 659 N.E.2d 1178, 1182-83 (Mass. 1996). 66. See id. at 1182. 67. 393 U.S. 503 (1969). 68. See Roberts v. Madigan, 921 F.2d 1047, 1057-58 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1218 (1992). 69. See Peloza v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 782 F. Supp. 1412 (C.D. Cal. 1992......
-
Expression of Religion in Public Schools
...of separation. Rather, they must co-exist to honor the beliefs and rights of all. _____________________ Footnotes: 1. Roberts v. Madigan, 921 F.2d 1047 (10th Cir. 1990). 2. Lanner v. Wimmer, 662 F.2d 1349, 1352 (10th Cir. 1981). 3. Id. 4. U.S. Const., amend. I. 5. Williams v. Vidmar, 367 F.......