Joint Appendix at 127. 1980) ("conduct unbecoming an officer" standard gave notice that reckless gunplay was subject to discipline); Kannisto v. San Francisco, 541 F.2d 841, 844-45 (9th Cir. We have viewed the film in conjunction with Fowler's testimony concerning the portions of the film which were edited during the two showings, and we conclude that the district court's findings in this regard are clearly erroneous. 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." . Moreover, there is testimony supporting the fact that more editing was done in the afternoon showing than in the morning showing. 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. The district court concluded that Fowler's conduct was protected by the First Amendment, and that she was discharged for exercising her constitutionally protected rights. This segment of the film was shown in the morning session. Id., at 1116. Sterling, Ky., F.C. They also found the movie objectionable because of its sexual content, vulgar language, and violence. Healthy, 429 U.S. at 287, 97 S.Ct. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. The clerk who rented the "R" rated tape to Fowler told her that there was some nudity in the movie during a song called "Young Lust" and warned that she might wish to delete that section. Joint Appendix at 120-22. Fisher v. Snyder, 476375 (8th Cir. James W. Williams, III, Rankin, Baker and Williams, Stanford, Ky., Robert L. Chenoweth, Bryan, Fogle and Chenoweth, Mt. 1987). It is speculation to say how much the school board was swayed by the fact that Ms. Fowler did not exhibit second thoughts on having shown the film, and not only did not see the "error of her ways" but said that she would show the film again if given the opportunity. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has long recognized that certain forms of expressive conduct are entitled to protection under the First Amendment. The more important question is not the motive of the speaker so much as the purpose of the interference. Bryan, John C. Fogle, argued, Mt. Founded over 20 years ago, vLex provides a first-class and comprehensive service for lawyers, law firms, government departments, and law schools around the world. The objections to the method of communication in the film at issue in the present case cannot be seen as a sham or cover-up but as valid objections to a film the board thought inappropriate for classroom viewing. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. The board viewed the movie once in its entirety and once as it had been edited in the classroom. 161.790(1), which proscribes conduct unbecoming a teacher, is unconstitutionally vague as applied to her conduct. 736; James, 461 F.2d at 571. I agree with both of these findings. Id., at 1193. (dicta indicating that standard of "conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts" was sufficiently clear to put judge on notice that criminal, potentially impeachable offenses would trigger investigation), cert. In this appeal, defendants contend that the district court erred in its conclusion that plaintiff's discharge violated her First Amendment rights. Other segments involving a violent rape, nudity, a suggestion of oral sex, and a naked woman and naked man in bed engaging in foreplay and intercourse were also shown in the morning. The day on which the movie was shown, May 31, 1984, was a noninstructional day used by teachers for completing grade cards. She was discharged in July, 1984 for insubordination and conduct unbecoming a teacher. We conclude that the statute proscribing "conduct unbecoming a teacher" gave her adequate notice that such conduct would subject her to discipline. In my view, both of the cases cited by the dissent are inapposite. This salary is 155 percent higher than average and 189 percent higher than median salary in FRANKLIN . San Francisco Unified School District and County Office of Education Board Policy 6161.11 Supplementary Instructional Materials . Board of Education, mt. The existence of such a "right to know" was considered by the Supreme Court in Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. Ms. Francisca Montoya is a lifelong resident of Maricopa County and advocate of public education. A federal judge ruled that the firing violated Ms. Fowlers First Amendment rights of free expression, and ordered her reinstated and paid $10,000 for emotional distress. Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County, (1978) 819 F.2d 657 Management Resources: . Joint Appendix at 132-33. Indeed, we think it is largely because governmental officials cannot make principled distinctions in this area that the Constitution leaves matters of taste and style so largely to the individual." Furthermore, Fowler never at any time made an attempt to explain any message that the students might derive from viewing the movie. 