393 U.S. at 505-08, 89 S.Ct. . Because some parts of the film are animated, they are susceptible to varying interpretations. 2849, 2859, 53 L.Ed.2d 965 (1977) ("no doubt that entertainment . 2730, because Fowler did not explain the messages contained in the film to the students. School officials testified that they objected to the movie because it promoted values which were described as immoral, antieducation, antifamily, antijudiciary, and antipolice. Advanced A.I. Rather, she had it shown for the purpose of keeping her students occupied during a noninstructional day while she was involved in posting grades on report cards. Following her termination, plaintiff Fowler initiated her action in the district court alleging that her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by her discharge, and that the Kentucky statutes forming the basis for her discharge were unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. Plaintiff Fowler received her termination notice on or about June 19, 1984. The single most important element of this inculcative process is the teacher. denied, 464 U.S. 993, 104 S.Ct. Justice Brennan restated the test to decide intent and asserted: Pico, 477 U.S. at 871, 102 S.Ct. Purely expressive works songs, movies and books of entertainment value only are protected by the First Amendment just like works of moral philosophy. Plaintiff cross-appeals from the holding that K.R.S. denied, 409 U.S. 1042, 93 S.Ct. She believed the movie portrayed the dangers of alienation between people and of repressive educational systems. A group of students requested that Fowler allow the movie to be shown while she was completing the grade cards. Federal judges and local school boards do not make good movie critics or good censors of movie content. The district court concluded that Fowler's conduct was protected by the First Amendment, and that she was discharged for exercising her constitutionally protected rights. (same); Fowler v. Board of Educ. We conclude that the statute proscribing "conduct unbecoming a teacher" gave her adequate notice that such conduct would subject her to discipline. Updated daily, vLex brings together legal information from over 750 publishing partners, providing access to over 2,500 legal and news sources from the worlds leading publishers. Decided: October 31, 1996 Following her termination, plaintiff Fowler initiated her action in the district court alleging that her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by her discharge, and that the Kentucky statutes forming the basis for her discharge were unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. An alternative to lists of cases, the Precedent Map makes it easier to establish which ones may be of most relevance to your research and prioritise further reading. Because some parts of the film are animated, they are susceptible to varying interpretations. There is conflicting testimony as to whether, or how much, nudity was seen by the students. Joint Appendix at 127. at 736 (wearing black armband was conduct akin to pure speech); Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131, 141-42, 86 S.Ct. The fundamental principles of due process are violated only when "a statute . Spence, 418 U.S. at 410, 94 S.Ct. At the bench trial in the district court, Fowler repeated her contention that she believed the movie contained important, socially valuable messages. At the administrative hearing, several students testified that they saw no nudity. She also alleged that the factual findings made in support of her discharge were not supported by substantial evidence. . The court disagreed, concluding that "[t]he regulations prescribing a teacher's speech and conduct are necessarily broad; they cannot possibly mention every type of misconduct." Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like Pickering v. 568, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977). 26 v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 102 S.Ct. 5//28he wds employed by the % "incoln ounty 5//28chool istrict in $ !entucky. Healthy City School Dist. See, e.g., Martin v. Parrish, 805 F.2d 583 (5th Cir. However, the fact that Fowler's conduct was unrelated to the educational process does remove it from the protection afforded by the concept of academic freedom. District Office Staff; Three Year Strategic Plan; Supergram; District Calendar; FUSD Annual Calendar; Student Achievement; Board of Trustees; Accessibility Information Another shows the protagonist cutting his chest with a razor. One student testified that she saw "glimpses" of nudity, but "nothing really offending." At the bench trial in the district court, Fowler repeated her contention that she believed the movie contained important, socially valuable messages. 