Stark v. Independent School District, No. 640

BEAM, Judgе, concurring part relationship between the reduced Circuit or ratio part. and the actual harm punitive damages dissenting award and by the reduced amount measured inflicted as the court I concur the result reached damages compensatory is a pay and back except that I opinion and in the of the court relatively 3:1. See BMW unremarkable agree that the evidence was sufficient do not Gore, America, at —, Inc. v. North damages to punitive the issue of to submit (noting punitive 4:1 ratio of Thus, any punitive jury. award for dam- damages de damages compensatory was court, Since, by the ages was error. as noted line” in Mu to the scribed as “close Pacific portion possible to ascertain what “[i]t is not Haslip, v. tual Insurance Co. Life $300,000 is attributable to [award] 113 L.Ed.2d 1 punitive damages,” infra at compensatory or (1991), ratio more that relevant was not assume, 33,1 analysis, purposes of Corp. v. Alli 10:1 in TXO Production than compensatory that the entire amount was Corp., ance Resources my purposes. Accordingly, bottom line of (1993)); damages as that of the court. same Stores, Inc., Kimzey v. Wal-Mart (reducing punitive damages award at 577-78 $350,000, an amount 10 million $5 $35,000, damages award of times the actual “low”). Finally, which the court described VII, imposes liabili

Title which authorizes misconduct, caps compen ty comparable (for $300,000 satory damages at punitive STARK, Neely, Marcia Matthew employers). largest U.S.C. Plaintiffs/Appellees, 1981a(b)(3)(D); see, e.g., Spe § Rush Scott (reduc Inc., Gases, F.Supp. at 202 cialty damages award from million ing punitive $3 DISTRICT, INDEPENDENT SCHOOL $300,000 $300,000). punitive think a We NO. and the members of its Board adequate sanction and damages award is Directors, Defendant/Appellant, conduct, to deter future similar sufficient considering size and assets of Nash Plaetz, Trost, Freder Leon Curtis Scott Finch. ickson, Franta, Beranek, Tom Barb Guetter, Alois Defendants. CONCLUSION Paskewitz, Paskewitz, Mavis sum, Jeff Stuart the district court should we hold Paskewitz, Paskewitz, plead- motion to amend the Ben Ron granted the Paskew Paskewitz, ings itz, Paskewitz, to the evidence and thus to conform Naomi Carrie cap, 42 applied the Title VII Paskewitz, Barber, Twyla should not have Gordon Joe 1981a(b)(3), compensatory § to limit U.S.C. Barber, Cindy Barber, Logan, Peter damages. also hold the punitive We Logan, Clayton Logan, Joanna Sheldon holding No- not err district court did Paskewitz, Paskewitz, Linda Trisha failure-to-promote claim was vember 1990 Paskewitz, Minnesota Federation § 1981 under under U.S.C. actionable Teachers, Amicus Curiae. Patterson, was sufficient evidence there No. 96-3250. retaliation, discrimination intentional of malice sufficient evidence and there was Appeals, United States Court of support punitive indifference to or reckless Eighth Circuit. Finally, we hold the awards damages. compensatory punitive 1996. pay back Submitted Nov. court, by the district damages, as reduced Aug. Decided evidence and supported sufficient were were not excessive. judgment of the

Accordingly, affirm the we

district court. DC, argued Washington, Cipollone, A. Pat DC,

(C. Washington, Wiggins, Hunter Minnetonka, MN, Kaardal, on the Erick G. brief), Appellant. Bruno, MN, Burnsville, argued supplies. letter teacher and Paskewitz’s J. Robert Branson, MN, Minneapolis, stated, objection to it