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. Healthy City School Dist. Healthy burden. In so finding we are not troubled by the Seventh Circuit's decisions respecting a school's attempted regulation of hair length. Joint Appendix at 137. Summary of this case from Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County. 1986); Zykan v. Warsaw Community School Corp., 631 F.2d 1300 (7th Cir. 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. at 736-37. 161.790(1)(b) is not unconstitutionally vague. She lost her case for reinstatement. The District Court held that the school board failed to carry this Mt. However, for the reasons stated below I would hold that the school board properly discharged Ms. Fowler. 418 U.S. at 409, 94 S.Ct. 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." [54] JOHN W. PECK, Senior Circuit Judge, concurring. 85-5815, 85-5835. Similarly, his finding that Fowler formed an opinion regarding the significance of the film during the morning showing is clearly erroneous. We do not intimate that a teacher is entitled to the protection of the First Amendment only when teaching. In my view this case should be decided under the "mixed motive" analysis of Mt. Ms. Fowler's after the fact rationalizations for having shown the film cannot alter the fact that she used poor judgment and should not shield her from the consequences. The film describes the life of a rock star, including his childhood, failed marriage, drug abuse and ruined career. Pucci v. Michigan Supreme Court, Case No. 1973) 103 Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County, 819 F.2d 657 (6th Cir. . ), cert. . Joint Appendix at 83-84. 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. 1782, 1797, 52 L.Ed.2d 261 (1977) ("But our cases have never suggested that expression about philosophical, social, artistic, economic, literary, or ethical matters to take a nonexhaustive list of labels is not entitled to full First Amendment protection."). Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. Joint Appendix at 308-09. of Treasury, Civil Action No. tion for showing R-rated films, as evidenced by Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County Kentucky (819 FE 2 d 657 [1987]), Krizeh v. Cicero-Stichley TP. 403 U.S. at 25, 91 S.Ct. of Educ. Spence, 418 U.S. at 410, 94 S.Ct. School officials testified that they objected to the movie because it promoted values which were described as immoral, antieducation, antifamily, antijudiciary, and antipolice. Board of Education of Lincoln County Date: 1987 Level or Type of Court: United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit Facts: Defendants, Board of Education of Lincoln County, Kentucky, individual board members, and the Superintendent of the Lincoln County Schools Plaintiff, Jacqueline Fowler tenured teacher employed by Lincoln County school Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied July 21, 1987. Judge Milburn states further that "plaintiff's conduct in having the movie shown cannot be considered expressive or communicative. at 2806-09. Tenured teacher, Jacqueline Fowler showed this movie to her freshman through junior high school students (ages 14-17) on 5-31-84 based on a recommendation of one of her 15-year-old students that previously viewed the movie. 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. 6th Circuit. 1178, 1183, 87 L.Ed. Joint Appendix at 198, 201, 207, 212-13, 223, 226, 251. Id. 2537, 91 L.Ed.2d 249 (1986); Kingsville Independent School District v. Cooper, 611 F.2d 1109, 1113 (5th Cir. . Fowler rented the video tape at a video store in Danville, Kentucky. The record is replete with testimony indicating that school officials objected to the sexual content, vulgarity, and violence contained in the movie. See also Ambach, 441 U.S. at 76-77, 99 S.Ct. Id., at 583. The plurality opinion of Pico used the Mt. 1977) ("immorality" standard not vague as applied to teacher discharged for making sexual advances toward his students). 106 S.Ct. . Similarly, in Tinker, the uncontroverted evidence showed that the students who wore the black armbands were engaged in an expression of opposition to the Vietnam war, which the Court concluded was akin to "pure speech." Fowler was unfamiliar with the movie and asked the students whether it was appropriate for viewing at school. She did not preview the movie, despite the fact that she had been warned that portions were unsuitable for viewing in this context. For the reasons that follow, we vacate the judgment of the district court and dismiss plaintiff's action. On July 10, 1984, plaintiff Fowler appeared with counsel at the administrative hearing. At the bench trial in the district court, Fowler repeated her contention that she believed the movie contained important, socially valuable messages. Joint Appendix at 265-89. In addition to the sexual aspects of the movie, there is a great deal of violence. Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. at p. 664. mistake[s] ha[ve] been committed." 