Federal Judiciary

Fifth Grader Loses Suit Over Religious Candy Cane

By Robert Loblaw

Curry v. Hensiner, 06-2439 (6^th Cir., Jan. 16, 2008)

Here?s a Sixth Circuit appeal involving religion in public schools. This time the plaintiff is a fifth grader who wanted to “sell” candy cane ornaments with a religious message attached as part of a classroom exercise. The exercise, called “Classroom City,” required students to design and market a product that they would then “sell” to the rest of the school in a competition to see who could earn the most “money.” (All of the currency used in Classroom City was fake.)

Plaintiff Joel Curry?s parents suggested that he use red and white pipe cleaners to make an ornament in the shape of a candy cane, with an attached card explaining why peppermint hard candy is a symbol of Jesus. (The opinion lays out the explanation in full detail.)

Anyway, when Joel submitted his design for teacher approval, he did not include the religious card. The candy cane was approved, but on the first day of sales, a teacher informed Joel that he was not allowed to sell religious items. Despite protests and legal threats by Joel?s mother, the principal and school superintendent decided that Joel could not sell the candy canes with the cards attached. Joel sold only the candy canes and received an “A” for the class.

But a good grade wasn?t enough to appease Joel and his parents, who filed a lawsuit alleging that the school had violated Joel?s First Amendment rights. The district court rejected their claims, concluding that the school district had not violated the student?s rights, and that the principal was entitled to qualified immunity.

On appeal of the latter decision, the Sixth Circuit affirms. The panel explains that the principal may not have made the best decision by refusing to allow Joel to sell his product, but her decision was a result of legitimate pedagogical concerns. In particular, her concern that the religious message might offend other students was borne out by the reaction of Joel?s classmate and business partner, Siddartha Reddy, who was forced to design his own product because, in his view, “[n]obody wants to hear about Jesus.” Because there was no First Amendment violation, the principal is entitled to summary judgment.

Full post as published by Decision of the Day on January 16, 2008 (boomark / email).