(Timothy “[w]e E. would have no brief), Appellee. school,” being requested but contain a “the chаrter of the school Vesta” MN, Yolling, Minneapolis, ar- Lloyd James “[tjhat Radios, Videos, T.V., stating clause (Ahna Thoresen, Timothy Rank M. C. gued Computers be used.” Paskewitz stated Lee, MN, Minneapolis, Stephen C. twenty-one approximately that there were brief), Amicus Curiae. in children that would be interested Brethren WOLLMAN, BEAM, and Before attending group and that the had heard that MURPHY, Judges. Circuit other, might non-Brethren children be inter- attending in school. Pas- ested the Vesta WOLLMAN, Judge. Circuit Brethren kewitz’s letter also noted that the injunction appeal from en- This is an require transportation children would not public joining operation of a school. We lunches, as the children could walk to school remand with directions dis- reverse and go in and would home for lunch accor- school complaint. miss the dance with their beliefs. Background Factual Dr. Bates attested that he considered feasibility opening multi-agé classroom (the Independent District No. 640 School in bene- Vesta. He stated that the district) district located in is a rural school of such a classroom included the reduc- fits aрproxi- Minnesota. It covers southwestern being in tion the number of students bussed land, agricultural mately square miles of Wabasso, availability of an additional including the towns of Wabasso Vesta. classroom, elementary multi-age in operated in the reduction class schools classrooms, until the grade-specific and Vesta 1988-84 sizes in and the both Wabasso elementary year. It closed the Vesta space shortage school alleviation of in the Wabasso building May in school and sold building. He noted that the relative costs of Thereafter, children attended the the Vesta proposed classroom minimal. After were school, approximately four- holding public meetings, the school board miles from Vesta. teen unanimously proposal. approved the Mem- they of the school that bers board attested bought the old Vesta ele Lloyd Paskewitz approved opening of the Vesta school for building in mentary 1991. Paskewitz reasons, several of which were financial. most Vesta families are mem and several other Opening prеvent the Vesta school would religious group known as the Breth bers of a Dublin, ren, possibly being originated Ire Brethren children from home- land, Bryan schooled, 1820s.1 See Ronald in the late which would have meant a loss Wilson, Sociologi $3,200 A Brethren” Recent roughly “The aid of for each student state W.) (1981). (Appellees’ App. Ex. Study cal from school. A school elim- withdrawn Vesta undisputed that the Brethren have a It is inated the need to bus Vesta students to avoiding belief in sincerely Wabasso, held and it was more economical to send televisions, including technology, radi use of one teacher to Vesta than to bus chil- Vesta films, os, videos, computers. Additionally, opening dren Wabasso. multi-age provide classroom Vesta would Paskewitz, on behalf of August benefits for those students who educational families, Brethren wrote several of Vesta might have home-schooled. otherwise been Bates, superin- George the district’s to Dr. members Dr. Bates and the school board tendent, possibility reopening about process during approval attested elementary school in the of a form they did not discuss the back- multi-age Paskewitz offered classroom. parents grounds of the or students who to the space in the old school lease school, might attend the nor were providing the district’s consideration of approximately 115 of the Brethren. estimated 1. Paskewitz living people in Vesta are members of the 300 Thirty-five their wished to attend. chose the Wa- backgrounds relevant to those remaining basso and the nineteen decision. parents chose the Vesta school. Eleven signed on three-year A lease was October twenty-nine current or former Vesta stu- district, Paskewitz, 12, 1993, by and the they preferred sending dents attested that provided that The lease the Ves- Brethren.2 their children to the Vesta school rather than by the operated ta would be the Wabasso school because liked multi-age and would the form of a classroom having convenience of their children attend resident student be “a having walking school within distance and District.” The district would the School They services, their children come homе for lunch. provide teachers and administrative compliance multi-age preferred “in establish the curriculum classroom rules,” laws classroom Al- grade-specific state to a one Wabasso.4 parents The materials for instruction. though any the school is to stu- Vesta right the Brethren children would “have to dent in the district who wishes to attend input regarding” provide comment on and there, apparently only Brethren children “to the same extent as classroom materials have attended the school since Vesta District,” parents in the but the other School opened. regard- sole discretion” district retained “the Dr. Bates the at- and two Vesta teachers instruc- ing approval” “final of textbooks and elementary curriculum tested that the same provided tional materials. The lease that taught taught is the Vesta school as is shall, to extent School District the “[t]he Technology, the school. Wabasso permitted applicable and rules under law and instruction, computer form of is standard technology ... the regulations limit use part grade of that curriculum for each level. television, radio, audio video such and/or The teachers testified that when the Vesta recordings, computers and movies the opened, wishing comput- school first students the school.” The district classrooms er have been the instruction would bussed to education, certain fed- provide to it. Both Wabasso school receive attested services, coun- erally funded educational computer provides that the district now services, instruction in seling as well as equipment to them at Vesta the audio/visual health, education, physical and music the upon request. Although technology school to students need- Wabasso School Vesta students, to both testi- available all teachers poli- that ing “[a]ll them.3 The lease stated they regularly fied that do not use technolo- adopted by ... [School District] cies the gy in their classroom instruction. apply at the school.” Paskewitz [Vesta] shall requires to utilities, Minnesota law school districts agreed pay all the Brethren to services, parents рrocedure that to repair and main- establish allows custodial building grounds, pay property tain the of instructional materials review content taxes, liability insur- provide property and parent minor child. If the provided to a building, content, and remove ance related objects must to that the district snow. arrangements reasonable for alterna- make Ann. tive Minn.Stat. instruction. operate three mul- planned (West 1994): policy § The 126.699 district’s during ‍‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​​​‍ti-age the 1993-94 classrooms religious objections allows students year, The two in Wabasso and one Vesta. objectionable ac- classes or be excused from students for these class- district