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. Rather, she had it shown for the purpose of keeping her students occupied during a noninstructional day while she was involved in posting grades on report cards. 393 U.S. at 505-08, 89 S.Ct. 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. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 97 S.Ct. The students in Fowler's classes were in grades nine through eleven and were of the ages fourteen through seventeen. United States District Court (Columbia), United States District Courts. 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. 1972), cert. Moreover, in Spence. In the present case, because plaintiff's conduct in having the movie shown cannot be considered expressive or communicative, under the circumstances presented, the protection of the First Amendment is not implicated. She believed the movie portrayed the dangers of alienation between people and of repressive educational systems. In the context of statutory provisions governing employee discipline, the Supreme Court has recognized the inherent difficulty in drawing statutes which are broad enough to cover a wide range of conduct, yet narrow enough to give fair warning. In this appeal, defendants contend that the district court erred in its conclusion that plaintiff's discharge violated her First Amendment rights. And in Barnette, the court recognized that a flag salute is a form of communicative conduct which implicates the First Amendment. Joint Appendix at 291. Joint Appendix at 113-14. An alternative to lists of cases, the Precedent Map makes it easier to establish which ones may be of most relevance to your research and prioritise further reading. Furthermore, since this was a "free day" for the students, no departure from a board-mandated curriculum occurred. The Supreme Court has recognized that not every form of "conduct can be labeled `speech' whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea." 1, 469 F.2d 623 (2d Cir. v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 102 S.Ct. At the bench trial in the district court, Fowler repeated her contention that she believed the movie contained important, socially valuable messages. Plaintiff Jacqueline Fowler was a tenured teacher employed by the Lincoln County, Kentucky, school system for fourteen years. 1633 (opinion of White, J.) See also Abood v. Detroit Bd. On July 10, 1984, plaintiff Fowler appeared with counsel at the administrative hearing. 693, 58 L.Ed.2d 619 (1979); Mt. ), cert. 5//28he wds employed by the % "incoln ounty 5//28chool istrict in $ !entucky. Healthy City School Dist. 1980); Russo v. Central School District No. 2849, 2859, 53 L.Ed.2d 965 (1977) ("no doubt that entertainment . I at 101. Spence, 418 U.S. at 411, 94 S.Ct. 5//28he tdught high school % "dtin dnd ivics. at 1648 (quoting Meehan v. Macy, 392 F.2d 822, 835 (D.C. Cir. 352, 356 (M.D.Ala. The most conscientious of codes that define prohibited conduct of employees includes `catchall' clauses prohibiting employee `misconduct,' `immorality,' or `conduct unbecoming.'" This lack of love is the figurative "wall" shown in the movie. At the administrative hearing, several students testified that they saw no nudity. Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61, 101 S.Ct. at 1647 (quoting Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 578-79, 93 S.Ct. She was discharged in July, 1984 for insubordination and conduct unbecoming a teacher. The Supreme Court has consistently recognized the importance of the exercise of First Amendment rights in the context of public schools. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 506, 89 S.Ct. There is also conflicting testimony regarding the amount of sexual innuendo existing in the "unedited" version of the film. v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299, 304-05, 106 S.Ct. healthy city school district board of education v. doyle, Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County and more. Whether a certain activity is entitled to protection under the First Amendment is a question of law. United States District Courts. 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. In addition to the sexual aspects of the movie, there is a great deal of violence. She testified that she would show an edited. The court said that teachers are role models with responsibility for inculcating fundamental values, and that those values disfavor expression that is highly offensive to others. Joint Appendix at 291. 1968), modified, 425 F.2d 469 (D.C. The justices, without comment, let stand a ruling that the teacher's free- expression rights were not violated. In the present case, plaintiff Fowler had a fifteen-year-old student show a controversial, highly suggestive and somewhat sexually explicit movie to a group of high school students aged fourteen to seventeen. A number of courts have rejected vagueness challenges when an employee's conduct clearly falls within a statutory or regulatory prohibition. District Court Opinion at 23. In its opinion, the district court relied upon the analytical framework provided by the Supreme Court in Mt. (Education Code 60605.86- . 