The district court found that the movie "contains a very limited amount of material which is sexually suggestive," that the movie does not contain "any `simulation' of a sexual act," and that "any scenes involving nudity or suggestive conduct were edited from the view of students" during both showings. She has lived in the Fowler Elementary School District for the past 22 years. After the movie was viewed by the superintendent and members of the Lincoln County Board of Education, proceedings were instituted to terminate Fowler's contract. Writing for the Court, Justice Harlan stated that "while the particular four-letter word being litigated here is perhaps more distasteful than most others of its genre, it is nevertheless often true that one man's vulgarity is another's lyric. 403 v. Fraser, ___ U.S. ___, 106 S.Ct. 161.790(1), which proscribes conduct unbecoming a teacher, is unconstitutionally vague as applied to her conduct. Joint Appendix at 114, 186-87. Joint Appendix at 113-14. Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61, 101 S.Ct. Decided June 1, 1987. Plaintiff's reliance upon cases grounded in the concept of "academic freedom," e.g., Cooper, 611 F.2d at 1113; Dean, 486 F. Supp. The court disagreed, concluding that "[t]he regulations prescribing a teacher's speech and conduct are necessarily broad; they cannot possibly mention every type of misconduct." 2537, 91 L.Ed.2d 249 (1986); Kingsville Independent School District v. Cooper, 611 F.2d 1109, 1113 (5th Cir. On cross-examination, Charles Bailey testified that Mrs. Fowler told him to open the file folder while editing after Candler entered the room. 487, 78 L.Ed.2d 683 (1983). Following her termination, plaintiff Fowler initiated her action in the district court alleging that her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by her discharge, and that the Kentucky statutes forming the basis for her discharge were unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. However, Fowler did not preview the movie before having it shown to her morning class because the store did not have a tape compatible with her own VCR and because she did not have time to make other arrangements to preview the movie. The dissent relies upon Schad v. Mt. See 3 Summaries. Id., at 1116. 1589, 1594-95, 60 L.Ed.2d 49 (1979)). Id., at 840. Evans-Marshall v. Board of Educ. v. Fraser further supported the school board's authority to take action against conduct it considered vulgar and offensive and disruptive of the educational process. She testified that she would show an edited. 161.790(1)(b) is not unconstitutionally vague. 39 Ed. However, not every form of conduct is protected by the First Amendment right of free speech. Moreover, there was a direct connection between this misconduct and Fowler's work as a teacher. Assistant Principal Michael Candler, who observed the movie during part of the afternoon showing, testified that Charles Bailey's editing attempt was not sufficient to preclude the students from seeing the nudity. Sec. The lm includes violent Healthy City School Dist. Finally, the district court concluded that K.R.S. United States District Court (Columbia), United States District Courts. Id. Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County, KY Teacher's showing of Pink Floyd: The Wall was not connected with the curriculum. Plaintiff Jacqueline Fowler was a tenured teacher employed by the Lincoln County, Kentucky, school system for fourteen years. at 2810. 161.790(1)(b), which proscribes "conduct unbecoming a teacher," is unconstitutionally vague as applied to her because the statute failed to give notice that her conduct would result in discipline. She argued that the statute governing her demotion, which required teachers to maintain discipline and encourage morality, failed to give adequate notice that her conduct was a ground for discipline. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. Mrs. Fowler proved at trial, as Judge Milburn says at page 660 of his opinion, that she was discharged because the board members regarded the movie as "immoral, antieducation, antifamily, antijudiciary, and antipolice." Bd. Bryan, John C. Fogle, argued, Mt. The cases just discussed demonstrate that conduct is protected by the First Amendment only when it is expressive or communicative in nature. . at 3165 (emphasis supplied). Rather, the proper focus of our inquiry is whether Fowler was engaged in expressive activity protected by the First Amendment, and nothing in the record would indicate that she was so engaged. 302, 307 (E.D.Tex. Bethel School District No. The evidence in Wood established that the teachers had been smoking marijuana with two fifteen-year-old students in the teachers' apartment. Andrew Tony Fowler Overview. FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION. Joint Appendix at 120-22. Under the circumstances of that case, the court concluded that plaintiff's discharge was not constitutionally offensive. In this appeal, defendants contend that the district court erred in its conclusion that plaintiff's discharge violated her First Amendment rights. As those cases recognize, the First . 532, 535-36, 75 L.Ed. Joint Appendix at 291. Jarman v. Williams, 753 F.2d 76, 77-78 (8th Cir. At the bench trial in the district court, Fowler repeated her contention that she believed the movie contained important, socially valuable messages. . Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. a statute that required state employees, including teachers, to take a loyalty oath forswearing communism); Fowler v. Bd. The superintendent . The notice advised her that a hearing would be held on July 10, 1984, and she subsequently advised the board of her intention to appear at the hearing and contest the charges. She testified that, despite the fact that she had never seen the movie before having it shown to her students, and despite the fact that she was posting grades on report cards and left the room several times while the movie was being shown, she believed it had significant value. Id., at 839-40. Thus, this case is distinguishable from those in which the Supreme Court has afforded First Amendment protection in cases involving expressive conduct. the Draft" into a courthouse corridor. Jacqueline Fowler had worked in the Lincoln County, Ky., school system for 14 years when she was fired in July 1984 for insubordination and conduct unbecoming a teacher. 2727, 2730, 41 L.Ed.2d 842 (1974). "Consciously or otherwise, teachers . As we have noted, the "R" rated movie was shown on a noninstructional day to students in Fowler's classes in grades nine through eleven who were of ages ranging from fourteen through seventeen. Arnett, 416 U.S. at 161, 94 S.Ct. She was discharged in July, 1984 for insubordination and conduct unbecoming a teacher. The board then retired into executive session. 1980); Russo v. Central School District No. When Fowler had the movie shown on the morning of May 31, 1984, she instructed Charles Bailey, the fifteen-year-old student who had seen the movie, to edit out any parts that were unsuitable for viewing at school. The mere fact that at some point she may have developed an approval of the content of the movie is not, standing alone, a sufficient basis for the conclusion that her conduct in having the movie shown was a form of expression entitled to protection under the First Amendment. I would also question the notion that an explanation from the teacher was necessary before the class was likely to understand the themes and viewpoints contained in this film. They also found the movie objectionable because of its sexual content, vulgar language, and violence. View Case Cited Cases Citing Case Cited Cases Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. [54] JOHN W. PECK, Senior Circuit Judge, concurring. 2176, 2181, 68 L.Ed.2d 671 (1981) (entertainment protected same as political or ideological speech); Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 433 U.S. 562, 578, 97 S.Ct. The day on which the movie was shown, May 31, 1984, was a noninstructional day used by teachers for completing grade cards. However, I conclude that Fowler's conduct in having the movie shown under the circumstances present here did not constitute expression protected by the First Amendment. Id., at 862, 869, 102 S.Ct. There is conflicting testimony as to whether, or how much, nudity was seen by the students. She testified that, despite the fact that she had never seen the movie before having it shown to her students, and despite the fact that she was posting grades on report cards and left the room several times while the movie was being shown, she believed it had significant value. The district court concluded that Fowler was not insubordinate because she did not violate an established rule or regulation, and also found that plaintiff's due process rights were not violated by the procedures utilized at the administrative hearing. Plaintiff cross-appeals from the holding that K.R.S. 161.790(1)(b) was not vague or overbroad, apparently for the reason that, because Fowler's conduct was protected by the First Amendment, such conduct "as a matter of fact and law did not constitute conduct unbecoming a teacher." at 287, 97 S.Ct. Ms. Francisca Montoya is a lifelong resident of Maricopa County and advocate of public education. The basis for this action was that she had an "R" rated movie, Pink Floyd--The Wall, shown to her high school students on the last day of the 1983-84 school year. 1984). The vagueness doctrine requires that a statute proscribing certain conduct must be drafted "with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement." CASE TITLE:Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County Kentucky CITATION: Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County, 819 F.2d 657 (Sixth Circuit, 1987) FACTSA tenured teacher's employment was ended because she had an "R" rated movie, Pink Floyd--The Wall,shown to her high school students on the last day of the school year. 1972), cert. What one judge sees as "gross and bizarre," another may find, as did District Judge Scott Reed below, mild and not very "sexually suggestive.". Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 last June to overturn the trial judge and uphold the firing. In the present case the district court concluded that Mrs. Fowler was entitled to the protection of the First Amendment while acting as a teacher. It is undisputed that Fowler was discharged for the showing of the movie, Pink Floyd The Wall. at 2805-06, 2809. Fisher v. Snyder, 476375 (8th Cir. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Boring v. Buncombe County Board of Education (136 E 3 d 364 [1998]), the Fourth Circuit Court, citing the 1988 decision Hazelwood v. Kulhmeir (484 U.S. 260), found 1855, 1858, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983); Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-09, 92 S.Ct. 693, 58 L.Ed.2d 619 (1979); Mt. 733, 736, 21 L.Ed.2d 731 (1969). Charles Bailey, age fifteen, who had seen the movie on prior occasions, indicated that the movie had "one bad place in it." The basis for this action was that she had an "R" rated movie, Pink Floyd--The Wall, shown to her high school students on the last day of the 1983-84 school year. 161.790(1), which proscribes conduct unbecoming a teacher, is unconstitutionally vague as applied to her conduct. Even when the actor does intend to communicate a message by his conduct, a governmental interest in regulating the nonspeech aspect of such conduct may justify incidental restrictions on the speech aspect as well. Under circumstances such as these, I cannot conclude that Fowler possessed "[a]n intent to convey a particularized message" to her students. 1178, 87 L.Ed. The school board stated insubordination as an alternate ground for plaintiff's dismissal. As herein above indicated, I concur in the result reached in Judge Milburn's opinion. See Tinker, 393 U.S. at 506, 89 S.Ct. Healthy. O'Brien, 391 U.S. at 376, 88 S.Ct. (same); id. In order to defend itself against such a claim, the government must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the decision to terminate would have been made in the absence of the exercise of the constitutionally protected right. This lack of love is the figurative "wall" shown in the movie. Consequently, the focus of our inquiry is whether Fowler's conduct was constitutionally protected. On its distinctive facts, Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County, Kentucky' is almost ideally suited as a vehicle for reexamining some of the "deeper" issues associated with the in-school speech of public high school teachers in particular and with free speech law in general. 1780, 29 L.Ed.2d 284 (1971), the Supreme Court held constitutionally protected the act of wearing a jacket bearing the words "!?X! Fraser, 106 S.Ct. This segment of the film was shown in the morning session. Cir. In Spence, the undisputed facts established that the appellant hung a United States flag with a peace symbol affixed to it because he "wanted people to know that [he] thought America stood for peace." Id. Joint Appendix at 242-46. Purely expressive works songs, movies and books of entertainment value only are protected by the First Amendment just like works of moral philosophy. Judge H. Ted Milburn said Ms. Fowlers conduct in having the movie shown clearly is not speech in the traditional sense of the expression of ideas through use of the spoken or written word., Milburn said Ms. Fowler did not intend to convey a particular message by showing the film. Healthy, 429 U.S. at 282-84, 97 S.Ct. On July 10, 1984, plaintiff Fowler appeared with counsel at the administrative hearing. United States District Court (Eastern District of Michigan). 2880, 2897, 37 L.Ed.2d 796 (1973)). For example, in Frison v. Franklin County Board of Education, 596 F.2d 1192 (4th Cir. She believed the movie portrayed the dangers of alienation between people and of repressive educational systems. The board viewed the movie once in its entirety and once as it had been edited in the classroom. Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County, (1978) 819 F.2d 657 Management Resources: This segment of the film was shown in the morning session. It is undisputed that the audio portion of the movie, which contained enough offensive language to mandate an automatic "R" rating under motion picture industry standards, was played through the entire movie. The Supreme Court has consistently recognized the importance of the exercise of First Amendment rights in the context of public schools. "And our decision in Fowler v. Bd. 2730 (citation omitted). See, e.g., Mt. 529, 34 L.Ed.2d 491 (1972). See Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405, 409-12, 94 S.Ct. The most conscientious of codes that define prohibited conduct of employees includes `catchall' clauses prohibiting employee `misconduct,' `immorality,' or `conduct unbecoming.'" It is obvious, therefore, that Mrs. Fowler's discharge was prompted by the content of the movie. Arthur L. Brooks, Jane V. Fitzpatrick, Brooks, Coffman and Fitzpatrick, Lexington, Ky., Walter Alan Kamiat, argued, Bredhoff Kaiser, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellee, cross-appellant. Joint Appendix at 120-22. at 737). -The district court ruled in favor of Fowler, concluding that her actions are indeed protected under the First Amendment. Plaintiff cross-appeals on the ground that K.R.S. Pucci v. Michigan Supreme Court, Case No. Following this executive session, the board returned to open session and voted unanimously to terminate plaintiff's employment for insubordination and conduct unbecoming a teacher. 1, Once again, there is conflicting testimony concerning the effectiveness of the editing attempt. Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104, 110, 92 S.Ct. 5//28he wds employed by the % "incoln ounty 5//28chool istrict in $ !entucky. I agree with both of these findings. The Court in Mt. She also said she would show an edited version of the movie again if she had the opportunity to explain it to the students. Another shows police brutality. 