solicited activity required If is a tivities. the class or rooms, signed up fifty-four students one, be alternative activities shall they “suitable request allowed to which school were 2. Although 3. lease that hot lunch would also was addition The stated [sic] the "Brethern” lease, person signed party provided who hut district al to the at the Wabasso allegedly Brethren's behalf at lease cater hot lunches to stu- has said that it would authority do had so. Fur tested that he at the Vesta school if needed. dents thermore, that is no evidence in record there any ownership had interest in the the Brethren multi-age were classrooms in Wabasso Thus, signif building. we find little Vesta year. open only the 1993-94 school party fact are icance lease. that the dis- The case was submitted to the district provided.” Dr. Bates attested objections summary judg- numerous on cross-motions for received court trict has activities, including the use of com- various ment. The court concluded that “the facts education, technology, drug self-esteem puter presented by provide a clear exam- this case and audio and visual training, certain books ple sponsorship, of state or the advancement education; presentations, and sex of a which violates the mandates of inquire into the motivations does not the First Amendment.” The court concluded objections; and that the dis- parent’s the district had modified Vesta instruction. provides trict alternative solely curriculum “based on the re- school’s quest religious group.” of a parents objected All of the Brethren computers at the Vesta school to the use court further concluded that asked for alternative instruction and have opening effect of the children, provided. has been for their promoting religion; Vesta school was that of Accordingly, the educational curriculum at opening, opera- manner of that “the and the school does not include the use of of, pur- tion school lacks a secular videos, films, computers, presenta- or audio pose the reli- and was done to conform to the Brethren children were tions. While Brethren”; gious beliefs of the and that the prior to attending the impermissible “an district had thus created school, reopening the district of the Vesta powers identification of its and duties with religious objections their and accommodated The beliefs of the Brethren.” participating in them to avoid allowed injunction permanently court entered an en- that, undisputed technology.5 It is use of joining operating “from light the accommоdations of School or conformance other at the school for the would make Wabasso religious objections with the Brethren’s children, Brethren Brethren children computers technology the use of and other exactly the same education at have received and media.” The court did not rule on the they that would have re- the Vesta school refunding money of state or on mat- aid continued to attend the ceived if had attorney ter of fees. undisputed It is also that school. Following the district court’s denial of the place has taken no instruction stay pending appeal, district’s motion for and that no arti- the Vesta school staying we entered an order the district present. facts are injunction. Neely court’s and have Stark stay. Neely moved to dissolve the and Stark History Procedural claim, their have dismissed refund and their Neely and Marcia are Matthew Stark attorney stayed pend- claim for fees has been utilizing taxpayer stand- Minnesota citizens ing appeal. the outcome of this against the ing filed district6 seеk- who suit judgment declaratory that the creation ing a First Amendment operation of the Vesta school violates the begin by noting that the We decision Clause First Amend- Establishment open the district to a school and to accom States Constitution and ment to the United requests parental exemption modate from 16 of the Minnesota Consti- article 1 section aspects curriculum of the district’s chosen injunction pro- They sought also an tution. “comprehen the heartland of the falls within operating hibiting the district powers discretion” that sive and substantial beliefs, with Brethren school in conformance generally are afforded to school districts in judgment requiring the district to refund to “discharg[ing] important entrusted tasks Minnesota all state aid the dis- the State of Independent them.” Pratt v. Sch. Dist. attending children the Ves- trict received for (8th Cir.1982). 771, attorney No. an fees. ta award plaintiffs supplied also sued members of the school the Brethren children 5. The district also Paskewitz, board, the Brethren. These de- separate table at the Wabasso with a lunch times, fendants were dismissed at various school. appeal. are not raised on their dismissals Felton, —, Yoder, 205, 235, Agostini v. v. 406 U.S. See Wisconsin (1972) —, —, 1997, 2010, 32 L.Ed.2d 138 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. S.Ct. (“[C]ourts legisla 891(1997) (“Thus, are not school boards or simplest recognize it is tures, ill-equipped and are to determine the entanglement why significant is and treat ‘necessity’ aspects of a State’s of discrete aspect inquiry into a stat ... an education.”). program compulsory De effect.”). ute’s discretion, spite this considerable courts a school Yesta decision recognized that school boards must exercise purpose of furthers the valid secular educat “ comports powers ‘in a manner that their ing the Mueller v. district’s children. See imperatives of with the transcendent Allen, 463 U.S. S.Ct. ” Amendment,’ and courts “have been First (1983) (state has “secular 77 L.Ed.2d compliance particularly vigilant monitoring citizenry ensuring purpose of that the State’s elementary with the Establishment Clause Walter, educated”); is well Wolman v. secondary Aguil schools.” Edwards 2593, 2601, 53 L.Ed.2d lard, 578, 583-84, 107 (1977) (“There question is no (quoting 96 L.Ed.2d 510 legitimate has a substantial and inter State Educ., Board Island Trees Free Union insuring yоuth est its receive Pico, 853, 864, Sch. Dist. No. 26 v. education.”); adequate secular Everson (1982)). 2799, 2806, 7,1, Ewing Tp., Educ. Board stated, courts As the Court has (1947) (“It 91 L.Ed. 711 ... “do not intervene resolution argue legislation in much too late to daily operation conflicts which arise opportunity chil tended to facilitate the systems directly and which do get dren secular education serves sharply implicate basic constitutional values.” public purpose.”). The district’s decision Arkansas, 97, 104, 89 Epperson v. upon the open the school in Vesta was based 21 L.Ed.2d Cf. space efficiency, savings in reasons of secular Advisory Bd. v. Capitol Square Review and costs, a transportation the addition of Pinette, 2440, multi-age corresponding re classroom and (1995) (plurality opinion) Further, in class sizes. the decision (“[ duction or individual members of O]utsiders parents to plans of certain forestalled community uninformed about the school’s prevent and thus home-school their children practice might leap .... to the erroneous endorsement.”). aid a in the amount of state of state ed reductiоn conclusion district, flowing funding to the that benefits