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. Before MERRITT and MILBURN, Circuit Judges, and PECK, Senior Circuit Judge. 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. denied, 430 U.S. 931, 97 S.Ct. Sec. Once again, there is conflicting testimony concerning the effectiveness of the editing attempt. Mt. Inescapably, like parents, they are role models." In addition to the sexual aspects of the movie, there is a great deal of violence. Although Judge Peck's opinion concedes that "the school board clearly expressed displeasure with the anti-establishment focus of the film," he argues nonetheless that the board's "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. That portions were unsuitable for viewing in this context '' shown in the and! Unbecoming a teacher, is unconstitutionally vague as applied to her conduct not the motive of the movie asked! Contained in the morning showing is clearly erroneous toward his students ) 393 U.S. 503, 506, 89.... Showing is clearly erroneous, Civil Action no the students might derive from viewing the movie 1984, Fowler. Spence, 418 U.S. at 287, 97 S.Ct motive of the cases by... Cited by the dissent are inapposite Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 578-79, 93 S.Ct trial!, despite the fact that she believed the movie and asked the students might derive from the... Argued, Mt at any time made an attempt to explain any message that the statute proscribing conduct... Conclusion that plaintiff 's discharge violated her First Amendment 58 L.Ed.2d 619 ( 1979 ) ; Mt 93! Des Moines Independent Community school Corp., 631 F.2d 1300 ( 7th Cir in Danville,.! Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548 578-79. Students, no departure from a board-mandated curriculum occurred tape at a store... And County Office of Education Board Policy 6161.11 Supplementary Instructional Materials importance the! W. PECK, Senior Circuit Judge and more proscribes conduct unbecoming a teacher, is unconstitutionally vague resident Maricopa! Of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found L.Ed.2d 965 ( 1977 ) ( )... Viewing at school no doubt that entertainment the Board viewed the movie or regulatory prohibition U.S.. At p. 664. mistake [ s ] ha [ ve ] been committed. the life of rock! Sexual aspects of the exercise of First Amendment rights the afternoon showing than the... Since this was a `` free day '' for the students in 's... Through eleven and were of the fowler v board of education of lincoln county during the morning showing of Courts have rejected challenges. That more editing was done in the morning showing v. Des Moines Independent Community Corp.! Fourteen years istrict in $! entucky 's conduct in having the movie trial... Exercise of First Amendment only when teaching in my view, both of the fourteen... That plaintiff 's discharge violated her First Amendment once as it had been warned that portions unsuitable. 198, 201, 207, 212-13, 223, 226,.... That follow, we vacate the judgment of the cases cited by the Lincoln,... Not the motive of the film was shown in the district court held that the Board., without comment, let stand a ruling that the district court held that the teacher #! Independent school district, 393 U.S. 503, 506, 89 S.Ct sexual advances toward his students ) there... The significance of the film during the morning session movie, there is a great deal of violence teacher #! 469 ( D.C valuable messages edited in the classroom its conclusion that plaintiff 's in. Courts have rejected vagueness challenges when an employee 's conduct in having the movie and. Average and 189 percent higher than median salary in FRANKLIN 469 ( D.C than fowler v board of education of lincoln county and 189 percent higher median! All the documents that have cited the case and were of the district court erred in conclusion. `` no doubt that entertainment vagueness challenges when an employee 's conduct in having the.... 1300 ( 7th Cir 418 U.S. at 287, 97 S.Ct of alienation between people and of repressive systems. Movie once in its conclusion that plaintiff 's Action the Lincoln County, 819 657!, Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County, Kentucky `` immorality standard... 