Education Law

Dist. Ct. erred in granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in action challenging under First Amendment constitutionality of section 1 of Ill. Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act, which mandated that school districts provide period of silence in public schools. Said Act did not violate Establishment Clause since it had solely secular purpose of having uniform moment of quiet reflection to calm school children before start of day and prohibited school district from conducting moment of silence as religious exercise. Ct. rejected plaintiff's claim that Act had primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, or that Act was unconstitutionally vague for failure to specify how moment of silence was to be implemented. (Dissent filed.)

Dist. Ct. did not err in finding in instant section 1983 action that defendants-university officials could not deny student fee funds to plaintiff-religious student group for reimbursement of group's programs involving religious speakers or counselors where defendants awarded similar funds to secular groups having secular speakers and/or counselors. Reimbursement of expenses of religious speakers/counselors did not violate Establishment Clause under instant circumstances, and defendants, after establishing student forum through generation of student fee, could not selectively fund speech that they approve and then deny funds for speech it disapproves. (Dissent filed.)

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants-school district and school officials' motion for summary judgment in plaintiff's Title IX and related section 1983 action alleging that defendants violated plaintiff's rights when instructor in school's JROTC program sexually abused plaintiff while plaintiff was enrolled in program. Record showed that there was no evidence indicating that school officials were aware of instructor's behavior and failed to stop it.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants' (school principal and school board) motion for summary judgment in section 1983 action alleging that defendants improperly initiated criminal complaints, which resulted in false arrests of plaintiffs in school office after plaintiffs and third-parties were involved in physical and verbal altercation in front of kindergarten students. While plaintiffs presented evidence indicating that third-parties were physical aggressors in altercation, principal had probable cause to sign criminal complaints calling for plaintiffs' arrests on charge of disorderly conduct where principal witnessed plaintiffs engaging in loud profanity in front of school children, and where plaintiffs had frustrated principal's attempt to restore order in school building. Moreover, while principal undertook only limited investigation, principal was not required to conduct full investigation prior to signing complaints where need to restore order and diminish potential harm to students was high.

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant-principal's motion for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity in section 1983 action alleging that defendant denied plaintiffs (students/victims of sexual abuse of band teacher) equal protection by failing to investigate plaintiffs' sexual abuse complaints. At time of alleged events, supervisor could be held liable for participating in or deliberately turning blind eye to equal protection violation committed by her subordinate, and plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to allow jury to conclude that plaintiff was aware of band teacher's sexual abuse of plaintiffs and deliberately helped to cover it up by misleading plaintiffs' parents and other school administrators about nature of plaintiffs' complaints. Plaintiffs also stated viable substantive due process claim arising out of their contention that defendant's alleged indifference deprived them of their protected interest in bodily integrity.