Running head: ARTIFACT #6 1

Portfolio Artifact # 6: Religious Rights for Teachers

Starlee M. Sinderson

CSN
ARTIFACT #6 2

Abstract

Four cases are observed to determine if Ms. White a kindergarten teacher’s rights had

been violated after her school terminated her employment due to her refusal to participate in

certain activities that went against her religious beliefs. After reviewing the cases I determined

that the courts would rule in favor of the school.

ARTIFACT #6 3

Portfolio Artifact #2: Religious Right for Teachers

When Kindergarten teacher Karen White joins the Jehovah’s Witnesses she finds herself

in a situation where her new found religion forbids her from participating in normal activities

throughout the school day. After several parent protests the principal of Ms. White’s school, Bill

Ward is left with few options and ultimately recommends that Ms. Ward be dismissed from her

duties as teacher as she can no longer meet the needs of her students.

Where Ms. Whites rights violated under the Free Exercise Clause? Can the school district

force teachers to participate in activities that violate their religions? What about the

Establishment Clause? The school district must keep religion and the education of children

separate. Teachers must abide by this policy. Which side is right? We will take a look at several

cases and hopefully be able to make a determination at the end of this paper.

Evidence Supporting the School

Teachers are free to practice any religion of their choosing on their free time but when

those beliefs prevent them from their duties as teachers what is the school to do?

Case 1

United States v. Bd. of Educ. For the School dist. of Phil. (1990) Is a case where a

Muslim teacher brought a suit against her school district after she was released from her job due

to the fact that she ware religious garb that covered her face. Her Title VII claim failed because it

would have imposed an undue hardship on the school board to accommodate the teacher. The

school district argued that its interest was in maintaining the appearance of religious neutrality in

schools and it would have been an undue hardship for the school board to violate it.
ARTIFACT #6 4

This case helps to support the schools side of our case because schools must not show

favoritism over one religion or another. By allowing a teacher to sit out of the many activities

that were necessary it sends a message that her religion is more valuable to the school than that

of the many other religions represented in her classroom. The students would have not received

the same education experiences as their peers in other classes or the school would have to find

another teacher to lead these activities in this class. Both option places unnecessary hardship on

the school.

Case 2

Palmer v. Bd. of Educ. Of the City of Chicago (1979) is a case that is almost identical to

the case that we are observing in this paper. Joethelia Palmer was a teacher who objected to

participating in certain aspects of her curriculum because it went against her religious beliefs as a

Jehovah’s Witness. This religion calls any form of patriotism as idolatry. Ms. Palmer was

released from her responsibility as a teacher. The courts found that the states compelling interest

in imparting the prescribed curriculum outweighed the interest of a Jehovah’s Witness teacher.

The school has a responsibility to educate the students. It is a teacher’s responsibility to

deliver the schools curriculum to all of their students. This case is a strong indicator of where the

court with place its ruling in our case.

Evidence Supporting the Teacher

Teachers, like all citizens in this country have a right to the free practice of the religion of

their choosing. Is the school violating Ms. White’s First Amendments right by requiring her to

follow practices that go against her religious beliefs?

ARTIFACT #6 5

Case 1

In Edwards v. Sch. Bd. of Norton, Va. (1980) a teacher’s aide, whose job did not allow

for vacation time and who was a member of a church that required her to refrain from secular

work on several holy days each year, was fired due to her absence. She brought suit under Title

VII. Because the school district failed to show that the absence caused an undue hardship, the

court held that she was wrongfully fired.

As long as a teacher sitting out of certain activities does not put a hardship on the school

or take away from the educational experience of the students then the school must not force her

to participate in activities that go against her religious beliefs.

Case 2

This final case is mostly about student rights but I feel that it is a strong argument for

why Ms. White should win her case. In Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) the U.S. Supreme Court ruled

that it was unconstitutional to require Amish students to abide by the attendance laws in the state

due to the fact that it violated their First Amendment rights which guarantee the free exercise of

religion.

Ms. White is also a citizen in this country and she shares the same First Amendment

rights as the Amish students in the above case. If her religion requires her to sit out of certain

activities the school can not make her without violating these rights.

Conclusion

After examining the four cases: Edwards v. Sch. Bd. Of Norton, Va., (1980), Palmer v. Bd.

Of educ. Of the City of Chicago (1979), United States v. Bd. of Educ. For the school Dist. Of

Phil., (1990), & Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972). It is my belief that the court will side with the school.

Just as in the Palmer case Ms. White is simply placing to great a hardship on the school and the
ARTIFACT #6 6

schools focus must be on the education of its students. A teacher must be required to teach the

state-mandated curriculum regardless of their personal belief.

ARTIFACT #6 7

References

Edwards v. Sch. Bd. Of Norton, Va., 483 F.Sapp 620 (W.D. Va. 1980)

Palmer v. Bd. Of educ. Of the City of Chicago 603 F.2d 1271 (7th cir. 1979)

United States v. Bd. of Educ. For the school Dist. Of Phil., 911 F.2d 882 (3rd cir. 1990)

Wisconsin v. Yoder 406 U.S. 205 (1972)