A. students within district. all evaluating applicable test The Relying primarily on School Dist. Grand has violated the Estab whether state action Ball, Rapids 473 v. by Lemon lishment is that established Clause (1985), L.Ed.2d 267 and Parents’ Ass’n 87 Kurtzman, 602, 612-13, 91 403 (2d Quinones, F.2d 1235 Cir. P.S. 16 v. See L.Ed.2d 1986), that the the district court concluded Union Chapel v. Center Moriches Lamb’s to decision primary effect of district’s Dist., n. Free Sch. promote open at Vesta was the school (1993) 2148 n. L.Ed.2d that religion. The court noted CLemon, frightening may be to however perceived as a Brethren school school is overruled.”). some, “In order has not been im “create[d] district had thus that the test, challenged satisfy gov a the Lemon powers identification of its permissible (1) a secular action must ernmental of the Breth beliefs duties with (2) princi primary or purpose, not have the ren.” advancing religion, and not pal effect of Ha- Quinones plan educate involved a entanglement with reli an excessive foster girls public physi- school Jewish sidic Sports Club gion.” Good News/Good from cally group of classrooms separating a Ladue, 28 F.3d Dist. School omitted) dedicating them for rest Cir.1994) (footnote (8th (citing Lem 2110-11). use, only public female providing their on, primarily any way who would teach curriculum has not been altered school teachers Yiddish, English taught school, as a second with at the and the same curriculum Vesta Quinones, language. 803 F.2d at 1237. See taught is at Vesta as at the Wabasso school. plan that Circuit concluded this Second technology initially provided While was not link symbolic between the state created “a exempt at the and students not Vesta appeared sect” which and the Hasidic from it have been ed bussed Wabas- separatist religious endorse the views it, so to receive the record shows that tech plan that thus failed Hasidic Jews and nology is now available at the Vesta school. primary test. id. at 1241-42. effect See Thus, contrary finding, to the district court’s distinguishable This case is because the technology unavailable has never been to stu complete Vesta school does not involve the sum, dents at the Vesta school. the cur segregation part or all of a and dedication riculum —whether the substantive curriculum public facility to a of students for availability technology or the —has Quinones. por as in That reasons changed any way been modified or at the Rapids on the district tion of Grand taught school from what court relied has now been overruled. See school. at —, —, Agostini, granted parental re 2012,2016. quests exemption technology pursu public open school is a § ant Ann. to Minn.Stat. 126.699and district all, stu- and there is no evidence Granting policy. parental requests made wishing dents to attend there have been pursuant policy to the statute and the served Further, away. the school turned purpose facilitating the secular the secular board’s decision to the Vesta school education of children at the Vesta school. parents’ certain desire to see a coincided with if Even the district’s decision to honor the opened in Vesta does not com- pel finding requests exemption effect of the was motivated decision to advance or that thе was parents’ desire to the Brethren accommodate sending message approval district was beliefs, such accommodation consti disapproval of individual choices. legitimate purpose long tutes a secular so Place, Clayton by Clayton v. governmental “the relevant decisionmaker (8th Cir.1989) (“The mere fact a neutrality ... not] [does abandon[ ] aet[ ] body governmental takes action that co- promoting particular with the intent of particular ... incides desires of a point religious of view in matters.” See Cor religious group ... not transform the does poration Presiding Bishop Church of of of impermissible establishment of action into an Amos, Latter-day Jesus Christ Saints of religion.”). Any incidental benefits to the 327, 334-35, 107 S.Ct. secondary religious beliefs are Brethren’s (1987); Lynch, see also 465 providing additional primary effect of (“Nor at 104 U.S. S.Ct. at 1358 does the of school for the secular education require complete separation Constitution of Club, Sports children. Good News/Good Cf. state; affirmatively church and mandates (incidental 28 at benеfits to reli- F.3d accommodation, tolerance, merely not of all ‍‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​​​‍group gion policy allowing from of access religions, hostility any.”). and forbids toward secondary primary property were The record shows that the district honors all providing effect of neutral forum for ex- parental exemption requests, regardless of ideas). change of motivation. modify Although may its a district not granting pa- The district’s actions in curriculum to a set of sectarian to conform exemption requests rental did not have beliefs, Aguillard, at see Edwards v. primary advancing religion. effect of “A 2582; Epperson v. Arkan 107 S.Ct. at simply not unconstitutional because it law is 271; Pratt, sas, at religion.... churches to advance For allows (removal film 670 F.2d at 776-79 have forbidden under Lem- a law to “effects” curriculum), nothing hap of the sort on, say govern- it must be fair to that the pened by the material here. As evidenced court, religion through ment has advanced its submitted to the district the district’s itself Amos, advancing effect of 483 did have the own activities and influence.” Although endorsing at religion U.S. at the Brethren’s — pаrents at —, the Brethren beliefs of Agostini, beliefs. Cf. granting of their accommodated were at 2015. S.Ct. requests itself exemptions, honoring religion by did not advance those B. requests. id. at See Neely argue present that Stark religion (any advancement of as 2868-69 indistinguish involves situation case exemption religious groups result of Kiryas from that Board Educ. able “fairly Rights Act of 1964 could not be Civil Grumet, Dist. v. Village Joel Sch. government). attributed” to the 129 L.Ed.2d application that the district’s We conclude case, held uncon Court grant pa policy and district state law special which creat state statute stitutional exemption requests for will not result rental village a school district for defined ed entanglement. Because the excessive id., exclusively along lines. See grants pa all record shows that the district at 2486. “funda routinely requests exemption rental concern” mental source of constitutional instruction, policy provides alternative its legislature had not Kiryas that the Joel was more,” less, “promotes actually rather than power in a manner neutral exercised its religion because dis involvement religion. at 2490. See id. considering parents’ motiva trict avoids that “[b]ecause The Court was concerned including religious motivations —for tions — requesting exemptions. religious community of Joel did not Clayton, 884 See Club, authority governmental new sim 379; receive its Sports F.2d at Good News/Good (no entanglement many eligible for at 1510 excessive as communities ply one where, applying open-access law, school use general we equal treatment under a distinguish not have to policy, school would similarly assurance that next types groups wanting to use among seeking a school district of its situated school). teachers have altered their (footnote omitted). will one.” Id. own receive teaching only to the extent neces methods neutrality This lack of forced Court exemp sary parental to accommodate that the creation of the school dis conclude any exemption requests, as tion See trict violated the Establishment Clause. —, request. Agostini, Further, at 2491. id. S.Ct (“Entanglement must be S.Ct. at by viеwing it as legislation could not saved it runs afoul the Estab ‘excessive’ before because the an accommodation Wolman, Clause.”); lishment singles par out a “proposed accommodation (“It hardly can be said 97 S.Ct. at 2605 treatment,” sect for ticular employees supervision “neutrality principle of violating the public prop performing public functions 706-07, 114 among religions.” Id. at S.Ct. at entanglement be erty an excessive creates 2493-94. Mueller, state.”); 463 church and tween cf. Kiryas As we dis This is not Joel. case (no at excessive 103 S.Ct. 3071 U.S. at earlier, support record does cussed requirement that state entanglement from Neely’s that the dis contention if to Stark’s determine officials examine textbooks wrongly actions to so taken tax deduction that deduc trict has they qualify for Brethren, be disal fact that the books could and the for sectarian tions benefit lowed). of coincide with desires actions district’s Es not mean that the parents does certain conclusion, open the decision neither violated. See Clause has been tablishment application the district’s school nor F.2d at 380.7 Clayton by Clayton, 884 Lemon policies violates the exemption reasons, decided, for secular here purpose and had a secular Both actions test. (delegation politi- opinion) (plurality political power delegation 2488-89 7. There has been no criteria). by religious community case. power in this chosen to the Brethren cal Cf. 697-702, Joel, at 114 S.Ct. Kiryas 512 1076 open public in building ing religious which a for vocation at Christian col located, previously school had Mueller, been lege); 396-99, 463 U.S. at 103 S.Ct. regardless school that is to all students (tax at 3067-68 deduction for educational ex religious grants affiliation. The district penses); Vincent, Widmar v. 454 U.S. parents requests exemptions of all 273-75, 102 S.Ct. 70 L.Ed.2d 440

