Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Religion & Law Blogs -> Religion Clause

Religion & Law

: Religion Clause

Filing Suggests Improper Conduct In Santa Rosa School Litigation

By Howard M. Friedman

Yesterday brought another unusual development in the long-running litigation challenging religious practices in the Santa Rosa, Florida schools.  In March 2009, the Santa Rosa County School Board agreed to settle a lawsuit brought against it by the ACLU challenging various religious practices in the school system. (See prior posting.) In May 2010, a large group of parents, teachers, staff, students, former students, and community residents sued to enjoin the school board and superintendent from enforcing the settlement. (See prior posting.) In Allen v. School Board for Santa Rosa County, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11111 (ND FL, Aug. 20, 2010), the court found that the principal of Pace High School and other plaintiffs in the original lawsuit that led to the challenged settlement are indispensable parties and ordered them joined. In response, in September a motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of principal Bryan Shell.  Now, in a motion with the court titled "Notice of Potentially Improper or Unethical Conduct," plaintiffs claim that the principal in fact never agreed to submissions on his behalf. The current filing declares in part:

These facts suggest that the two existing Defendants in this suit may have considered the Court?s invitation to the Principal as merely an opportunity for them to have a third bite of the litigation apple, and are using the office of Principal to suit their purposes without the knowledge, much less authorization, of the duly appointed occupant of that office. This prejudices Plaintiffs, by requiring them to respond to a third set of arguments and motions in this litigation controlled and advanced entirely by two existing parties.

The allegations in the filing are supported by affidavits not of the principal, but of the principal's secretary and of a reading coach who say that the principal told them he had not authorized participation in the lawsuit or any filings on his behalf, that he never saw the filings and is upset that someone took action on his behalf without his authorization. Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing.

Full post as published by Religion Clause on October 21, 2010 (boomark / email).