1098 (1952). Therefore, he said, her decision to permit the students to see the film is not a form of expression entitled to protection under the First Amendment., Judge John W. Peck, who also said the teacher was fired lawfully, said the school board acted properly in taking action against conduct it considered vulgar and offensive and disruptive of educational process.. See, e.g., Mt. Fraser, 106 S.Ct. 1973) 103 Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County, 819 F.2d 657 (6th Cir. 1987) 105 Geller v. Markham, 635 F.2d 1027 (1980) 106 Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District, 439 U.S. 410 (1979) 108 Knight v. Board of Regents of University of State of New York, But whatever the meaning of the movie, however good or bad it may be, my main concern is that the holdings of both Judge Milburn and Judge Peck are in error. Defendants, The Board of Education of Lincoln County, Kentucky, individual board members, and the Superintendent of the Lincoln County Schools, appeal from the judgment of the district court awarding reinstatement and damages to plaintiff Jacqueline Fowler on the ground that her employment was terminated in violation of her First Amendment rights. Healthy City School Dist. She said the store clerk who rented it to her told her it contained some nudity but also dealt with social issues of importance to teen-agers. James W. Williams, III, Rankin, Baker and Williams, Stanford, Ky., Robert L. Chenoweth, Bryan, Fogle and Chenoweth, Mt. We emphasize that our decision in this case is limited to the peculiar facts before us. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. 1984). 3273, 91 L.Ed.2d 563 (1986); Smith v. Price, 616 F.2d 1371, 1379 n. 10 (5th Cir. 693, 58 L.Ed.2d 619 (1979) (holding that a conversation by a teacher and principal in the principal's office, a private expression by a public employee, was protected speech). The movie here seems to me to present a message similar to that expounded by Dr. Spock: abuse of sex and drugs as well as various forms of mental instability and anti-social conduct are associated with an overly authoritarian society. The board viewed the movie once in its entirety and once as it had been edited in the classroom. On the list of instructional materials approved by the Tulare County Board of Education (search at www.erslibrary.org), or On the afternoon of May 31, 1984, Principal Jack Portwood asked Fowler to give him the video tape, and she did so. of Educ., 431 U.S. 209, 231, 97 S.Ct. 1985) (nonexpressive dancing constitutes conduct not entitled to protection of the First Amendment). 2849, 53 L.Ed.2d 965 (1977), for the general proposition that entertainment enjoys First Amendment protection. She was discharged in July, 1984 for insubordination and conduct unbecoming a teacher. Joint Appendix at 83, 103, 307. For the reasons that follow, we vacate the judgment of the district court and dismiss plaintiff's action. Ms. Francisca Montoya is a lifelong resident of Maricopa County and advocate of public education. Joint Appendix at 198, 200, 204, 207, 212, 223, 249-50, 255. at 576. Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183, 196, 73 S.Ct. 161.790(1)(b) is not unconstitutionally vague. Her having the movie shown under the circumstances involved demonstrates a blatant lack of judgment. The students had asked to see the film. I agree with both of these findings. The clerk who rented the "R" rated tape to Fowler told her that there was some nudity in the movie during a song called "Young Lust" and warned that she might wish to delete that section. He did so by attempting to cover the 25"' screen with an 8 1/2"' by 11"' letter-sized file folder. Fowler agreed to allow the movie to be shown, at the students' request, because May 31 was "their treat type of day." However, for the reasons stated below I would hold that the school board properly discharged Ms. Fowler. 322 (1926). James, 461 F.2d at 571-72 (quoting Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 568, 88 S.Ct. healthy city school district board of education v. doyle, Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County and more. Monroe v. State Court of Fulton County, 739.F.2d 568, 571 (11th Cir. In January, 1993, Mr. Fowler received a letter from District's director that advised him to get a dairy specialist and a chemist to check the water and feed and have tests run. Emergency Coalition v. U.S. Dept. 1986). Search over 120 million documents from over 100 countries including primary and secondary collections of legislation, case law, regulations, practical law, news, forms and contracts, books, journals, and more. 418 U.S. at 409, 94 S.Ct. In Fowler, a high school teacher, at the request of her students, showed them Pink Floyd The Wall, an "R" rated film containing nudity and a great deal of violence, on the last day of school while she completed grade cards. The two appeals court judges in the majority upheld the firing for different reasons. at 1647 (quoting Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 578-79, 93 S.Ct. 215, 221, 97 L.Ed. Plaintiff Jacqueline Fowler was a tenured teacher employed by the Lincoln County, Kentucky, school system for fourteen years. Defendants, The Board of Education of Lincoln County, Kentucky, individual board members, and the Superintendent of the Lincoln County Schools, appeal from the judgment of the district court awarding reinstatement and damages to plaintiff Jacqueline Fowler on the ground that her employment was terminated in violation of her First Amendment rights. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. 