ORDER IS PERMANENT ON “MOMENT OF SILENCE” LAW
The U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a permanent injunction on the Illinois "Moment of Si1ence" law on Wednesday, January 21, 2009. The law was challenged by a student of Buffalo Grove Township High School District #214. The student is the daughter of activist Robert Sherman.
The Court ruled that the law, as written, amounted to an unconstitutional endorsement of religion aimed at introducing prayer in public schools. The law, which states that the moment of silence should be used as “...an opportunity for silent prayer or reflection on the anticipated activities" raised many questions as to its application, including questions as to when the pause was to take place, how long the moment of silence was to take, and how school employees were to participate in the moment of silence. The permanent injunction effectively nullities the statute.
The Office of the Illinois Attorney General is reviewing whether or not to bring an he appeal with regard to the Federal Court Order.
SCHOOL EMPLOYEES COMPAINLAINTS TO SCHOOL PERSONNEL WERE NOT PROTECTED BY FIRST AMENDMENT
In another recent Federal District Court case decided by the Northern District of Illinois, Bryant v. Gardner, the Federal District Court provided Illinois school districts with further guidance as to what types of employee statements are not protected by the First Amendment.
In Gardner, all of the Teacher’s statements to school personnel about the cancellation of an open gym, and about basketball expenditures and school district resource allocation, were determined to have been made pursuant to his official duties as the Coach of the Boys Basketball Team. As such, they were not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Teacher’s speech was directed at trying to get the interim Principal to reverse certain decisions in order to benefit the Teacher’s players. The mere fact that the Teacher repeated his comments to other non-school personnel did not mean that he was speaking as a "private citizen" for First Amendment purposes.
The Gardner case follows a line of recent cases holding that when an employee makes comments within the scope of his or her employment, such comments are not protected by the First Amendment, and may result in employee discipline without implicating First Amendment concerns.
January, 2009