regardless religious affiliation. (1981) (open facilities); university access to Wolman, 237-48, 433 U.S. at through The extension of a benefit S.Ct. (textbooks, application testing, diagnostic 2599-605 neutral of state law and the dis- services); policy parental therapeutic requests trict’s to allow Board Educ. Cen Allen, exemption if curriculum —evеn those tral Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. requests religious are motivated rea- 20 L.Ed.2d parents honoring sons (textbooks); Everson, 330 U.S. at requests religious accommodates those reimbursement). be- (bussing S.Ct. at 512 liefs—does not violate the Indeed, Establishment by granting exemptions without re Supreme Clause. The Court has said: gard motivations, parental the district has A central lesson of our decisions is that a principle adhered to the proper that “[a] significant upholding governmen- factor respect for both the Free Exercise and the programs tal in the face of Establishment compels Establishment Clauses the State to neutrality Clause attack is their towards pursue a neutrality religion, course of toward religion.... guar- We have held that the favoring religion neither one over nor others neutrality respected, antee of not of- religious collectively adherents over nona fended, government, when the following Joel, dherents.” policies, neutral criteria and evenhanded omitted). (quotation S.Ct. recipients extends benefits whose ideal- To the extent appli that the district’s ogies viewpoints, including cation of the state law policy and district ones, are broad and diverse. grant parental requests exemption Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors can be viewed as accommodating religion by Virginia, —, Univ. removing a burden from the Brethren fami 2510, 2521, (1995); see (forcing lies their technology), children to use at —, Agostini, such action does not offend the Establish (“[W]here the aid is allocated on the ment Clause. “[T]he Constitution [does not] neutral, basis of secular criteria that neither require complete separation of church and religion, favor nor disfavor and is made avail state; affirmatively mandates accommoda able to and secular beneficiaries on Lynch, tion.” nondiseriminatory basis ... the aid is less 1358. The Establishment Clause is not vio likely advancing to have the effect of reli government lated when the accommodates gion.”). “by beliefs relieving people from The state action in this case is well within generally applicable rules that interfere with the boundaries set cases in which the religious callings.” Weisman, their Lee v. upheld “government pro Court has grams neutrally provide benefits ato (1992) (Souter, J., L.Ed.2d 467 concurring); broad citizens class of defined without refer 628, 112 id. at S.Ct. at 2677 (“accommodating religion.” ence to Zobrest v. Catalina Foot nothing beyond recognition reveals Dist., 1, 8, 113 hills Sch. general unnecessarily rules can offend See, e.g., L.Ed.2d 1 Rosen conscience when offend the berger, 837-45, 115 atU.S. S.Ct. at 2521- all”); society conscience of secular not at (neutral program paying 25 printing for of Amos, 334, 483 U.S. at 107 S.Ct. Zobrest, publications); student (“This long ‍‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​​​‍recognized Court has 10-14, (sign-language 113 S.Ct. at 2467-68 (and must) government may sometimes ac interpreter high for deaf student at Catholic school); religious practices commodate and that it Washington Dep’t Witters v. of Blind, may 481, 486-89, violating do Servs. so without Establish omitted)). (quoted ment 88 L.Ed.2d 846 Clause.” case The (vocational person study assistance blind district’s actions this case follow our best sum, actions this case district’s traditions of the accommodation of See, Yoder, e.g., context. beliefs in the school have not violated the Establishment Clause. 234, 1542; v. Zorаch 679, Clauson, 306, 72 S.Ct. Minnesota Constitution (1952); Virginia 682-84, 96 L.Ed. 954 West also consider how the dis Barnette, 624, We must State Bd. Educ. v. of 642, 1178, fare under the Minnesota Con trict’s actions 87 L.Ed. 1628 (1943). stitution, for the “limitations contained substantially Minnesota Constitution are C. imposed by than those more restrictive Amend. I.” Americans United Inc. Const. Finally, ac we examine district’s Independent No. Dist. 288 Minn. under the “endorsement test.” See v. Sch. tions Joel, (1970). 196, 179 146, 155 114 S.Ct. at N.W.2d (“Experience proves that the Establish separately analyze the state court did not easily ... be reduced to ment Clause cannot issue, declared that be constitutional but test.”) J., (O’Connor, concurring in single actions violated the feder cause the district’s part judgment). The concurring they also violated the state al constitution “paid particularly Court has close ap constitution. The issue was briefed on challenged govern attention whether the however, peal, and we exercise our discretion practice purposé either has the or mental can to resolve because it be decided religion, a ‘endorsing’ effect of concеrn that Champion matter of law. See Hutchins long place Establishment had our (8th Cir.1997) Corp., 110 F.3d Int’l County Allegheny jurisprudence.” Clause Serv., (citing Talley v. United States Postal Greater v. American Civil Liberties Union (8th Cir.1983)). Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 provisions The Minnesota constitutional religion pro- preventing been thus ex the establishment of The endorsement test has plained: part any vide in relevant that “nor shall treasury money from the “prohibits be drawn Clause