161.790(1)(b) was not vague or overbroad, apparently for the reason that, because Fowler's conduct was protected by the First Amendment, such conduct, "as a matter of fact and law did not constitute conduct unbecoming a teacher.". at 1648 (quoting Meehan v. Macy, 392 F.2d 822, 835 (D.C. Cir. 733, 736, 21 L.Ed.2d 731 (1969), has acknowledged that students and teachers do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." Finally, the district court concluded that K.R.S. Whether a certain activity is entitled to protection under the First Amendment is a question of law. ACCEPT. Ms. Montoya's professional experience spans 25 plus years in non-profit management, government relations, and community and economic development. 161.790(1), which proscribes conduct unbecoming a teacher, is unconstitutionally vague as applied to her conduct. 1976) (teacher could not successfully contend that "due and sufficient cause" standard did not give notice that improper conduct toward students would result in discipline); Kilpatrick v. Wright, 437 F. Supp. In Spence, the undisputed facts established that the appellant hung a United States flag with a peace symbol affixed to it because he "wanted people to know that [he] thought America stood for peace." Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S.Ct. The district court concluded that Fowler's conduct was protected by the First Amendment, and that she was discharged for exercising her constitutionally protected rights. Joint Appendix at 199, 201, 207, 212-13, 223, 226, 251. Similarly, his finding that Fowler formed an opinion regarding the significance of the film during the morning showing is clearly erroneous. See 3 Summaries. 2294, 2299, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972); 511 Detroit Street, Inc. v. Kelley, 807 F.2d 1293, 1295 (6th Cir. We have viewed the film in conjunction with Fowler's testimony concerning the portions of the film which were edited during the two showings, and we conclude that the district court's findings in this regard are clearly erroneous. Moreover, there is testimony supporting the fact that more editing was done in the afternoon showing than in the morning showing. 2799, 73 L.Ed.2d 435 (1982), and Bethel School Dist. October 16, 1986. Joint Appendix at 129-30. 733, 736, 21 L.Ed.2d 731 (1969). One student testified that she saw "glimpses" of nudity, but "nothing really offending." 1855, 1858, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983); Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-09, 92 S.Ct. The students in Fowler's classes were in grades nine through eleven and were of the ages fourteen through seventeen. District Court Opinion at 23. FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION. ." Joint Appendix at 83-84. Moreover, the surrounding circumstances in the present case indicate that there was little likelihood "that the message would be understood by those who viewed it." These cases are based upon the notion that teaching is a form of activity protected by the First Amendment. The film describes the life of a rock star, including his childhood, failed marriage, drug abuse and ruined career. Joint Appendix at 291. While this is a general principle of law espoused by the Supreme Court on several occasions, the Court has also indicated that in determining whether a given type of entertainment is protected by the First Amendment, it will look to the kind of entertainment involved and the appropriateness of the entertainment under the circumstances such as the time and place where offered. Sec. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495, 501-02, 72 S.Ct. Counts v. Cedarville School District Books put on reserve in the library must be so because of clear violation of obscenity rules. 2176, 68 L.Ed.2d 671 (1981), and Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting casting Co., 433 U.S. 562, 97 S.Ct. 161.790(1)(b). Indeed, we think it is largely because governmental officials cannot make principled distinctions in this area that the Constitution leaves matters of taste and style so largely to the individual." Breen v. Kahl, 419 F.2d 1034 (1969); Crews v. Cloncs, 432 F.2d 1259 (1970). See, e.g., Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County, Kentucky, 819 F.2d 657 (6th Cir. 161.790(1)(b) was not vague or overbroad, apparently for the reason that, because Fowler's conduct was protected by the First Amendment, such conduct "as a matter of fact and law did not constitute conduct unbecoming a teacher." Id., at 583. 1987 Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County , 819 F.2d 657 (6th Cir.). In my view, both of the cases cited by the dissent are inapposite. 1980); Russo v. Central School District No. Joint Appendix at 129-30. On the afternoon of May 31, 1984, Principal Jack Portwood asked Fowler to give him the video tape, and she did so. Board of Education (SBE) to be aligned with those standards. See also James, 461 F.2d at 568-69. . VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. The day on which the movie was shown, May 31, 1984, was a noninstructional day used by teachers for completing grade cards. However, she stated that she believed Charles Bailey when he told her that he continued to edit while she was gone. What one judge sees as "gross and bizarre," another may find, as did District Judge Scott Reed below, mild and not very "sexually suggestive.". 04-3524. See Schad v. Mt. James W. Williams, III, Rankin, Baker and Williams, Stanford, Ky., Robert L. Chenoweth, Bryan, Fogle and Chenoweth, Mt. Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. 