08-10557. Bd. When Fowler had the movie shown on the morning of May 31, 1984, she instructed Charles Bailey, the fifteen-year-old student who had seen the movie, to edit out any parts that were unsuitable for viewing at school. Id., at 1194. Because some parts of the film are animated, they are susceptible to varying interpretations. Following her termination, plaintiff Fowler initiated her action in the district court alleging that her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by her discharge, and that the Kentucky statutes forming the basis for her discharge were unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. Summary of this case from Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County. Where a plaintiff can show that her constitutionally-protected conduct was a "substantial" or "motivating" factor in the discharge decision, the employer must prove "by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have reached the same decision as to . High School (D. . 2799, 73 L.Ed.2d 435 (1982), and Bethel School Dist. He finds that Ms. Fowler did not possess "[a]n intent to convey a particularized message" to her students because she was not familiar with the content of the film before she showed it, citing Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405, 410, 94 S.Ct. of Educ.. (opinion of Powell, J.) Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like Pickering v. See United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S.Ct. . Fowler rented the video tape at a video store in Danville, Kentucky. Joint Appendix at 321. She introduced a controversial and sexually explicit movie into a classroom of adolescents without preview, preparation or discussion. 352, 356 (M.D.Ala. . As the District Court correctly found, the school board in this case had to negate the testimony of its own members that the determinative causative factor in Mrs. Fowler's discharge was her decision to allow "antieducation, antifamily, antijudiciary, and antipolice" views to be expressed in her classroom. Consequently, it awarded her reinstatement, back pay with interest, reimbursement of funds necessary for her reinstatement with the Kentucky Teachers Retirement System, damages for emotional distress and damage to professional reputation, compensatory damages for costs incurred in seeking new employment, costs, and attorney's fees. At the administrative hearing, several students testified that they saw no nudity. Mt. See also In re Matter of Certain Complaints Under Investigation, 783 F.2d 1488, 1512-13 (11th Cir.) To the extent that the district court's finding of fact number 34 may be interpreted as a finding that the defendants objected to the film only on an ideological level, the finding is clearly erroneous. Joint Appendix at 265-89. at 1788. The students in Fowler's classes were in grades nine through eleven and were of the ages fourteen through seventeen. Consequently, it awarded her reinstatement, back pay with interest, reimbursement of funds necessary for her reinstatement with the Kentucky Teachers Retirement System, damages for emotional distress and damage to professional reputation, compensatory damages for costs incurred in seeking new employment, costs, and attorney's fees. Plaintiff Jacqueline Fowler was a tenured teacher employed by the Lincoln County, Kentucky, school system for fourteen years. 675, 683-84, 17 L.Ed.2d 629 (1967) (discussing importance of academic freedom). There is also conflicting testimony regarding the amount of sexual innuendo existing in the "unedited" version of the film. She stated that she did not at any time discuss the movie with her students because she did not have enough time. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 97 S.Ct. Nancy J. Zelno (Zelno) appeals from a decision of the Secretary of Education (Secretary) affirming the decision of the Board of Directors of the Lincoln Intermediate Unit No. 215, 221, 97 L.Ed. 1985) (nonexpressive dancing constitutes conduct not entitled to protection of the First Amendment). of Educ. He did so by attempting to cover the 25" screen with an 8 1/2" by 11" letter-sized file folder. The district court concluded that plaintiff was not insubordinate because she did not violate any established rule or regulation, nor did she refuse to obey the directions of her superiors. 1987 Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County , 819 F.2d 657 (6th Cir.). of Educ. The day on which the movie was shown, May 31, 1984, was a noninstructional day used by teachers for completing grade cards. 06-1215(ESH). Fowler rented the video tape at a video store in Danville, Kentucky. The school board was also motivated by the poor judgment used by the teacher in not previewing an R-rated film and in the cavalier manner in which she allowed the film to be shown and "edited" by a student. 736; James, 461 F.2d at 571. Plaintiff relies on Minarcini v. Strongsville City School District, 541 F.2d 577 (6th Cir. The court noted that "[t]he evidence indicates that there was serious misconduct of an immoral and criminal nature and a direct connection between the misconduct and the teachers' work." Justice Brennan restated the test to decide intent and asserted: Pico, 477 U.S. at 871, 102 S.Ct. Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183, 196, 73 S.Ct. 2799, 73 L.Ed.2d 435 (1982). This segment of the film was shown in the morning session. Board of Education (SBE) to be aligned with those standards. 