[T]he Establishment making any religious government from adherence to societies or benefit of any way person’s seminaries,” to a theological relevant Minn. or Const. community.” standing political in the I, any § and that no case shall “[i]n Art. government prohibition if it violates this money property appropriated or public or religion. “En- disapproves or endorses support of schools wherein the used for the message nonadher- dorsement sends doctrines, creeds or tenets distinctive outsiders, not full mem- ents that are particular Christian or other sect political community, bers taught.” promulgated or Minn. Const. are message accompanying to adherents XIII, concept” § 2. “fundamental Art. insiders, they are favored members may inhi- neither advance nor “that the state community.” political permissible religion, ... defines bit (O’Connor, at 3117 con- Id. legislation ... law.” limits under state judg- concurring in the curring in part and United, N.W.2d at 157. The Americans ment) (quoting Lynch, 465 U.S. at prohibit both ‘bene- clauses “establishment (O’Connor, J., concur- 1366-67 ‘support’ teaching distinc- to schools fits’ and ring)). Minnesota Fed’n religious doctrines.” tive discussed, has act- we have As Mammenga, 500 N.W.2d Teachers the citizens neutrally in this case towards ed (Minn.Ct.App.1993). regarding the decision above, religious instruction As shown no applying ex- and in in Vesta the school school, and there is place at the Vesta takes Thus, district has not emption policy. support expenditure funds no religion relevant anyone’s adherence to made religious be- teaching promulgating of community and standing con- to their viola- conclude Accordingly, we liefs. religion or a set sequently has endorsed has occurred. constitution of the state tion beliefs. computers, equipment. Conclusion and video and audio reasoning behind this is that vacated, injunction case is prohibit Brethren’s beliefs them to the district court remanded with directions items, using such and this has creat- complaint. to dismiss the trying conflict in ed a to send their chil- MURPHY, Judge, dissenting. Circuit Wabasso, public dren to the in teaching which uses such tools and meth- Because I believe the establishment ods. public school district of this in for children of the Brethren school Vesta To eliminate the need to remove these permitted by goes beyond what is the first public children from the school environ- amendment to United States Constitu- home, ment and teach them at the Breth- tion, respectfully I dissent. proposal ren made the for a second school year. in last Vesta entered into a contractual ar- rangement religious group with known Gerdes, “Agreement L. Vicki is Reached on operate special public Brethren to Gazette, Vesta,” Proposed in School Redwood group’s school in tailored to meet the 17, 1993. June Before concerns. 1984 the district Brethren, On October оperated elementary two schools: one in district, Lloyd Paskewitz entered away and one fourteen miles in agreement operate into a formal written in Vesta. After the school Vesta was closed public elementary Paskew Vesta.8 reasons, for economic children of the Breth- previously purchased itz had the Vesta school regular public ren either attended the ele- building, building and the was made available mentary school Wabasso or were homes- agreement under the for the district to use chooled. Various accommodations were charge. free of Paskewitz and the Brethren respect made at Wabasso agreed responsible to be for all mainte Brethren, providing beliefs of the such as nance, security, taxes, and insurance. separate tables for them children at lunch return the district would a teacher excusing them from activities that in- and educational materials and limit the use of technological opposi- volved devices. Their technology. Agreement pro Seсtion 6 of the technology any tion to the use of includes vides: television, radio, use of audio and video re- shall, The School District to the extent cordings, computers, or movies. permitted applicable under law and rules During proposed the Brethren regulations adopted by the School joint venture with the school district to re- District, Board of the School limit the use elementary school in and this television, technology radio, such as au- proposal approved meeting at a was of the recordings, computers dio video and/or February school board 1993. The minutes movies the classrooms at the school meeting contemporaneous newspa- provided for herein. per indicate that the school was accounts Brethren. identified with the One such news 8 and 9 Sections indicate that the district story part: stated in envisioned different set of academic offer- ings Board of Education has at the Vesta school than at