319 U.S. at 632, 63 S.Ct. 746 (1948), and Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 575, 105 S.Ct. of Tipp City, No. Joint Appendix at 198, 200, 204, 207, 212, 223, 249-50, 255. 1504, 1512-13, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985). Ms. Fowler's after the fact rationalizations for having shown the film cannot alter the fact that she used poor judgment and should not shield her from the consequences. at 737). She testified that she would show an edited. 2730 (citation omitted). Healthy set the standard that once the plaintiff had shown that his conduct was constitutionally protected and that his conduct was a substantial or motivating factor in the Board's decision to discharge or not to rehire, the school board then must show that it would have reached the same decision even in the absence of the protected conduct. Id. Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357, 103 S.Ct. When Fowler had the movie shown on the morning of May 31, 1984, she instructed Charles Bailey, the fifteen-year-old student who had seen the movie, to edit out any parts that were unsuitable for viewing at school. The mere fact that at some point she may have developed an approval of the content of the movie is not, standing alone, a sufficient basis for the conclusion that her conduct in having the movie shown was a form of expression entitled to protection under the First Amendment. The clerk who rented the "R" rated tape to Fowler told her that there was some nudity in the movie during a song called "Young Lust" and warned that she might wish to delete that section. Another shows the protagonist cutting his chest with a razor. The cases just discussed demonstrate that conduct is protected by the First Amendment only when it is expressive or communicative in nature. . Under the Mt. . The basis for this action was that she had an "R" rated movie, Pink Floyd--The Wall, shown to her high school students on the last day of the 1983-84 school year. of Educ. 1178, 87 L.Ed. Another scene shows children being fed into a giant sausage machine. She also said she would show an edited version of the movie again if she had the opportunity to explain it to the students. 2799, 73 L.Ed.2d 435 (1982). Bryan, John C. Fogle, argued, Mt. Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County, (1978) 819 F.2d 657 Management Resources: at 2730. Healthy case, involving actions by a teacher outside the school environment, must be viewed in light of the court's deference to the autonomy of school boards in regulating the educational process. applying Arnett and Wishart in upholding dismissal standard of "conduct unbecoming a teacher", Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County. 2880, 2897, 37 L.Ed.2d 796 (1973)). Sec. 161.790 provides in relevant part: In Board of Education v. Wood, 717 S.W.2d 837 (Ky. 1986), two tenured teachers were discharged for conduct unbecoming a teacher under section 161.790(1)(b). For similar reasons, plaintiff's reliance on Pratt v. Independent School District No. See Minarcini v. Strongsville City School Dist., 541 F.2d 577 (6th Cir. Healthy, 429 U.S. at 287, 97 S.Ct. Moreover, in Spence. See generally Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 603, 87 S.Ct. at 2730. Stephen Fowler/Georgia Public Broadcasting As a half-dozen voting rights advocates filed into the Lincoln County Board of Elections to deliver a petition that temporarily halted plans to. Consequently, it awarded her reinstatement, back pay with interest, reimbursement of funds necessary for her reinstatement with the Kentucky Teachers Retirement System, damages for emotional distress and damage to professional reputation, compensatory damages for costs incurred in seeking new employment, costs, and attorney's fees. Judge Milburn states further that "plaintiff's conduct in having the movie shown cannot be considered expressive or communicative. Joint Appendix at 291. Healthy burden. Arnett, 416 U.S. at 161, 94 S.Ct. 693, 58 L.Ed.2d 619 (1979); Mt. Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County Download PDF Check Treatment Summary holding that prohibition for "conduct unbecoming a teacher" could not be challenged on vagueness or overbreadth grounds by teacher who was terminated for conduct clearly falling within scope of prohibition Summary of this case from Pucci v. Michigan Supreme Court 1780, 29 L.Ed.2d 284 (1971), the Supreme Court held constitutionally protected the act of wearing a jacket bearing the words "!?X! In addition to the sexual aspects of the movie, there is a great deal of violence. However, I conclude that Fowler's conduct in having the movie shown under the circumstances present here did not constitute expression protected by the First Amendment. demonstrate the appropriate form of civil discourse and political expression by their conduct and deportment in and out of class. at 3165 (emphasis supplied). 1178, 1183, 87 L.Ed. School officials testified that they objected to the movie because it promoted values which were described as immoral, antieducation, antifamily, antijudiciary, and antipolice. Having considered the entire record, including the viewing of the movie, which we describe as gross and bizarre and containing material completely unsuitable for viewing by a classroom of students aged fourteen to seventeen, we conclude that such conduct falls within the concept of conduct unbecoming a teacher under Kentucky law. 1, 469 F.2d 623 (2d Cir. 487, 78 L.Ed.2d 683 (1983). Andrew Tony Fowler Overview. Trial Transcript Vol. at 1182. Thus, this case is distinguishable from those in which the Supreme Court has afforded First Amendment protection in cases involving expressive conduct. This lack of love is the figurative "wall" shown in the movie. at 2806-09. McCollum, a 13-year employee of the Laurel County Board of Education was engaged as a homebound teacher on a continuing service contract. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Mt. 568, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977). Id., at 1193. For the reasons that follow, we vacate the judgment of the district court and dismiss plaintiff's action. The notice advised her that a hearing would be held on July 10, 1984, and she subsequently advised the board of her intention to appear at the hearing and contest the charges. In this appeal, defendants contend that the district court erred in its conclusion that plaintiff's discharge violated her First Amendment rights. However, Fowler did not preview the movie before having it shown to her morning class because the store did not have a tape compatible with her own VCR and because she did not have time to make other arrangements to preview the movie. denied, 411 U.S. 932, 93 S.Ct. at 1594-95. The Court in Mt. The day on which the movie was shown, May 31, 1984, was a noninstructional day used by teachers for completing grade cards. In so finding we are not troubled by the Seventh Circuit's decisions respecting a school's attempted regulation of hair length. The most conscientious of codes that define prohibited conduct of employees includes `catchall' clauses prohibiting employee `misconduct,' `immorality,' or `conduct unbecoming.'" The students in Fowler's classes were in grades nine through eleven and were of the ages fourteen through seventeen. I believe a teacher should be similarly protected by the First Amendment whether she is participating in an instructional or non-instructional day. "And our decision in Fowler v. Bd. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has long recognized that certain forms of expressive conduct are entitled to protection under the First Amendment. Joint Appendix at 137. of Educ. 2727, 2729-31, 41 L.Ed.2d 842 (1974) (per curiam) (display of flag with peace symbol attached was expressive conduct entitled to protection under First Amendment); Tinker, 393 U.S. at 505, 89 S.Ct. After the movie was viewed by the superintendent and members of the Lincoln County Board of Education, proceedings were instituted to terminate Fowler's contract. Plaintiff cross-appeals from the holding that K.R.S. She has lived in the Fowler Elementary School District for the past 22 years. The notice advised her that a hearing would be held on July 10, 1984, and she subsequently advised the board of her intention to appear at the hearing and contest the charges. Writing for the Court, Justice Harlan stated that "while the particular four-letter word being litigated here is perhaps more distasteful than most others of its genre, it is nevertheless often true that one man's vulgarity is another's lyric. Healthy cases of Board of Educ. 106 S.Ct. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit), Before MERRITT and MILBURN, Circuit Judges, and PECK; MILBURN; JOHN W. PECK; MERRITT. There is conflicting testimony as to whether, or how much, nudity was seen by the students. 161.790(1)(b) is not unconstitutionally vague. The board then retired into executive session. 1969)). San Francisco Unified School District and County Office of Education Board Policy 6161.11 Supplementary Instructional Materials . 216 (1952) (Frankfurter, J., concurring) (emphasis supplied). Opinion of Judge Peck at p. 668. It is undisputed that the audio portion of the movie, which contained enough offensive language to mandate an automatic "R" rating under motion picture industry standards, was played through the entire movie. Sec. at 3166 (recognizing need for flexibility in formulating school disciplinary rules). He expresses the further view that there was "little likelihood that the message would be understood by those who viewed it," id., at 411, 94 S.Ct. Plaintiff cross-appeals on the ground that K.R.S. The board viewed the movie once in its entirety and once as it had been edited in the classroom. (Education Code 60605.86- . As herein above indicated, I concur in the result reached in Judge Milburn's opinion. Before MERRITT and MILBURN, Circuit Judges, and PECK, Senior Circuit Judge. Joint Appendix at 199, 201, 207, 212-13, 223, 226, 251. Under the circumstances present, the court concluded that a discharge for conduct unbecoming a teacher could be upheld. Plaintiff Jacqueline Fowler was a tenured teacher employed by the Lincoln County, Kentucky, school system for fourteen years. Joint Appendix at 83-84. The lm includes violent The District Court held that the school board failed to carry this Mt. One scene involves a bloody battlefield. Once again, there is conflicting testimony concerning the effectiveness of the editing attempt. They also found the movie objectionable because of its sexual content, vulgar language, and violence. The record is replete with testimony indicating that school officials objected to the sexual content, vulgarity, and violence contained in the movie.