Court: Plano principals immune in suit over students stopped from handing out religious items

[rug]

TERRY WALLACE Associated Press
First Posted: September 27, 2011 - 7:52 pm
Last Updated: September 27, 2011 - 9:40 pm

DALLAS — A federal appeals court says two Dallas-area elementary school principals are immune from liability for stopping students from handing out Christian candy cane pens and other on-campus religious expressions, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

By a 10-6 vote, the full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans agreed that Plano school principals Lynn Swanson and Jackie Bomchill had qualified immunity from being assessed damages for their actions. That reversed lower-court rulings that would subject Swanson and Bomchill, individually, to damages.

However, a 10-6 majority held that the principals went too far and may have violated the children's free-speech rights.

Four families with students in Plano schools sued in 2004, claiming their children had been banned from handing out pencils saying "Jesus is the reason for the season," candy canes with cards describing their Christian origin, and other religious materials.

http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/d4967e6c415e4ad3b404419b10e4afd1/TX--Religious-Students-Lawsuit/

[dmallind]

1. makes sense

The school or staff handing these things out would run afoul of establishment. Kids doing so is just peachy AS LONG AS other kids are free to hand out similar gifts saying "Axial tilt is the real reason for the season" or tree ornaments explaining their pagan origins. Or, more realistically, are free to hand out Diwali gifts or Eid treats.

I don't know enough law to have a valid opinion on whether they should be liable (for what tort though?) but I agree that they should not have restricted gift-giving on religious grounds.

[msongs]

2. great so kids can hand out "christians suck", "Nazis were right" and other free speech items nt

[Goblinmonger]

3. Did these Principals allow that?

Because I don't think so.

The "Christians suck" would be covered by the same concept. If they let some hand stuff out they have to let them all.

As to the Nazi example, are you saying that being a Nazi was tied to religion? Because I think you could hand those things out without religious restrictions coming in to play.

All that said, there are more restrictions, understandably, on school grounds than there are off of it.

[Jim__]

4. What kind of damages did they want?

Teachers and principals are in an impossible situation. They have to decide whether or not something can be distributed; and either way they decide, someone is going to be offended and ultimately, a court gets to decide - in this case, 7 years later. Holding the teacher or principal liable for a decision for which there is no clear basis to decide would be idiotic.

[rug]

5. The damages aren't specified in the opinion.

The decision is limited to the issue of whether there is liability in the first place.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/09/09-40373-CV3.wpd.pdf

I haven't found the original complaint but I bet the damages asked for there are unspecified.