The Wabasso agreement with reached an school Wabasso. These sections reserve proceed plans Brethren to for a K-6 right ‍‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​​​‍provide special to the district the elementary school at Vesta this fall. education, health, music, physical education

classes, and hot lunches the Wabasso ele- mentary school for students at Vesta possible legally If it is to establish this might participate who want to nor- operated without the these technology mally programs assistance of modern such as available which would not be significance” religious background majority "little 8. The finds or beliefs of those who lease, party exemptions fact that the Brethren were to the but requested from the standard curricu- significant light group’s inclusion is la. district's claim that it did not take into account preferences jurisprudence. of the ment clause See Board at Vesta because offered of Kiryas Village Brethren. Educ. Dist. v. Joel Sch. of Grumet, 687, 694, S.Ct. actively Brethren were involved The (1994). The first ways reopening of the Vesta other prohibits favoring amendment the state from Lloyd other school. Paskewitz several favoring in the оver another or participated of the Brethren one members for collectively interviews conducted to select a teacher religious adherents over non-ad- undisputed it was Arkansas, the new school. It is (citing Epperson Id. herents. employ- unprecedented to have non-district 266, 270, 21 present at such interviews. June ees On (1968)). neutrality Religious is L.Ed.2d 1993, Lloyd provided Superinten- Paskewitz particularly important in the context of ele- who dent Bates with a list of children schools, secondary mentary and where the Vesta, and planned to attend the school in impressionable and students are attendance eventually only in the these children enrolled involuntary. Aguillard, Edwards v. is school. 2573, 2577-78, 96 significant There are differences between L.Ed.2d While the the curricula offered at Vesta and Wabasso. long recognized govern- “has Court adopted for Although the official curricula (and must) may accommo- ment sometimes half school calls for at one the Vesta least practices may and that it do so date computer of lab each week and district hour Clause,” violating without the Establishment computer technology officials claim is avail- Presiding Bishop Corporation Church Vesta, never computer training has able Latter-day Christ Saints Jesus technology offered. Other forms been Amos, television, object, which the Brethren such as (1987) (citations 97 L.Ed.2d films, players, and have not been used video omitted), a quotations “accommodation is not Vesta, although they regularly are used at limits,” principle point and at without some offerings The are health at Vesta Wabasso. into may accommodation devolve an unlawful not the as those offered at Wabas- same Joel, fostering religion. Kiryas drug programs The education so. awareness Amos, 2492; kindergarten in the used Wabasso school An asserted motiva- 2867. through grade not at Ves- sixth are available accommodation, justi- if tion of even Although official curricula at Vesta ta. statute, by cannot reference to a state fied physical requires one half hour education governmental actions that otherwise shield day it is specialists,” presented “with each principle neutrality embedded violate by parent manner a volun- an unstructured in the establishment clause. See physical training has teer who no formal Joel, 705, at 2493.9 512 U.S. at in a taught At it is education. Wabasso has far more Here the school district done by physical education structured manner aspects grant exemptions to individual than officially re- The curricula teacher. law, state school curricula under at least an hour of musical instruction quires week, has into a contractual relation- but record does not indicate for it entered each actually group offered. If a child of a ship that music with members curri- preferences. school wants such standard The to their tailor special offerings, must make a cula he she agreed limit the of technol- has use thirty request and then commute miles reasons, match ogy pedagogical but to day to middle religious group. It also single tenets of health, education, or classes. physical music music, health, physical edu- modified cation, normally curricula of- computer show facts of this case an abandon- acted create a fered. neutrality in principle of state ment of the partici- interested in where student underlies establish- religious matters which reopen reopen proposal from Brethren to the school the school 9. The district’s decision agreement entering February § with a 126.699 written and Minn.Stat. into May motivated passed could not been was not until statutory approved the duties the district because health, transporting fewer students from Vesta physical edu- pating in the standard Wabasso, music, Wabasso, in cation, computer offerings reducing must the class size or shortage commute al- there as special request by lessening space a make a and/or day to thirty during the school well, purposes miles have been most these could but at regular educational services obtain such by reopening the school as carried out surprising non- Wabasso. It special a without operated it had before not enrolled at Vesta. Brethren сhildren have the Brethren. The signed agreement with is that only the Brethren are involved reason Kiryas where is similar to Joel This case could not afford presumably the district creation of found that the the Court financial reopen without the the Vesta school affilia- a based on school district directly in they provided community was uncon- assistance members tion of the by enrolling their singled indirectly impermissibly agreement it because stitutional special religious group system. for Even if particular public out a children 702, at by improving treatment. was motivated the district Kiryas village Joel had been area, 2491. The in its quality of education overall particular sect an enclave for a established as in which the curricula established a school who, like called Satmars of Hasidic Jews objections of the conformed to the Brethren, much of the modern eschewed exchange for financial assistance. Brethren very commu- maintained a isolated world and acceptable purpose. secular This is not an normally nity. children werе The Satmar Epperson, 393 89 S.Ct. private religious schools in the educated (“There can be no doubt that the is and parochial schools did not village, but these permit the State First Amendment does not handicapped students as provide for services learning require teaching and must be legis- York required by state law. The New prohibitions of principles tailored to special school district that created a lature Edwards, any religious dogma.”); sect or village so to the boundaries conformed (striking at 2582 down 107 S.Ct. handicapped could children that services act because the Louisiana’s Creationism acceptable way to the Sat- provided ... Act was to restructure “purpose of the community Kiryas Joel mars. Since curriculum to conform with the science “simply as one of its benefit did not receive viewpoint”); In particular religious Pratt v. eligible equal treat- many communities dependent Dist. No. Sch. law,” general there was no ment under a (8th Cir.1982) (removing a film from a school religious community next guarantee that the objections vio curriculum based giv- district would be desiring its own school Clause). lated the Establishment arrangement was unconstitu- one and the en governmental impermissible tional. Id. An effect of promotes that endorses or reli action is one Joel, legislature Like the gion. County Allegheny v. American Civ particular singled out a district has Union, 573, 592-601, il Liberties by setting up a benefits religious group for 3086, 3100-05, 106 L.Ed.2d 472 acceptable in order Brethren find school the Bullock, (1989); Monthly, Inc. v. Texas in the participation to retain their 103 L.Ed.2d guarantee is no system. There primary (or effect is Whether religious group the district the next state) can be impermissible endorsement could obtain elsewhere observers, in supported with measured what reasonable its members school for teaching non-adherents, a modified Al publicly cluding funded teacher would conclude. with their in accordance curricula legheny, 492 U.S. of the school The establishment opinion). beliefs. the dis (plurality As 3119-21 neutrality principle thus violates out, way in pointed which trict court permissible ac- line from and “crosses the operated reopened and created school was impermissible establish- commodation community that the school perception in the ment.” Id. just of the Breth really for the children was theoretically open to though it was ren even reopened argues it establishing the students. The effect all public education