1976) (teacher could not successfully contend that "due and sufficient cause" standard did not give notice that improper conduct toward students would result in discipline); Kilpatrick v. Wright, 437 F. Supp. Plaintiff argues that Ky.Rev.Stat. The justices, without comment, let stand a ruling that the teacher's free- expression rights were not violated. Healthy City School Dist. District Office Staff; Three Year Strategic Plan; Supergram; District Calendar; FUSD Annual Calendar; Student Achievement; Board of Trustees; Accessibility Information 161.790(1), which proscribes conduct unbecoming a teacher, is unconstitutionally vague as applied to her conduct. In Minarcini, this court held that this "right to know" was violated by the removal of library books solely on the basis of the social and political tastes of the school board. . Moreover, even these three justices explicitly noted that the decision regarding this right did not extend to the classroom. Because the intent to express was coupled with a great likelihood that the message would be understood, the Court concluded that the conduct was entitled to protection under the First Amendment. Justice Brennan apparently concludes that a school board may make proper objections to content that is pervasively vulgar or educationally unsuitable but warns that this may not be asserted to mask a decision interfering with the communication of political ideas with which they disagree. She believed the movie portrayed the dangers of alienation between people and of repressive educational systems. The district court concluded that Fowler was not insubordinate because she did not violate an established rule or regulation, and also found that plaintiff's due process rights were not violated by the procedures utilized at the administrative hearing. Defendants, The Board of Education of Lincoln County, Kentucky, individual board members, and the Superintendent of the Lincoln County Schools, appeal from the judgment of the district court awarding reinstatement and damages to plaintiff Jacqueline Fowler on the ground that her employment was terminated in violation of her First Amendment rights. A group of students requested that Fowler allow the movie to be shown while she was completing the grade cards. Moreover, there is testimony supporting the fact that more editing was done in the afternoon showing than in the morning showing. of Lincoln Cty .. Relying on Fowler v. Board of Education. Moreover, there is testimony supporting the fact that more editing was done in the afternoon showing than in the morning showing. Because some parts of the film are animated, they are susceptible to varying interpretations. The dissent accurately points out that "the school board did not like the content of the movie" but their objections to the "immoral" content of the film were intertwined with constitutionally permissible objections to the film's above mentioned vulgarity and unsuitability for the student age group and cannot survive the "but for" test of Mt. 1178, 1183, 87 L.Ed. 2. Joint Appendix at 82-83. Ms. Montoya's professional experience spans 25 plus years in non-profit management, government relations, and community and economic development. 1979), a teacher was demoted after an incident in which she disciplined students caught passing notes by reading the note in class and explaining "that three vulgar colloquialisms contained in the note were not obscene when used in different contexts." On its distinctive facts, Fowler v. Board of Education Lincoln County, Kentucky' is almost ideally suited as a vehicle for reex- amining some of the "deeper" issues associated with in-school speech of public high school teachers in particular and with free speech law in general. In fact, Mrs. Fowler was not discharged because she entertained her students: she was discharged because the school board did not like the content of the movie. In addition to the sexual aspects of the movie, there is a great deal of violence. When Fowler had the movie shown on the morning of May 31, 1984, she instructed Charles Bailey, the fifteen-year-old student who had seen the movie, to edit out any parts that were unsuitable for viewing at school. At the bench trial in the district court, Fowler repeated her contention that she believed the movie contained important, socially valuable messages. One particularly controversial segment of scenes is animated in which flowers appear on the screen, are transformed into the shape of male and female sex organs and then engage in an act of intercourse. 1987). 2727, 2729-31, 41 L.Ed.2d 842 (1974) (per curiam) (display of flag with peace symbol attached was expressive conduct entitled to protection under First Amendment); Tinker, 393 U.S. at 505, 89 S.Ct. Judge Milburn states further that "plaintiff's conduct in having the movie shown cannot be considered expressive or communicative. See Minarcini v. Strongsville City School Dist., 541 F.2d 577 (6th Cir. 733, 736, 21 L.Ed.2d 731 (1969), has acknowledged that students and teachers do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." 2176, 68 L.Ed.2d 671 (1981), and Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting casting Co., 433 U.S. 562, 97 S.Ct. 1980); Cary v. Board of Education, 598 F.2d 535, 539-42 (10th Cir. 393 U.S. at 505-08, 89 S.Ct. At the administrative hearing, several students testified that they saw no nudity. 1970), is misplaced. Defendants, The Board of Education of Lincoln County, Kentucky, individual board members, and the Superintendent of the Lincoln County Schools, appeal from the judgment of the district court awarding reinstatement and damages to plaintiff Jacqueline Fowler on the ground that her employment was terminated in violation of her First Amendment rights. Healthy case, involving actions by a teacher outside the school environment, must be viewed in light of the court's deference to the autonomy of school boards in regulating the educational process.
Yale Lacrosse Prospect Day 2022,
Doug Christie Assistant Coach,
Articles F