Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Artifact #6
Abstract:
The following paper is written based off of the scenario regarding an elementary school teacher,
and her religious rights at the workplace. Ms.White recently changed religions to Jehovah's
Witness and would not be able to part-take in certain activities around the school. This action
angered some of the parents and staff members and they motioned for her dismissal. The
problem here is in regards to The First Amendment which does outline a separation from church
and state. The teacher here is trying to impose her views and beliefs on the students in a very
passive manner, although it can be looked at as a breach of duty if the basic school curriculum
standards are not meet. The court cases being analysed in regards to this scenario are: Goss v
Lopez, Florey v Sioux Falls, Abington School District v. Schempp, and Palmer v. Board of
Education. The overall conclusion of the case would probably be similar to the Palmer v. Board
of Education case.
ARTIFACT #6 3
Body:
There are many events and activities that students and staff get to enjoy and participate in
if they want throughout the school year. Although, a lot of these activities are voluntary. One
school year, Karen White, a kindergarten teacher, sent home a notification to parents that she
would not be able to participate in certain projects, activities and events due to religious reasons.
Ms. White had recently changed her affiliations to Jehovah’s Witness which has very strict
guideline to how one should live one's life like most religions. Moreover, due to this affiliation
Ms. White announced she would not be able to sing “Happy Birthday” or recite the Pledge of
Allegiance. This irritated some of the parents and brought it up to the principle. Bill Ward, the
school principal, recommended her dismissal based on her ineffectively meeting the needs of her
students.
Is it within Karen White’s rights to be able to do this within her classroom? Or is she
violating one of her job duties? The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” which can also
between church and state. However, Ms. White does have a right to due process thanks to the
Fourteenth Amendment which allows to challenge her dismissal and have her complaint heard
before an impartial jury. In addition, a major factor in this case concerns the right to the teachers
due process in regards to the dismissal. According to the textbook, The Legal Rights of Teachers
and Students:
Lopez, the Court held that minimum due process must be provided before a
student is suspended for even a brief period of time. Recognizing that a student’s
Amendment, the Court ruled that such a right cannot be impaired unless the
student is afforded notice of the charges and an opportunity to refute them before
The Goss v Lopez, helped decided that it was necessary for students regardless of suspension
time that they must have a due process hearing. When teachers are being put up for dismissal
courts have generally held that a teacher facing a severe loss such as termination must also be
Moreover, in defense of the plaintiff during the trial of the Florey v Sioux Falls the courts
ruled that “the historical and contemporary values and the origin of religious holidays may be
explained in an unbiased and objective manner without sectarian indoctrination” (Justia, 2018).
Ms. White is trying to explain her religious and teachings to her students in an unbiased way.
She clearly stated that she would not be participating in certain activities and why.
The school does have a right to separate church affiliations from school requirements. In
Abington School District v. Schempp, the courts ruled that school sponsored bible readings in
school was unconstitutional (Wikipedia, 2018). There needs to be a separation between church
and state, and the state being school and things being taught in school. Ms. White is choosing to
promote her religious affiliations while at school, or within her workplace which is a possible
violation. She is technically trying to promote her religious beliefs on her students by not
allowing the to sing happy birthday or say the pledge. These may not be required by the school,
ARTIFACT #6 5
however a teacher has no right to bring in her beliefs to change the current school culture, or
Another point the school district has in justifying her dismissal is that courts have
approved of dismissing a teacher because they chose to put their religion before the school. In
Palmer v. Board of Education, a similar scenario where another elementary school teacher did
not want to teach the pledge or any specific type of “love for one’s country” because of the
teachers recent change in beliefs. The teacher in the Palmer case refused to follow the guidelines
the court gave her after the first hearing, stating it impeded on her religious rights and practices.
certain religious tenets and the freedom to act.... The refusal to conform classroom
she failed to follow the curriculum, this neutral ground supports the conclusion
that defendants would have reached the same conclusion in the absence of the
In conclusion, the teacher was dismissed due to a breach of duty, which is very similar to what
Ms.White is doing.
The courts would probably rule similar to Palmer v. Board of Education. The Courts
would definitely follow the Goss v Lopez case and allow this teacher her due process rights.
However, they probably would not find her eligible for the Florey v Sioux Falls case ruling,
because Ms.Wright was not separating her religious practices from the school in a sectriatrain
way. The Courts would also find that in matters regarding to the Abington School District v.
ARTIFACT #6 6
Schempp case uphold and that teaching any type of religious materials in schools is
unconstitutional. Lastly, that the similar court ruling for Palmer v. Board of Education would
apply because the teacher in this scenario is trying to put her religious feelings or beliefs before
the practice of the school and in teaching the students the proper school curriculum.
My personal opinion on the matter is Ms.White has a right to her religious affiliations and
practices; however, once they cross over into the school and begin interfering with the
curriculum there is a problem. The First Amendment does outline a separation from church and
state. The teacher here is trying to impose her views and beliefs on the students in a passive
manner, although it can be looked at as a breach of duty if the basic school curriculum standards
References:
Cambron-McCabe, N. H., McCarthy, M. M., & Eckes, S. (2014). Legal Rights of Teachers and
Justia Company. (2018). Florey v. SIOUX FALLS SCH. DIST. 49-5, 464 F. Supp. 911 (D.S.D.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/464/911/1520042/
Justia Company. (2018). Palmer v. Board of Ed. of City of Chicago, 466 F. Supp. 600 (N.D. Ill.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/466/600/2361432/
Wikipedia. (2018, May 09). Abington School District v. Schempp. Retrieved from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abington_School_District_v._Schempp