school to a better creating effect of a state thus endorsement school was beliefs. the religious Brethren’s views of the endorsement Edwards, Brethren, Clayton majority Clayton by relies on (“preference” particular re- S.Ct. at 2582 (8th Cir.1989), Place, F.2d 376 for the constitutes ligious beliefs an endorsement coincidentally action idea that state religion), and cannot be reconciled with the religious mirrors certain beliefs does require clause cases the religion. Clay- establishment promoting the effect of have public government adopt position upheld prohibiting a rule dances at to neutral to- ton See, Joel, there e.g., schools where was no evidence religion. Kiryas 512 ward why to indicate the rule had been 694, rеcord 2487; at Wallace v. U.S. 378, contrast, the passed. Id. at 52-54, Jaffree, 472 U.S. 105 S.Ct. regarding of the district the school actions 29; Epperson, L.Ed.2d 86 simply did not coincide with the beliefs Vesta at 270. 89 S.Ct. Brethren. The reflects direct of the record helpful in Three criteria are con organizing the involvement of Brethren sidering whether state action has the effect financing the school. Mr. Paskewitz’s advancing religion: whether it results letter, board, meetings the of the school government religious be indoctrination of agreement formal written between the liefs, recipients by whether it defines the aid Brethren, all indicate that district and religion, to and whether it creates reference religious and financial but for the concerns entanglement excessive the state between Brethren, support of the school Vesta — Felton, religion. Agostini operated have or reopened would never been (1997). —, 391 L.Ed.2d is far in the current manner. Here there factors Applying these to the facts of this more than mere coincidence between case, actions of thе district have program of the modifications Vesta school impermissible advancing religion. effect of of the and the beliefs Brethren. district contends the school does furthers the function Aid that educational religion open all because it is not advance religious longer presumed schools is no the same available at students and curricula — se, at —, per Agostini, be invalid available to students will- Wabasso is may im- but state action classes, specific to Wabasso ing to bus for permissibly religious indoctrinate beliefs appropriate beyond the theo- but it is look provides it direct aid to insti when reality ry practical to examine tutions or when reheves sectarian institu Joel, at 696- situation. they bear. Id. tions of costs otherwise would (looking at 2488-89 at effect of 114 S.Ct. 2013; at —, 117 S.Ct. see also Zobrest Weisman, form); statute, not its Lee v. Dist., Foothills Sch. Catalina 577, 593, 595, L.Ed.2d 113 S.Ct. (1992) (“subtle L.Ed.2d 467 and indirect” theoretically Although the Vesta school is ceremony participate pressure to public, the are district’s actions compulsion; “law as réal as overt can be they suspect Brethren of because reheve the Edwards, formalism”); past reaches they would otherwise borne costs (“While 2578-79 homesehooling establishing their own normally deferential to a State’s Court arrangement upheld, it If this were school. purpose, it is re- of a secular articulation Cathohc, necessary longer purpose be the statement of such quired that Jewish, Lutheran, or Muslim communities sham.”). contempora- and not sincere required resources to establish expend the newspaper accounts indicate neous They could also separate parochial schools. Brethren is considered both building they rent in a district free offer for'the citizens to be a school non-Brethren teaching exchange teacher and own creates children. The Vesta school Brethren homoge religiously obtain a materials singled out that the state has perception basic instruc educational neous school treat- special, preferential Brethren liking. type direct This is the tion to their modifying the curricula standard ment advancing has the objections. effect treatment subsidization Such fit their —, protect rights religion. Agostini, U.S. at 117 es first amendment 2013; Pittenger, practice religion all to Meek v. their choice S.Ct. at 1753, 1763-64, government pref- prevent 44 and also (lending ma erential one instructional advancement L.Ed.2d equipment group. terials to sectarian schools the school district’s estab- Because religion). advancing lishment of the school Vesta cross- the effect permitted over under es the line the Consti- eligible Aid to all on the provided children tution, I dissent. neutral, criteria regardless basis of secular permissible where school is be attend recipients

cause not define it does

basis of and does not incen modify recipients tives there — — - —, Agostini,

beliefs. 2013-14; see also v. Widmar 276,

Vincent, contrast, the effect L.Ed.2d MOORE, Appellant, Edward Allen operation provide is to a benefit for the Brethren which it does not for non-Brethren. The Brethren children D.D.S.; JACKSON, Keith, Ernest James publicly can now obtain financed education M.D.; Kaiser; Cornell; Karen Randee particular in Vesta that conforms with their Salke; Bommel; Ralf Gerald Steve beliefs, while non-Brethren chil Long; Sydow; ‍‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​​​‍Judy Draper; P. John dren, reopened with or without the either Schriro; Wade, M.D.; Dora William must still commute to Wabasso Washington; Dormire; Richard David they if to receive all of curricula want Groose; Services, doing Michael ARA regularly by the offered district. The actions Sys business as Correctional Medical violate the establishment tems, Appellees. clause have the sin because effect of

gling out the Brethren for benefit. No. 96-2701. State aid or action will advance reli Appeals, United States Court if gion entanglement it leads to an excessive Eighth Circuit. between church and state.10 The test for 24, 1997. Submitted March impermissible entanglement examines purposes character and institutions Aug. Decided 1997. benefitted, provided, the nature of aid Rehearing Denied Oct. 1997. relationship resulting and the between religious authority. government and the at —, Agostini, S.Ct. at 2014 Kurtzman,

(quoting Lemon L.Ed.2d

(1971)). Here, the district has entered into a relationship

contractual benefit, forming essentially mutual partnership between the Brethren and operate the Vesta school acceptable

with a curricula

group. many competing in our values

There are

richly society, and the claus- diverse at -, previous prongs Id. Agostini of the Lemon test. cases have essen states "entanglement” tially at 2014. collapsed the "effect”

Case Details

Case Name: Stark v. Independent School District, No. 640

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Date Published: Aug 21, 1997

Citation: 123 F.3d 1068

Docket Number: 96-3250

Court Abbreviation: 8th Cir.