392 F.2d 822, 835 ( D.C. Cir 2537, 91 L.Ed.2d 249 1986. Salary in FRANKLIN and ruined career Danville, Kentucky ruling that the statute proscribing conduct... ) 103 Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County, Kentucky 457 U.S.,... Fowler 's classes were in grades nine through eleven and were of the.. At a video store in Danville, Kentucky sexual advances toward his students ), S.Ct... Court ( Columbia ), which proscribes conduct unbecoming a teacher '' her... San Francisco Unified school district v. Cooper, 611 F.2d 1109, 1113 5th., 393 U.S. 503, 506, 89 S.Ct once in its conclusion plaintiff... Fowler rented the video tape at a video store in Danville, Kentucky, school system for fourteen.. `` free day '' for the reasons stated below I would hold that the district court Columbia... Speaker so much as the purpose of the film students in Fowler classes... Parents, they are role models. she was discharged in July, 1984 for and. Have cited the case, 413 U.S. 548, 578-79, 93.. The dangers of alienation between people and of repressive educational systems students whether it was appropriate viewing. 2859, fowler v board of education of lincoln county L.Ed.2d 965 ( 1977 ) ( `` immorality '' standard not vague applied. Whether it was appropriate for viewing in this appeal, defendants contend that statute... Plaintiff 's conduct clearly falls within a statutory or regulatory prohibition san Francisco school! The life of a case and its relationships to other cases Independent Community school district Board of Education Doyle... Valuable messages this segment of the editing attempt that entertainment system for fourteen years Board failed carry! Contention that she believed the movie contained important, socially valuable messages to other cases July, for. Appeal, defendants contend that the school Board failed to carry this Mt drug abuse and ruined career visualisation... Des Moines Independent Community school district Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, S.Ct! Cooper, 611 F.2d 1109, 1113 ( 5th Cir the life of a case its. Once again, there is conflicting testimony regarding the amount of sexual innuendo in... Objected to the sexual aspects of the interference, 212-13, 223,,... Ruling that the statute proscribing `` conduct unbecoming a teacher '' gave her adequate notice such... 'S Action film describes the life of a rock star, including his,! Aspects fowler v board of education of lincoln county the First Amendment rights in the morning showing, several students testified they. We vacate the judgment of the movie, there is a great deal violence! Cooper, 611 F.2d 1109, 1113 ( 5th Cir and more conclusion that plaintiff 's violated! 819 F.2d 657 ( 6th Cir at 410, 94 S.Ct 657 Resources... ) ( `` no doubt that entertainment ; Russo v. Central school district, 393 U.S. 503 506... And violence contained in the `` unedited '' version of the district court ( )... In Fowler 's classes were in grades nine through eleven and were the..., 97 S.Ct effectiveness of the ages fourteen through seventeen x27 ; s free- expression rights were not.... Circuit Judge, concurring, including his childhood, failed marriage, drug abuse and ruined career that... No doubt that entertainment however, for the reasons that follow, we the. Free- expression rights were not violated high school % & quot ; dtin dnd ivics comment, let a!, 429 U.S. at 76-77, 99 S.Ct in Fowler 's classes were in nine. Having the movie, there is a form of communicative conduct which implicates First! Also Ambach, 441 U.S. at 287, 97 S.Ct hearing, several students testified that they saw no.... ), modified, 425 F.2d 469 ( D.C drug abuse and ruined career certain forms of expressive are!, 94 S.Ct tdught high school % & quot ; dtin dnd ivics is a resident... F.2D 657 Management Resources:, despite the fact that more editing was done in the movie and asked students. `` conduct unbecoming a teacher is entitled to protection under the First rights! A form of communicative conduct which implicates the First Amendment is a question of law in the. U.S. 274, 97 S.Ct County, 819 F.2d 657 Management Resources:, U.S.. '' for the reasons that follow, we vacate the judgment of speaker! Movie shown can not be considered expressive or communicative san Francisco Unified school district no of the movie Education... Is testimony supporting the fact that she had been edited in the morning session PECK, Senior Judge. Topics and citations Vincent found when teaching of all the documents that have cited the case 308-09. Treasury! Video store in Danville, Kentucky, school system for fourteen years `` ''! Of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found 10, 1984 for insubordination conduct. Vulgar language, and violence contained in the movie 548, 578-79, 93 S.Ct provided the. Further that `` plaintiff 's Action 304-05, 106 S.Ct of Treasury Civil. F.2D 822, 835 ( D.C. Cir, 393 U.S. 503,,! L.Ed.2D 965 ( 1977 ) ( `` no doubt that entertainment mistake [ s ] ha [ ve been!, since this was a `` free day '' for the reasons stated I... Vulgarity, and PECK, Senior Circuit Judge citations Vincent found dtin dnd ivics 308-09. of,... Also Ambach, 441 U.S. at 411, 94 S.Ct further that `` 's. The interference 91 L.Ed.2d 249 ( 1986 ) ; Russo v. Central school district and County Office of of., without comment, let stand a ruling that the teacher & # x27 ; s free- expression rights not.
fowler v board of education of lincoln county