 No C.H. v. Oliva, 990 F. Supp. 341, 354 (D.N.J. 1997) and 226 F.3d 198 (3rd Cir. 2000). By: Maria Dacles EDLP 611: Problems in Practice

The Plaintiff  Carol Hood, as Guardian Ad Litem of Zachary Hood, a minor. The Defendants  Grace Oliva (Teacher)  Gail Pratt (Principal)  Patrick Johnson (Superintendent)  Medford Board of Education  Leo Klagholtz (Commissioner of Education)  The State of New Jersey Department of Education

 United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit For the District of New Jersey

 In 1996, first grader, Zachary Hood, at Haines School in Medford, NJ, was rewarded by his teacher, Grace Oliva, for reading proficiency by allowing them to read a story of their choice to their classmates.  Jacob and Esau from The Beginner’s Bible.  Ms. Oliva thought it was inappropriate o Stated that the reading of the selection “amounted to reading the Bible and might influence other students.”  Principal Pratt stated that the reading was “equivalent to praying and that the story might upset Muslim, Hindu or Jewish students. There is no place in the public school for the reading of the Bible” and advised, “Maybe you should consider taking your child out of public school, since you don’t appear to be public-school material.”

 Jacob traveled far away to his uncle’s house. He worked for his uncle, taking care of sheep. While he was there, Jacob got married. He had twelve sons. Jacob’s big family lived on his uncle’s land for many years. But Jacob wanted to go back home. One day Jacob packed up all his animals and his family and everything he had. They traveled all the way back to where Esau lived. Now, Jacob was afraid that Esau might still be angry with him. So he sent presents to Esau. He sent servants who said, ‘Please don’t be angry anymore.’ But Esau wasn’t angry. He ran to Jacob. He hugged and kissed him. He was happy to see his brother again.”

 Another incident: Kindergarten Poster o What are you thankful for? - Thankful for Jesus o Displayed and then taken down  Violation of First Amendment Rights

 Viewpoint Discrimination: School authorities are not permitted to discriminate against student expression simply because of its religious character.  The judgment of the District Court must be reversed. o Taking down of poster was viewpoint, not subject matter, discrimination. o Poster was allegedly given discriminatory treatment because of the viewpoint that it expressed. o Did not violate the Establishment Clause. o Strikes at the heart of the freedom of expression.

 Federal District Court – 1997 o Held against them on December 30, 1997  Third Circuit Court of Appeals – Rejected on Sept. 25, 1998  The Becket Fund  Filed a petition for rehearing by the Third Circuit on Oct. 9, Affirmed the District Court’s dismissal on Oct. 22,  Moved for rehearing en banc and was granted on December 1, 1999 o Feb. 16, 2000 – Aug. 28, 2000: Sharply divided court split 6-6 with their decision affirming the district court ruling

 On Nov. 22, 2000 appealed the decision on the Beginner’s Bible story to the Supreme Court. o Declined to hear the case (June 18, 2001)  Filed an amended complaint with the district court regarding the poster (Oct. 11, 2001)  The township agreed to settle the case and pay a $35,000 award to Carol and Zachary Hood (Nov. 4, 2002)

 Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, , 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984)  Monell, 436 U.S. at 694, 98 S.Ct  Woodwind Estates, Ltd. V. Gretkowski, 205 F.3d 118, 126  Hopp, 194 F.3d at 441  Robinson v. City of Pittsburgh, 120 F.3d 1286, 1293  Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed  Baker v. Monroe Twp., 50 F.3d 1186,  Perry Education Assn, 460 U.S. at 62, 103 S.Ct, 948  Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia

 Elementary teachers have wide latitude to decide what is and isn’t appropriate to be read in the classroom  Feb. 7, 2003, the U.S. Department of Education issued official guidance stating that “students may express their beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions.”  Viewpoint Discrimination