Ex-Principal’s Rights Violated, Court Says

An Idaho school district violated the religious freedom of a school principal by demoting him for planning to remove his children from the district and teach them at home, a federal appeals court ruled this week.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a jury’s $300,000 damage award to former elementary school Principal Frank Peterson and awarded him attorney fees from the district.

The court said Peterson’s choice of home schooling for his eight children attending public schools was religiously motivated and protected by his constitutional right to choose his children’s education. In a 2-1 ruling, the court rejected the district’s argument that the reaction of teachers who felt insulted by Peterson’s decision justified his demotion.

Peterson was principal for 15 years at Paul Elementary School in the Minidoka County School District in southeastern Idaho. He and his wife, Priscilla, had 12 children--eight of them public school age. None attended his school. Like most of the local populace, the Petersons are Mormons.

After he told a district administrator in January 1992 that he was thinking of home schooling, the district delayed his annual rehiring decision. The leaders of the teachers association told the superintendent that faculty members felt betrayed. About 25 critical phone calls were received from parents.

Supt. Michael Bishop met with Peterson, who said he wanted his children educated “with an aspect of God being the creator in all of the classes.” Bishop was also concerned that home schooling would cut into Peterson’s work time and that the Petersons had not submitted their proposed curriculum, the court said.

In May 1992, the district said Peterson was being reassigned to a schoolteacher’s job for the next school year. Teachers made about $2,000 less than principals but had more time off, said Steven Tolman, a district lawyer.

Peterson rejected the demotion, was unable to find a job in three other school districts, then worked briefly as a truck driver and started a short-lived trucking business, the court said.

After U.S. District Judge Harold Ryan ruled that the district had violated the Petersons’ rights, a jury awarded them $200,000 for economic losses and $100,000 in noneconomic damages, including emotional distress.

Judge John Noonan, speaking only for himself, said criticism of Peterson by “uninformed and prejudiced persons” could not outweigh his right to practice his religion.

“The district gave in too easily in reasoning that a religiously motivated school principal following his conscience as to his own children would somehow be the object of scorn or distrust of his faculty or parent patrons,” Noonan said.

Although Peterson did not argue that Mormonism required home schooling, his “claim is based on his personal sense of what his religion requires,” Noonan said. He said the district could have satisfied its concern over Peterson’s workload when it exercised its authority to approve his home school curriculum.

Judge Betty Fletcher said the district acted “on the basis of vague concerns voiced by teachers and parents” that Peterson was thinking of home schooling for religious reasons. The case might be different, she said, if Peterson had presented a home schooling plan that interfered with his job.

In dissent, Judge Pamela Rymer said it was not clear that Peterson was religiously motivated or that the district “caused any substantial, concrete harm to his freedom to practice his religion.” She also said Peterson should be required to show that the district’s action was motivated by his religious practice. Those issues should be decided by a jury, Rymer said.

Tolman, the district’s lawyer, said religious motivation appeared to be “an afterthought” by Peterson to justify his decision.

“As the principal, he is the educational academic leader within the school,” Tolman said. “There was some question within that school as to his confidence in the district when he was going to pull his kids out.”

Todd Wilcox, a lawyer for the Petersons, declined comment, saying he had not seen the ruling.