School district settles lawsuit over religion in schools
A Delaware school district has agreed to revise its policies on religion as part of a settlement with two Jewish families who had sued over the pervasiveness of Christian prayer and other religious activities in the schools. One family said it was forced to leave its home in Georgetown because of an anti-Semitic backlash. The settlement includes payments to the families that both sides would not disclose. Although the settlement resolves many complaints in the suit, against the Indian River School District, the parties are proceeding with litigation over the school board practice of beginning its sessions with prayer. On local blogs, the anger many people felt toward the families for protesting Christian prayer at school events has flared anew. Mona Dobrich, 41, whose family was a plaintiff in the suit, said such a furious reaction had exacted a profound toll on her family and might indicate that the settlement would alter little on the ground. Mrs. Dobrich, an Orthodox Jew, grew up in Sussex County. Though often the lone Jewish student in school, she said, she did not have problems with Christians or others. For years, while her daughter, Samantha, now 21, attended local schools, Mrs. Dobrich said, she listened to Christian prayers at school potluck dinners, award dinners and meetings of parent-teacher groups. At Samantha’s high school graduation in 2004, a minister’s prayer proclaiming Jesus as the only way to the truth nudged Mrs. Dobrich to ask the school board to consider more generic and less exclusionary prayers, she said. As news of the request spread, many local Christians saw it as an effort to limit the free exercise of religion, residents said. Anger spilled onto talk radio, in letters to the editor and at school board meetings attended by hundreds of people carrying signs praising Jesus.
In the settlement, the district did not concede that it had violated the First Amendment through its practices, said its lawyer, Jason Gosselin. The board approved the accord unanimously. It mandates that within 30 days the district has to amend its religion policy to clarify what practices are constitutional. A detailed list of “real world examples” are to be sent to staff members and parents, including situations like prayer before sports events and the distribution of religious materials at schools. The accord stipulates that school officials may not organize prayer at graduation. People will also be able to complain anonymously about violations about religious liberty or any other policies. “I hope that the publication of these policies, training and education about them means there will be compliance in the district and things will get better,” said Thomas J. Allingham II, the plaintiffs’ lawyer.
Source: New York Times, 2/28/08, By Neela Banerjee
[Editor’s Note: In August 2005, the U.S. district court had dismissed the suit against the individual school board members on the grounds that they enjoyed absolute legislative immunity. However, the court left intact other claims against the district itself. That opinion is summarized below. More detail on the question of school board invocations is available starting at the second link, which is to a summary of the recent conclusion of a long-running Louisiana case, and at the third link, which is to an NBSA legal question-and-answer resource.]
NSBA School Law pages on Dobrich v. Walls
NSBA School Law pages on Doe v. Tangipahoa Parish Sch. Bd.
Leadership Insider on legal questions